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 29 Jul 2010 19:19 On Jul 24, 7:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 11:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The most famous experiment regarding relativity of time > > conducted in my lifetime was in 1958 when scientists put a cesium > > clock in the nosecone of a Vanguard missile and then retrieved it > > after the flight of the missile to compare it with an identical clock > > kept on the ground. They reported that the clock in the missile was > > slower than the clock on the ground by exactly the amount predicted by > > Einstein's theory of relativity. Since that time we have a multitude > > of similar experiments using satellites, etc., all with the same > > reported results. > > The problem I see with this is that scientists used a set of > > equations to represent relativity that require a length contraction. > > Scientists who lived before 1887 such as Galileo and Newton would > > probably have been able to solve the mathematics of this event > > correctly if they had seen the experiment because they were using the > > correct equations, the Galilean transformation equations, but with the > > wrong interpretation of time. Had they seen an experiment proving > > that velocity affected the times on clocks, they would doubtlessly > > have tried to incorporate this information into the equations they > > were using instead of abandoning the Galilean transformation equations > > altogether the way more modern scientists did when absolute time did > > not describe the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. > > Why do you think this is doubtlessly what they would have done? > > Just because YOU would have done it that way doesn't mean anyone else > would have. > > I'm sure you've been told this about a great number of things in your > life. Everything Newton and Galileo did indicates that they both knew how to do mathematics.
From: rbwinn on 29 Jul 2010 19:30 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. > > > > > > > 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. > > They say that velocity is the same from either frame of reference.
From: YBM on 29 Jul 2010 19:35 rbwinn a �crit : > 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. >> >> >> >>>>> 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. >> >> > They say that velocity is the same from either frame of reference. "They" didn't, you're lying as usual. For instance I gave *you* a mathematical proof that relative speed from either frame is the same, by using explicitely the fact that both frames were inertial. Isn't lying a sin, Robert?
From: BURT on 29 Jul 2010 19:44 On Jul 29, 4:35 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a écrit : > > > > > > > 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. > > >>>>> 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. > > > They say that velocity is the same from either frame of reference. > > "They" didn't, you're lying as usual. > > For instance I gave *you* a mathematical proof that relative speed > from either frame is the same, by using explicitely the fact that > both frames were inertial. > > Isn't lying a sin, Robert?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When you begin to move you propel things through their space in the opposite direction. It doesn't take energy to make other things move. Mitch Raemsch
From: YBM on 29 Jul 2010 20:03
BURT a �crit : > When you begin to move you propel things through their space in the > opposite direction. It doesn't take energy to make other things move. Did anyone ask for one more of your useless and trivial comments, Mitch? |