SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: EINSTEIN'S ABUSE OF TIME
Next: MYTH: 'Obama admin turned down foreign assistance' (and other Right-Wing Noory Distortions)
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 17:38 On Jul 22, 4:22 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 23, 8:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 3:41 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 23, 2:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 22, 8:06 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 1:49 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 1:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 11:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 12:14 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > >On Jul 19, 3:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 19, 1:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Jul 19, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Those are properties you made up. These are not what physicists mean > > > > > > > > > > >> > > by "preferred frame". > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Those are the properties of the preferred frame. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Assertion is not an argument. > > > > > > > > > > >No it is not an assertion. It is a definition for a preferred frame. > > > > > > > > > > > And "a black and white flightless bird that lives in Antarctica" is a > > > > > > > > > > definition for "zebra". But if you want to have a meaningful discussion > > > > > > > > > > with a biologist about something involving African grazing wildlife, > > > > > > > > > > you'd better be using the biologist's definition of "zebra". > > > > > > > > > > > Same with "preferred frame", if you ever expect any meaningful > > > > > > > > > > discussions with physicists here, you'd better be using their > > > > > > > > > > definition of "preferred frames". > > > > > > > > > > The point is:Physicists have no definition for a preferred frame. > > > > > > > > > Yes, physicists do. I gave it to you. > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > you have one then give it to us. Tell us how a preferred clock runs > > > > > > > > > compared to an inertial clcok. > > > > > > > > > A definition does not entail "what happens in this case? what happens > > > > > > > > in that case?" > > > > > > > > Sure it does.....if a clock is the fastest running clock in the > > > > > > > universe then it is a preferred clock. > > > > > > > According to YOU. Not according to physicists, because this is true > > > > > > for EVERY clock, and hence cannot be preferred. > > > > > > No it is not true for an GPS observer. > > > > > Sorry. It is true for EVERY clock IN INERTIAL MOTION, and hence cannot > > > > be preferred. > > > > > This statement doesn't apply to GPS, because the GPS is so far out of > > > > inertial motion, it can't be approximated as one. > > > > Wrong. Hafale used the SR formula for time dilation in the Hafele- > > > Keating experiment, and the planes in the experiment were in the > > > Earth's atmosphere, unlike the satellites. > > > Let's get some things straight. > > 1. SR makes certain statements that are true under certain > > circumstances and other statements that are true in other > > circumstances. > > 2. It is a mistake to think that if SR makes certain statements about > > two *inertial* reference frames, that the same statement will apply > > when there one of the frames is not inertial. > > O.K. I think the issue is what corrections or adjustments a necessary > for a real case than involves a gravitational field so that it treated > as if it is conformant with the requirements of SR. For example, the > original twin paradox involved the earth, but there were no > adjustments made for the Earth's gravitational field. And the presence of the Earth is incidental and only there to make the story appealing. It would in fact be better posed if initially there no earth, just two spacecraft passing each other, with one of them eventually turning around and coming back to pass the other one again. As I've told you, the reason for the desynchronization doesn't stem from the relative motion. It stems from one of them taking a less straight path through spacetime. That has EVERYTHING to do with the turnaround. It is also a contributing factor in the GPS case (the satellite is always turning around, if you want), although you'll get the wrong answer for GPS unless you do the full treatment that includes the curvature of spacetime itself (not the curvature of the path). > > > 3. Likewise, it is also a mistake to think that if SR makes certain > > statements that apply to two *inertial* reference frames, then it ONLY > > makes statements about cases where there are only inertial reference > > frames. It just won't be the same statements. > > I don't understand what point you are try to make here. Ken is under the impression that SR predicts *mutual* time dilation between clocks in relative motion, period. It does not. It makes that particular statement in cases where the two clocks are always in *inertial* motion during the time the comparison is made. If there is an excursion from that during the interval, then you will not see mutual time dilation. Ken believes it's unfair that SR would make a claim and expect you to have to keep track of when that claim should apply and when it should not apply. He believes that's an attempt to fool the public. > > > 4. Any attempt to misapply a statement that SR makes but outside the > > circumstances intended, is purely pilot error and evidence of user > > incompetence. > > The circumstances intended are derived from Einstein's papers, not > from the practical application of the theory of relativity. > > > 5. Just because you see an equation in it with (1-v^2/c^2), doesn't > > mean that it an SR treatment. > > If a treatment has all the essential qualities of a SR treatment, then > it is effectively a SR treatment. No, sir. That would be a mistake. This is like saying that heart surgery is effectively first aid, because heart surgery involves all the essential qualities of first aid. > > > Recall that SR is a *special case* of > > GR, and that SR is therefore embedded in GR, so that when you are > > using a GR treatment, you will see some things that are reminiscent of > > SR, even though you are outside the special case where SR applies. > > So at what point can you no longer correct for GR effects, and treat a > system as being conformant to the requirements of SR? The usual statement is that cases where gravitational effects, and in particular TIDAL effects (which means more than just the moon-oceans thing) due to gravity, are significant enough to be measured in the experiment, then a GR treatment is required. It's OK for SR to be used in the presence of gravity, as long as the field is uniform enough and the system in consideration is close enough to being in free-fall *throughout*. Note that the HK and GPS systems do not meet this criteria. For example, the system contains both GPS clocks and ground clocks, and while the GPS satellites are in free-fall, the field is not uniform over the trajectory and the ground clocks are certainly not in free-fall. > > > 6. The presence of the atmosphere has absolutely nothing to do with > > time dilation. Time dilation is also observed routinely in labs on the > > Earth's surface, as well as IN the material of the earth! > > My point was that Hafele's treatment of time dilation for a plane can > also be applied to a GPS satellite, as a plane is closer to the Earth > than a satellite. I agree with that. The GPS is a superb and much more precise instance of the principles that were explored in the Hafele-Keating experiment.
From: Inertial on 23 Jul 2010 10:17 "kenseto" wrote in message news:d86b8f1e-8280-44bc-b912-c205bfa97226(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> You didn't answer the question. Why does EVERY theory need a preferred >> frame? > >The idea of any motion requires that an object moves.... or that the observer moves .. or both. depending on who is looking at them. but yes.. motion requires (relative) movement. > that mean that when the object has no motion it is in a state of absolute > rest. it may have no motion for one observer and be in motion for another. that doesn't mean absolute rest > Also it means that the object is in a preferred frame. no .. just at rest in some observer's frame, but not in others. Really.. you are sooo clueless at physics and so bad at logical argument that its HILARIOUS
From: Inertial on 23 Jul 2010 10:38 "kenseto" wrote in message news:1c42fdbc-12d4-4e76-abab-4922e3111f1e(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >No....it is not true for every clock in inertial motion. No inertial >clock can claim that every clock in the universe is running slow. They don't. But the observers at rest in some inertial frame will MEASURE every moving clock as slow > The > best it can claim is that an observed clcok can run slow OR fast. They are all mesured to run slow > The > fastest running clock is the preferred clock. There is no such (correct) clock. All clocks run at the same rate > When an SR observer > claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow, He claims that he (and other observers at rest in his frame) measure the clock as running slow > he is > claiming the exclusive properties of the preferred frame. There is no such frame. Gees .. how many times do you have to be told the same thing .. you must be a compulsive liar
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Jul 2010 10:45 On 7/23/10 9:22 AM, kenseto wrote: > No....it is not true for every clock in inertial motion. No inertial > clock can claim that every clock in the universe is running slow. The > best it can claim is that an observed clcok can run slow OR fast. The > fastest running clock is the preferred clock. When an SR observer > claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow, he is > claiming the exclusive properties of the preferred frame. > Why is it so hard for you to understand, given that we are not considering gravitation and accelerations, that an observer will measure time dilation in clocks moving with respect to the observer? Why is that Seto? Special relativity predicts the affect and experiment an observation confirm!
From: kenseto on 24 Jul 2010 09:38
On Jul 23, 10:38 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" wrote in message > > news:1c42fdbc-12d4-4e76-abab-4922e3111f1e(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > >No....it is not true for every clock in inertial motion. No inertial > >clock can claim that every clock in the universe is running slow. > > They don't. But the observers at rest in some inertial frame will MEASURE > every moving clock as slow No they don't measure every clock as running slow. Every SR observer predicts that every clock moving wrt him is running slow. This SR prediction is valid only if the observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion than the observer. That's why SR is valid for accelerator design applications. > > > The > > best it can claim is that an observed clcok can run slow OR fast. > > They are all mesured to run slow No no measurement is made...SR predicts. > > > The > > fastest running clock is the preferred clock. > > There is no such (correct) clock. All clocks run at the same rate Wrong...The GPS clock run at a different rate than the ground clock. That's why they have to redefine the GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. The redefined GPS second will have the same duration (time content) as the ground clock second. > > > When an SR observer > > claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow, > > He claims that he (and other observers at rest in his frame) measure the > clock as running slow Again no measurement is made....SR predicts. > > > he is > > claiming the exclusive properties of the preferred frame. > > There is no such frame. Gees .. how many times do you have to be told the > same thing .. you must be a compulsive liar You are an idiot. |