Preferred Frame Theory supported by Hafele-Keating experiment
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition
Next: The weight of a singularity
From: artful on 20 Jul 2010 00:32 On Jul 20, 2:09 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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? That's you. You come here, make claims against SR and can't back them up. What a hypocrite you are
From: harald on 20 Jul 2010 07:18 On Jul 20, 12:22 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". Do you understand the word "alleged"? > > > 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. Not so - as you would know if you ever did a Lorentz transformation... > > > 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. That physical "frame" is not preferred. Therefore, as Einstein put it, he introduced neither an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor did he assign a velocity-vectorto a point in empty space. In other words, he managed to do the derivation without introducing that concept. Can you understand that? > > 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. I addressed the issue several times as several people did - only to be met with silence. Verdict: you are indeed a troll! Harald
From: colp on 21 Jul 2010 17:52 On Jul 20, 11:18 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 20, 12:22 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". > > Do you understand the word "alleged"? The fact that Hafale didn't admit that the paradox exists isn't relevant. > > > > > 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. > > Not so - as you would know if you ever did a Lorentz transformation... Can you show how the time dilation due to relative motion makes sense from the frame of reference of either plane?
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 18:19 On Jul 21, 4:52 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 20, 11:18 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 12:22 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". > > > Do you understand the word "alleged"? > > The fact that Hafale didn't admit that the paradox exists isn't > relevant. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Not so - as you would know if you ever did a Lorentz transformation... > > Can you show how the time dilation due to relative motion makes sense > from the frame of reference of either plane? You have this misconception that relativity says that the reason the plane clock arrives out of synch with the earth clock is because the plane was moving. That is NOT the reason. That is a vast oversimplification of what relativity says. In cases where clocks start out in one place synchronized, then there is some motion, and when they arrive again at one place unsynchronized, the reason for this is not the relative motion. The reason is that one of the clocks has a straighter worldline than the other between those two spacetime events. Moreover, this comparison of worldline straightness is independent of the inertial reference frame chosen to look at it. That is, from any single inertial reference frame, the *identical* difference in clock readings at the second event is predicted by SR. You can show this any number of ways, but the simplest is to draw the worldline diagrams from two different inertial reference frames. If you don't know how to do this, then I can certainly point you to a good tutorial reference. PD
From: Inertial on 21 Jul 2010 19:54
"colp" wrote in message news:1a5ba2a3-718a-430a-ad32-fcb5c9221765(a)s17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >Can you show how the time dilation due to relative motion makes sense >from the frame of reference of either plane? Of course You've been shown before how differences in simultaneity gives you mutual time dilation. Daryl (I believe) did an extensive post on it (a couple of times). I also put up an example more than one that clearly shows how differences in clock sync result in mutual dilation. Do you want it to be posted again? |