correct representation of slower clocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: rbwinn on 28 Jul 2010 19:56 On Jul 28, 5:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > Well, every other scientist I have discussed this with says the altitude stays the same. You are the only one so far with a lower altitude.
From: rbwinn on 28 Jul 2010 20:40 On Jul 25, 8:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > news:0352950e-30d4-4e0b-9915-137e55183aaf(a)w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >On Jul 25, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> Lets see if RB is honest enough to clarify his position here with simple > >> direct answers to a couple of questions. Here's three multiple-choice > >> questions for you RB. > > >> 1) Are the measurements of the length of an object (in general) > >> a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring > >> it > >> b) smaller if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the object > >> c) larger if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the object > >> d) smaller or larger depending on the motion, if the observer > >> measuring > >> it (using his own rulers and clocks) is in motion wrt the object > > >> 2) Are the measurements of the ticking rate of a clock > >> a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring > >> it > >> b) slower if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the clock > >> c) faster if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the clock > >> d) slower or faster depending on the motion, if the observer > >> measuring > >> it is in motion wrt the clock > > >> 3) Are the differences in times shown on a pair of mutually at rest > >> separated clocks (in general) > >> a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring > >> them > >> b) different if the observer measuring them is in motion wrt the > >> clocks > > >> NOTE: That in the above we assume that observer use their own clocks and > >> rulers, at rest wrt them, for making measurements. > > >> OK .. what are you answers ... no need for any lengthy explanations, or > >> ad-homs about scientists. I just want to know what your position is: > > >> 1) > >> 2) > >> 3) > > >Your questions are completely off-topic and irrelevant, > > BAHAHAHAHAHA > > > but I will > >answer them anyway. > > What a novelty .. though you still couldn't manage answer with just a,b,c, > or d for the answer .. what are you afraid of? > > >1. Measurements of length are the same in different frames of > >reference. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. > > So you answer was a ... why not just say so? > > So you agree with the x'=x, y'=y and z'=z of Galilean transforms (which > apply between how different frames measure things) > > >2. Measurements of the ticking rate of a clock are slower if the clock > >is in motion relative to the frame of reference with the clock that > >shows t in the Galilean transformation equations. > > So you answer is b .. why not just say so? > > So you DISAGREE with the t'=t of Galilean transforms (which apply between > how different frames measure things) > > What then IS the relationship between what a moving observer measures as the > ticking rate of a clock, compared to when an observer at rest with the clock > measures ? > > >3. If two clocks are at rest, they both show the same time regardless > >of the motion of an observer. > > OK .. so by what you said above, you reject Galilean transforms as the > relationship between what different observers measure for the lengths of > objects and the rate at which clocks tick, instead you have *some* of the > Galilean transforms applying > > x' = x > y' = y > z' = z > > but NOT the relationship t' = t for clocks (you say clocks are not measured > to tick at the same rate, so they can't always show the same time) > > Now all you need to do is put in what the relationship between what a moving > observer (S') reads on his clock, t', when an at-rest clock reading is > reading t. If you want to use different letters .. that doesn't matter .. > its still describing the relationship between what the two clocks read. So > .. what is the relationship between what a moving clocks reads compared to > an at-rest clock. Well, I will try to explain this by Galileo's idea that the earth was rotating on its axis. Now suppose that we measure time in S and S' by the rotation of the earth. t'=t. This means that one rotation of the earth in S' equals one rotation of the earth in S. The earth rotates once every day. Now it may surprise you to learn that the earth is not the only thing rotating in the universe. One way Galileo got his idea that the earth was rotating was by discovering Ganymede, the largest moon of Jupiter, which rotates once every seven days. So see, we could do what scientists do and say that the rotation of Ganymede is t' and the rotation of the earth is t. But really, the way to work the problem is by saying Ganymede rotates once every time the earth rotates 7.15 times. See, you cannot use both rates of rotation at the same time in the Galilean transformation equations. If you just say one rotation of Ganymede equals one rotation of earth, you are going to end up with a length contraction.
