Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
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. >
From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 10:17
On Jul 26, 5:06 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 What about it? Two sets are logically equivalent if the set-membership rules are equivalent, meaning that the rules are satisfied by the same members in both sets. Now, as for your business about "banana units", you have this goofball notation about what measurement units are supposed to do -- provide an absolute measure independent of observer. That is NOT the set- membership rule for measurement units or measurement standards. What is true is that measurement units are defined in terms of a LOCAL physical process or phenomenon. If you will look at NIST standards, you will see that this is in fact the case. So then, the definition of meters or the definition of seconds for different observers ARE logically equivalent, because the same set- membership rules apply. They're just not the membership rules you'd hoped were in place. Please don't screw around in a domain you know nothing about, and then retreat to something you think you know something about. You may find out you know less about either one than you thought. |