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 21:37 On Jul 28, 6:27 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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] I am not the one saying that a slower clock gives the same velocity as a faster clock.
From: rbwinn on 28 Jul 2010 21:39 On Jul 28, 6:28 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Ignorant troll. I will have to remember that. Well, I have pretty much decided that I will use the Galilean transformation equations. You scientists decide for yourselves what you are going to do.
From: whoever on 28 Jul 2010 22:24 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:182b3796-6b19-43ee-8934-ef83055bf00a(a)q21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... >I am not the one saying that a slower clock gives the same velocity as >a faster clock. You're the one not answering the simple question (because you're an ignorant troll): 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 know it is not t' = t. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Paul B. Andersen on 29 Jul 2010 17:18 On 29.07.2010 01:56, rbwinn 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. Close, but not quite. Due to the mass of the Moon the speeds would be slightly different. Objects fall at the same speed only if their masses are negligible compared to the mass of the gravitating body (the Earth). The mass of the Moon isn't negligible. >>>>>>> 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 nose cone and a clock on the moon. Quite. And here is what they would calculate: Look at this animation: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/Satellites.html Choose the scenario: "Circ. Moon orbit + Moon orbit". The red satellite is in Moon orbit. The relative rate difference is 6.808E-10 at aphelion and 6.783E-10 at perihelion. The rate varies slightly because of the eccentricity, but it is always _fast_. Now, look at this animation: (Not quite finished and probably never will be) http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/EarthMoon.html Choose the sceneario "High altitude satellite". Ignore the green satellite, we are only interested in the dark grey Moon. The "Moons clock rel. rate difference" is the rate of a clock on the Moon's surface, facing the Earth. It is 6.494E-10 at aphelion and 6.468E-10 at perihelion. The rate is slightly less than for the satellite clock. That is because of the Moon's gravity; the gravitational potential difference is less for the Moon clock than for the satellite clock. >>>>>>>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. According to Galilean relativity all clocks run at the same rate. But they don't. So what can we conclude from that fact? >>>>>>> Both clocks would be slightly slower than a >>>>>>> clock on earth. Nope. Faster. [..] -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: rbwinn on 29 Jul 2010 19:18
On Jul 27, 11:55 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Ignorant troll. I will have to remember that. |