correct representation of slower clocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: BURT on 27 Jul 2010 23:18 On Jul 27, 7:42 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 8:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > >news:369cd03a-7da5-4d94-a308-935f84476a64(a)g6g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > >On Jul 25, 3:34 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >> You have two choices here > > > >> 1) Gallilean transforms do not apply and time is slower for something > > >> moving (like the missile in your examploe). If this is the case ... > > >> what transform DOES apply for time in different frames? > > >> 2) Gallilean transforms DO apply, but all clocks and processes run > > >> slow for something moving (like the missile in your examploe). If > > >> this is the case .. what transform applies what clocks read in > > >> different frames? > > > >The Galilean transformation equations work in any application. They > > >treat all slower clocks the same. > > > Avoiding the questions gain, eh? Typical .. can't get a straight answer out > > of you .. but lets try again anyway .. maybe you'll be honest for once.... > > > We have that ONE of these two alternatives hold true: > > > 1) Galilean transforms do not apply and time is slower for something > > moving (like the missile in your example). If this is the case .. > > what transform DOES apply for time in different frames? > > > 2) Galilean transforms DO apply, but all clocks and processes run > > slow for something moving (like the missile in your example). If > > this is the case .. what transform applies to what clocks read in > > different frames? > > > Which is it .. can be only one or the other. You seem afraid to answer .. > > just need to know which of the two possible answers: 1 or 2 > > > And then, for an extra test of your honesty .. answer the corresponding > > question for whichever of 1 or 2 you say is correct. Come on RB .. show > > some backbone and state which one of the two possibilities bove you think is > > the case. > > Time is relative. Clocks are slower.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Time flow is absolute. If a high speed train sees the station's clock running slower than its clock as it passes when does the station's clock age faster? And there is no lost time in this example. Mitch Raemsch
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 02:55 On Jul 28, 12:42 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 8:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > >news:369cd03a-7da5-4d94-a308-935f84476a64(a)g6g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > >On Jul 25, 3:34 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >> You have two choices here > > > >> 1) Gallilean transforms do not apply and time is slower for something > > >> moving (like the missile in your examploe). If this is the case ... > > >> what transform DOES apply for time in different frames? > > >> 2) Gallilean transforms DO apply, but all clocks and processes run > > >> slow for something moving (like the missile in your examploe). If > > >> this is the case .. what transform applies what clocks read in > > >> different frames? > > > >The Galilean transformation equations work in any application. They > > >treat all slower clocks the same. > > > Avoiding the questions gain, eh? Typical .. can't get a straight answer out > > of you .. but lets try again anyway .. maybe you'll be honest for once.... > > > We have that ONE of these two alternatives hold true: > > > 1) Galilean transforms do not apply and time is slower for something > > moving (like the missile in your example). If this is the case .. > > what transform DOES apply for time in different frames? > > > 2) Galilean transforms DO apply, but all clocks and processes run > > slow for something moving (like the missile in your example). If > > this is the case .. what transform applies to what clocks read in > > different frames? > > > Which is it .. can be only one or the other. You seem afraid to answer .. > > just need to know which of the two possible answers: 1 or 2 > > > And then, for an extra test of your honesty .. answer the corresponding > > question for whichever of 1 or 2 you say is correct. Come on RB .. show > > some backbone and state which one of the two possibilities bove you think is > > the case. > > Time is relative. Clocks are slower. So you're not honest enough to answer. Thanks for confirming that for us. You're nothing but an ignorant troll.