From: rbwinn on 28 Jul 2010 20:51 On Jul 26, 7:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 10:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 25, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >"rbwinn" wrote in message > > > >news:d9d01d61-d162-4090-b2c8-a1528ce45568(a)t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > [snip] > > > > Lets see if RB is honest enough to clarify his position here with simple > > > direct answers to a couple of questions. Here's three multiple-choice > > > questions for you RB. > > > > 1) Are the measurements of the length of an object (in general) > > > a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring it > > > b) smaller if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the object > > > c) larger if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the object > > > d) smaller or larger depending on the motion, if the observer measuring > > > it (using his own rulers and clocks) is in motion wrt the object > > > > 2) Are the measurements of the ticking rate of a clock > > > a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring it > > > b) slower if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the clock > > > c) faster if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the clock > > > d) slower or faster depending on the motion, if the observer measuring > > > it is in motion wrt the clock > > > > 3) Are the differences in times shown on a pair of mutually at rest > > > separated clocks (in general) > > > a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring > > > them > > > b) different if the observer measuring them is in motion wrt the clocks > > > > NOTE: That in the above we assume that observer use their own clocks and > > > rulers, at rest wrt them, for making measurements. > > > > OK .. what are you answers ... no need for any lengthy explanations, or > > > ad-homs about scientists. I just want to know what your position is: > > > > 1) > > > 2) > > > 3) > > > Your questions are completely off-topic and irrelevant, but I will > > answer them anyway. > > 1. Measurements of length are the same in different frames of > > reference. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. > > Equations do not show what the results of measurements are. > Measurements do. Actual measurements. > > > > > 2. Measurements of the ticking rate of a clock are slower if the clock > > is in motion relative to the frame of reference with the clock that > > shows t in the Galilean transformation equations. > > 3. If two clocks are at rest, they both show the same time regardless > > of the motion of an observer.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - Actual measurements. I will have to remember that. What about measurements of rotations of moons of Jupiter?
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 21:27 On Jul 29, 10:40 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 8:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > >news:0352950e-30d4-4e0b-9915-137e55183aaf(a)w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com.... > > > >On Jul 25, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> Lets see if RB is honest enough to clarify his position here with simple > > >> direct answers to a couple of questions. Here's three multiple-choice > > >> questions for you RB. > > > >> 1) Are the measurements of the length of an object (in general) > > >> a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring > > >> it > > >> b) smaller if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the object > > >> c) larger if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the object > > >> d) smaller or larger depending on the motion, if the observer > > >> measuring > > >> it (using his own rulers and clocks) is in motion wrt the object > > > >> 2) Are the measurements of the ticking rate of a clock > > >> a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring > > >> it > > >> b) slower if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the clock > > >> c) faster if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the clock > > >> d) slower or faster depending on the motion, if the observer > > >> measuring > > >> it is in motion wrt the clock > > > >> 3) Are the differences in times shown on a pair of mutually at rest > > >> separated clocks (in general) > > >> a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring > > >> them > > >> b) different if the observer measuring them is in motion wrt the > > >> clocks > > > >> NOTE: That in the above we assume that observer use their own clocks and > > >> rulers, at rest wrt them, for making measurements. > > > >> OK .. what are you answers ... no need for any lengthy explanations, or > > >> ad-homs about scientists. I just want to know what your position is: > > > >> 1) > > >> 2) > > >> 3) > > > >Your questions are completely off-topic and irrelevant, > > > BAHAHAHAHAHA > > > > but I will > > >answer them anyway. > > > What a novelty .. though you still couldn't manage answer with just a,b,c, > > or d for the answer .. what are you afraid of? > > > >1. Measurements of length are the same in different frames of > > >reference. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. > > > So you answer was a ... why not just say so? > > > So you agree with the x'=x, y'=y and z'=z of Galilean transforms (which > > apply between how different frames measure things) > > > >2. Measurements of the ticking rate of a clock are slower if the clock > > >is in motion relative to the frame of reference with the clock that > > >shows t in the Galilean transformation equations. > > > So you answer is b .. why not just say so? > > > So you DISAGREE with the t'=t of Galilean transforms (which apply between > > how different frames measure things) > > > What then IS the relationship between what a moving observer measures as the > > ticking rate of a clock, compared to when an observer at rest with the clock > > measures ? > > > >3. If two clocks are at rest, they both show the same time regardless > > >of the motion of an observer. > > > OK .. so by what you said above, you reject Galilean transforms as the > > relationship between what different observers measure for the lengths of > > objects and the rate at which clocks tick, instead you have *some* of the > > Galilean transforms applying > > > x' = x > > y' = y > > z' = z > > > but NOT the relationship t' = t for clocks (you say clocks are not measured > > to tick at the same rate, so they can't always show the same time) > > > Now all you need to do is put in what the relationship between what a moving > > observer (S') reads on his clock, t', when an at-rest clock reading is > > reading t. If you want to use different letters .. that doesn't matter .. > > its still describing the relationship between what the two clocks read. So > > .. what is the relationship between what a moving clocks reads compared to > > an at-rest clock. > > Well, I will try to explain this by Galileo's idea that the earth was > rotating on its axis. Now suppose that we measure time in S and S' by > the rotation of the earth. The rotation of the earth is a clock in its own frame only. Unless you can take that clock with you in some other frame, it doesn't count as clock in that frame. So it is irrelevant what the relationship between clocks in different frames. > t'=t. No .. you just showed that t' = t does NOT apply for what clock So .. what is the relationship between what a clocks at rest in one frame reads compared to that of a clock at rest in some other frame? We knot it is not t' = t. [snip another non-answer from dishonest troll rbwinn]
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 21:28
On Jul 29, 10:51 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 7:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 25, 10:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 25, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > >"rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > >news:d9d01d61-d162-4090-b2c8-a1528ce45568(a)t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > [snip] > > > > > Lets see if RB is honest enough to clarify his position here with simple > > > > direct answers to a couple of questions. Here's three multiple-choice > > > > questions for you RB. > > > > > 1) Are the measurements of the length of an object (in general) > > > > a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring it > > > > b) smaller if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the object > > > > c) larger if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the object > > > > d) smaller or larger depending on the motion, if the observer measuring > > > > it (using his own rulers and clocks) is in motion wrt the object > > > > > 2) Are the measurements of the ticking rate of a clock > > > > a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring it > > > > b) slower if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the clock > > > > c) faster if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the clock > > > > d) slower or faster depending on the motion, if the observer measuring > > > > it is in motion wrt the clock > > > > > 3) Are the differences in times shown on a pair of mutually at rest > > > > separated clocks (in general) > > > > a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring > > > > them > > > > b) different if the observer measuring them is in motion wrt the clocks > > > > > NOTE: That in the above we assume that observer use their own clocks and > > > > rulers, at rest wrt them, for making measurements. > > > > > OK .. what are you answers ... no need for any lengthy explanations, or > > > > ad-homs about scientists. I just want to know what your position is: > > > > > 1) > > > > 2) > > > > 3) > > > > Your questions are completely off-topic and irrelevant, but I will > > > answer them anyway. > > > 1. Measurements of length are the same in different frames of > > > reference. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show.. > > > Equations do not show what the results of measurements are. > > Measurements do. Actual measurements. > > > > 2. Measurements of the ticking rate of a clock are slower if the clock > > > is in motion relative to the frame of reference with the clock that > > > shows t in the Galilean transformation equations. > > > 3. If two clocks are at rest, they both show the same time regardless > > > of the motion of an observer.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Actual measurements. I will have to remember that. What about > measurements of rotations of moons of Jupiter? You're nothing but an ignorant trol |