Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2010 17:13 On 7/26/10 3:51 AM, JT wrote: > Of course Sam but would it not be nice if the ***AIRHEADS*** used > bananas of same length in their gedankens, before they draw the > faulthy conclusion that light moves invariant at c thru space? > Perhaps you should read up on measurements of the speed of light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 17:47 On Jul 26, 4:06 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 25 Juli, 20:51, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/25/10 1:31 PM, JT wrote: > > > > On 25 Juli, 18:25, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 7/25/10 8:42 AM, JT wrote: > > > >>> On 25 Juli, 15:40, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> On 7/25/10 6:21 AM, JT wrote: > > > >>>>> ... if there really is any such creature like time dilation by Lorentz gamma > > >>>>> factor which is highly suspectfull. > > > >>>> Time dilation measurement are made in supernovae explosions, in > > >>>> cosmic ray muons, etc. Do you not read the literature, JT? > > > >>>> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > > >>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > >>> Bwahahahaha you are funny Sam. > > > >>> JT > > > >> Glad you find verification of time dilation so funny, JT! Enjoy your > > >> ignorance. > > > > Well if you measure it with a banana i guess you measured banana > > > units. > > > > JT > > > Actually a banana can be used for DISTANCE measurements, whereas > > TIME measure is the way to go for time dilation.- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > Actually the second part is wrong to Sam you cannot measure time > dilation, the only way to prove time dilation is by comparisson by > synched clocks and notice a discrepancy between them. > > JT JT, earlier you made an accurate comment that you don't know the first thing about physics. You said, however, that you were a self-proclaimed genius at logic. But the statement above is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of you being completely ignorant about how measurements are actually made. So your statement that your suggestion "is the only way" is just a comment born of ignorance. I suggest you get really careful about making statements that follow LOGICALLY from agreed premises, and not make foolish statements about non-facts.
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2010 17:57 On 7/26/10 1:21 PM, kenseto wrote: > 1. A run faster than B then B runs slower than A. > 2. B run faster than A then A runs slower than B. Not relativistic runners. Suggest you read up on special relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity "Special relativity is mathematically self-consistent, and it is an organic part of all modern physical theories, most notably quantum field theory, string theory, and general relativity (in the limiting case of negligible gravitational fields)". ______________ A and B are observers with identical clocks. That is A and B's clocks ticked synchronously when they were together. ∆t represent a time interval between tick of the clocks. Special relativity predicts that observer A will measure that ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity between A and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) . Furthermore, special relativity predicts that observer B will measure that ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 18:06 On 26 Juli, 23:47, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 4:06 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 25 Juli, 20:51, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 7/25/10 1:31 PM, JT wrote: > > > > > On 25 Juli, 18:25, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 7/25/10 8:42 AM, JT wrote: > > > > >>> On 25 Juli, 15:40, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> On 7/25/10 6:21 AM, JT wrote: > > > > >>>>> ... if there really is any such creature like time dilation by Lorentz gamma > > > >>>>> factor which is highly suspectfull. > > > > >>>> Time dilation measurement are made in supernovae explosions, in > > > >>>> cosmic ray muons, etc. Do you not read the literature, JT? > > > > >>>> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > > > >>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > > >>> Bwahahahaha you are funny Sam. > > > > >>> JT > > > > >> Glad you find verification of time dilation so funny, JT! Enjoy your > > > >> ignorance. > > > > > Well if you measure it with a banana i guess you measured banana > > > > units. > > > > > JT > > > > Actually a banana can be used for DISTANCE measurements, whereas > > > TIME measure is the way to go for time dilation.