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 08:50 On Jul 27, 9:44 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 7:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 1:57 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 24, 7:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 23, 3:52 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 23, 12:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > > > >news:a4b1e0e1-2e42-4a28-ab27-32ce66e30a87(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > >On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > > > > >>news:9c342fcd-ef8d-4b43-9ba3-c17cd82876ef(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > >> >On Jul 22, 10:28 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> >> Inertial wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> [snip all] > > > > > > > >> >> rbwinn has nothing to say except the same thing he has been saying for > > > > > > >> >> ~15 > > > > > > >> >> years now. Just like the seto, the rbwinn deserves short bursts of > > > > > > >> >> contempt > > > > > > >> >> or straight up killfiling. > > > > > > > >> >The problem I see for you, eric, is that I am right > > > > > > > >> No .. you just proved yourself wrong. Galilean transforms do not agree > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> what happens in reality. You showed it very nicely. > > > > > > > >A parrot could do what you are doing just as well. > > > > > > > it is indeed very easy to show you are wrong. You did it yourself. > > > > > > > > Here, if you think > > > > > > >you want to talk to me, solve this little problem. In the Etvos > > > > > > >experiment, a clock was put in the nosecone of a Vanguard missile and > > > > > > >recovered and compared to a clock kept on the ground. The clock in > > > > > > >the missile nosecone showed less time. > > > > > > > So, Galilean transforms (which say there is no change in time when you > > > > > > change inertial frames) is refuted. Thanks for playing. > > > > > > This is not a game, Inertial. How does a slower clock change time? > > > > > It doesn't. But time changes, and this does affect the way that all > > > > clocks with that relative motion display time, even the ones that work > > > > properly. > > > > > > I > > > > > bought an alarm clock that lost ten minutes every day. How did that > > > > > affect time at your house? > > > > > If you see a clock that loses time, it could either be due to > > > > something wrong with the clock or something that is different with > > > > time. > > > > > Fortunately, there's a really simple way to tell the difference > > > > between these two things. > > > > > You collect a bunch of clocks of different designs, different > > > > operational principles, different materials, and so on. > > > > If all the clocks lose time identically, then you can be pretty sure > > > > that the cause does not have to do with something being wrong with the > > > > clocks. > > > > After all, it's highly unlikely that clocks of wildly different > > > > mechanisms would all lose time identically if the problem was in the > > > > clock. > > > > This would then lead a normal person to think that something was > > > > different with time. > > > > > And if you had a theory about time that told you IN ADVANCE how much > > > > time each of the clocks would lose, regardless of the mechanism of the > > > > clock, then a normal person would think that the theory probably is > > > > right. > > > > > Now, an abnormal and unbalanced person might still reject the theory > > > > and say, "I don't believe it, and I believe scientists have all > > > > conspired to lie and have secretly arranged to have all those > > > > different clocks run slow by the same amount, just so that they could > > > > convince people the theory is right." And then the abnormal and > > > > unbalanced person would put another layer of aluminum foil on the > > > > screen door of his trailer. > > > > > PD > > > > I think scientists are all like you. They all believe there is a > > > length contraction. That does not make them bad people, just > > > incompetent at math. > > > That's fine that you have that opinion, Bobby, but it is irrelevant to > > the question you asked earlier, and to which I gave you an answer. > > > I see that you enjoy asking questions and then ignoring the answers. > > This is just like you. > > Well, sorry I hurt your feelings. I thought I told you in the > beginning that I was going to keep using the Galilean transformation > equations. You didn't hurt my feelings, Bobby. I was curious why you would ask a question and then ignore the answer. If you're not at all interested in the answer, then don't bother asking the question.
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 08:51 On Jul 27, 9:45 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 7:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 2:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 24, 7:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 22, 11:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > There seems little doubt that the clock in the nosecone of the > > > > > Vanguard missile was slower than the clock on the ground by the amount > > > > > the equations showed, but we are still brought to a conflict of > > > > > interpretation by the fact that the equations used to make the > > > > > calculation of time for the slower clock incorporate a length > > > > > contraction which does not manifest itself in the parameters of the > > > > > experiment. > > > > > And how do you know that length contraction did not manifest itself? > > > > Where in this experiment was the measurement of length that did not > > > > agree with a prediction of length contraction? > > > > If in an experiment you do not even bother to measure a length, does > > > > this tell you that length contraction did not occur? > > > > > > For instance, suppose that the Vanguard missile had been > > > > > put in orbit around the earth instead of falling back to earth and > > > > > recovered. How do we then calculate the rate of the clock in the > > > > > nosecone? > > > > > It would have involved a different calculation with the same > > > > principles. > > > > The measurement of length that did not agree with a prediction of > > > length contraction was the distance between where the missile was > > > launched and the point where it landed. > > > I think you are confused about what length contraction says. If you > > thought it meant that the landing would happen someplace different > > than where it did, then I'm afraid you have no idea what length > > contraction even means. > > No, I know what it means. Well, Bobby, it sure doesn't seem so. > Scientists are using the wrong equations.
