correct representation of slower clocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: Androcles on 29 Jul 2010 20:03 "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote in message news:4C51F015.2060906(a)somewhere.no... | According to Galilean relativity all clocks run at the same rate. | But they don't. But they do. | So what can we conclude from that fact? | We conclude you are a babbling idiot.
From: BURT on 29 Jul 2010 20:14 On Jul 29, 5:03 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > BURT a écrit : > > > 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? You use energy to begin to move; but not the things that move around you as a consequence. And the relative motion appearence is always opposite in direction and shrinking in the distance as you observe it. Mitch Raemsch
From: YBM on 29 Jul 2010 20:18 BURT a �crit : > On Jul 29, 5:03 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> 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? > > You use energy to begin to move; but not the things that move around > you as a consequence. And the relative motion appearence is always > opposite in direction and shrinking in the distance as you observe it. Did anyone ask for one more of your useless, trivial and stupid comments, Mitch?
From: BURT on 29 Jul 2010 21:23 On Jul 29, 5:18 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > BURT a écrit : > > > On Jul 29, 5:03 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > >> BURT a écrit : > > >>> 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? > > > You use energy to begin to move; but not the things that move around > > you as a consequence. And the relative motion appearence is always > > opposite in direction and shrinking in the distance as you observe it. > > Did anyone ask for one more of your useless, trivial and stupid > comments, Mitch? The Nobel Committee did. Mitch Raemsch
From: rbwinn on 30 Jul 2010 03:27
On Jul 29, 2:18 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > 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/ Uh huh. Well, I am certain that scientists of today can convince themselves that Einstein's theory explains all things just the way Einstein said it did. The trouble I see with what they are doing is that they worked the arithmetic wrong. It would not matter what experiment shows, scientists of today can find a way to make Einstein's theory match the experimental results. If you need to make clocks go faster, you can make them go faster. If they need to go slower, you can make them go slower. Well, I have decided to use the Galilean transformation equations, and scientists can do whatever they decide to do. |