- Dölj citerad text - > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > Actually the second part is wrong to Sam you cannot measure time > > dilation, the only way to prove time dilation is by comparisson by > > synched clocks and notice a discrepancy between them. > > > JT > > JT, earlier you made an accurate comment that you don't know the first > thing about physics. > You said, however, that you were a self-proclaimed genius at logic. > But the statement above is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of > you being completely ignorant about how measurements are actually > made. So your statement that your suggestion "is the only way" is just > a comment born of ignorance. > > I suggest you get really careful about making statements that follow > LOGICALLY from agreed premises, and not make foolish statements about > non-facts.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Well you should learn about logical equivalence between sets. JT
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2010 21:36
On 7/26/10 4:06 AM, JT wrote: > Actually the second part is wrong to Sam you cannot measure time > dilation, the only way to prove time dilation is by comparisson by > synched clocks and notice a discrepancy between them. > > JT Physics FAQ: Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_time_dilation > 4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect > > The Doppler effect is the observed variation in frequency of a source when it is observed by a detector that is moving relative to the source. This effect is most pronounced when the source is moving directly toward or away from the detector, and in pre-relativity physics its value was zero for transverse motion (motion perpendicular to the source-detector line). In SR there is a non-zero Doppler effect for transverse motion, due to the relative time dilation of the source as seen by the detector. Measurements of Doppler shifts for sources moving with velocities approaching c can test the validity of SR's prediction for such observations, which differs significantly from classical predictions; the experiments support SR and are in complete disagreement with non-relativistic predictions. > > Review Article > > G. Gwinner, “Experimental Tests of Time Dilation in Special Relativity”, Mod. Phys. Lett. 1, 20, no. 11 (2005), pg 791. > A general review article. > > The Ives and Stilwell Experiment > > H.E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, “An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 28 pg 215–226 (1938); JOSA 31 pg 369–374 (1941). > This classic experiment measured the transverse Doppler effect for moving atoms. > > Otting, Physik. Zeitschr. 40, 681 (1939). > - > > Hasselkamp et al., Z. Physik A289 (1989), pg 151. > A measurement that is truly at 90° in the lab. Agreement with SR to an accuracy of a few percent. > > See also Mandelberg and Witten. > > Measurements of Particle Lifetimes > > Rossi and Hoag, Physical Review 57, pg 461 (1940). > Rossi and Hall, Physical Review 59, pg 223 (1941). > Rasetti, Physical Review 60, pg 198 (1941). > Redei, Phys. Rev. 162 no. 5 (1967), pg 1299. > Various measurements of the lifetimes of muons. > See also: Bailey et al. > > Durbin, Loar and Havens, Physical Review 88, pg 179 (1952). > - > > D. Frisch and J. Smith, “Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using Mesons”, Am. J. Phys. 31 (1963) 342. > Measurements of the lifetimes of pions. An interpretation was given by: Terell, Nuovo Cimento 16 (1960) pg 457. > > Greenberg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 no. 21 (1969), pg 1267. > More accurate measurement of pion lifetimes. > > Ayres et al., Phys. Rev. D3 no. 5 (1971), pg 1051. > Measurements of pion lifetimes, comparison of positive and negative pions, etc. > > Burrowes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 2 (1959), pg 117. > Measurements of Kaon lifetimes. > > Doppler Shift Measurements > > Kaivola et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 no. 4 (1985), pg 255. > McGowan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 no. 3 (1993), pg 251. > They compared the frequency of two lasers, one locked to fast-beam neon and one locked to the same transition in thermal neon. Kaivola found agreement with SR's Doppler formula is to within 4×10−5; McGowan within 2.3×10−6. > > Hay et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960), pg 165. > A Mössbauer absorber on a rotor. > > Kuendig, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 6 (1963), pg 2371. > A Mössbauer absorber on a rotor was used to verify the transverse Doppler effect of SR to 1.1%. > > Olin et al., Phys. Rev. D8 no. 6 (1973), pg 1633. > A nuclear measurement at 0.05 c, in very good agreement with the prediction of SR. > > Mandelberg and Witten, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. 52, pg 529 (1962). > Measured the exponent of the quadratic Doppler shift to be 0.498±0.025, in agreement with SR's value of ½. > |