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 08:53
On Jul 27, 9:49 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 7:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 24, 2:57 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 24, 7:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 22, 11:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > According to Galileo's principle of equivalence, if the > > > > > missile were put in orbit around the earth at the altitude of the > > > > > moon, then it would have the same speed in its orbit that the moon has > > > > > in its orbit. If the orbits were opposite in direction, then > > > > > scientists can calculate for themselves what their theory of > > > > > relativity would predict for times on the clock in the nosecone and a > > > > > clock on the moon. The Galilean transformation equations and Newton's > > > > > equations show that a clock on the moon and a clock in the nosecone > > > > > would read the same. > > > > > And indeed, the same would be predicted by relativity in the case you > > > > mention! > > > > > > Both clocks would be slightly slower than a > > > > > clock on earth. > > > > > Which is different than what the Galilean transformations and > > > > Newtonian mechanics predicts. > > > > Newton was in fact quite emphatic that time was absolute and > > > > immutable, regardless of where it is measured. > > > > > What happens to clocks in orbit actually agrees with relativity very > > > > well. > > > > > > So now let us consider a third satellite at the same > > > > > altitude that has an astronaut. > > > > > "Calculate your speed," the astronaut is instructed. The > > > > > astronaut knows his exact altitude. > > > > > How does he know his exact altitude, Robert? > > > > There are a number of ways it could be done. To avoid confusion, maybe > > > we should have scientists on the ground tell him what it is. > > > So, what you are suggesting is that rather than seeing if two > > different observers make actual measurements to see which set of > > transformations are correct, it's better if one observer just tells > > the other observer not to bother measuring at all, and just to take > > his word for it that the Galilean transformations are correct. Ah. > > > > Are you saying that the satellite has a different altitude in the > > > frame of reference of the satellite than is observed from the ground? > > > Yes, of course. > > Oh, well this is different. So you are saying that the satellite has > a lower altitude from the frame of reference of the satellite. You > are the first scientist I have seen say this. Well, Bobby, you've not really read anything, have you? > > OK, then, I will explain what I believe. The slower clock does not > mean the altitude is lower. It means that the clock is slower and is > showing a faster speed for the satellite because the length of the > orbit is still the same. Well, you believe all sorts of crazy things, Bobby. I don't really care what you *believe*. I care about what is supported by experimental measurement. I understand that you don't use expermiental measurement to help determine what you believe, because you choose to disbelieve the experiments too. That's fine for you, Bobby. There are all sorts of goofy folks that don't operate scientifically in the head, and you're one of them. > > > > > > > > > > From this he knows the exact > > > > > length of his orbit. He times one orbit with the clock in his > > > > > satellite and divides that time into the length of his orbit. Does he > > > > > get a length contraction or does he get a faster speed for his > > > > > satellite than an observer on the ground making the same calculation? > > > > > You cannot make this calculation with Einstein's theory of > > > > > relativity. > > > > > Actually, you can. I'm shocked that you think it can't be done. > > > > OK, make the calculation. How do you get a faster speed for the > > > satellite using the Lorentz equations or General Relativity? They > > > both say v is the same from either frame of reference. > > > No, the Lorentz transforms and general relativity do NOT say v is the > > same from either frame of reference. That would be true for an > > inertial reference frame, but not for a satellite circling the earth. > > > > > > It requires a length contraction and the same speed > > > > > calculated from the satellite as observed from the ground. > > > > > What on earth makes you say THAT, Robert? > > > > v is the same from either frame of reference in Special or General > > > Relativity. > > > No, only for inertial reference frames, Bobby. > > It would help if you would learn what special and general relativity > > actually say. > > > > > > So, > > > > > although Einstein's equations give an answer that agrees with > > > > > experimental data for time, the equations do not agree with reality > > > > > with regard to distance.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |