correct representation of slower clocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: Inertial on 2 Aug 2010 20:37 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:adea05cf-c42a-4823-ac3e-db2d26980e4f(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> So .. yet again you fail to answer.... what is the mathematical >> relationship >> between what a clock at rest in one (arbitrary) inertial frame compared >> to >> that of a clock at rest in some other (arbitrary) inertial frame? > >I did not say anything about any frames of reference except S and S' Which are *any* pair of arbitrarily chosen inertial frames of reference >as they are described by the Galilean transformation equations. Which apply to *any* pair of arbitrarily chosen inertial frames of reference > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > >The equations say S is at rest and S' is moving. Nope. Wrong again [snip more avoiding of the question by dishonest rbwinn troll] So .. yet again you fail to answer.... what is the mathematical relationship between what a clock at rest in one (arbitrary) inertial frame compared to that of a clock at rest in some other (arbitrary) inertial frame?
From: PD on 3 Aug 2010 11:47 On Aug 2, 6:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 11:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Thank you for your comments, Paul. > > > > > Is this your pathetic way to deny any kind of experimental evidence, > > > > Robert ? Isn't that shamefull ? > > > > Well, I would say that it is not surprising to see a scientist judging > > > this kind of conversation to be shameful. The more I see of > > > scientists, the less inclined I am to trust anything they say. > > > You can imagine how people think about you when you refer to the Etvos > > experiment launching in a Vanguard rocket in 1958. > > > The more you say, the less inclined most people are to trust anything > > you say. > > > Well, I forgot the name of an experiment. I have not read anything > about it for well over ten years. I gave the book about it to a > tweaker who said he was interested in Einstein's theory. Also > Einstein's book. I had lost interest in the subject by that time. Then it was good of you to stick to your guns about something you'd forgotten almost completely about, wasn't it, Bobby. Even when it was pretty clear you had no idea what you were talking about, you insisted it was right. This seems pretty central to the reason why people don't think much of what you say. PD
From: PD on 3 Aug 2010 11:49 On Aug 2, 7:00 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 30, 2:32 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 30, 5:24 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > > > > > rbwinn a écrit : > > > > > > Well, I have decided to use the Galilean transformation equations, > > > > > and scientists can do whatever they decide to do. > > > > > This is pointless given that you don't consider any real experiments but > > > > the fake ones you made up in your ill mind. > > > > Well, tell me about a real experiment, YBM. The only ones I know > > > about are done by scientists, which makes them suspect. > > > And who does experiments that you trust? > > No scientists that I know about. And so who DOES experiments that you trust? If you would like to say "no one", then just come out and say it. That way, we'll all have a common understanding that you don't use experimental evidence to decide what you want to believe.
From: PD on 3 Aug 2010 11:50 On Aug 2, 7:01 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 30, 2:27 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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, this is the problem, Bobby. You say that it does not matter what > > experiments show. > > To a scientist, this is exactly backwards. Everything depends on what > > experiments show. > > You cannot "prove" anything with mathematics in science if experiments > > say otherwise. > > > > Well, I have decided to use the Galilean transformation equations, > > > and scientists can do whatever they decide to do. > > > Yes, of course you've decided that. No one is stopping you. It's a > > wholly unscientific decision to do that, and you will get wrong > > answers under some circumstances, but you don't care about that. > > > Scientists have good reasons for not taking the path you've chosen. > > > PD > > Scientists have financial reasons for doing what they do. If they can > make more money giving out false information, they will give out false > information. Nice paranoia there, Bobby. Seems to me you're more adept at giving out false information than anyone I've seen posting here. And you obviously don't get financial gain from doing it, so you must just do it out of character defect. PD
From: PD on 3 Aug 2010 11:51
On Aug 2, 7:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 12:39 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > >news:531f91bf-82e6-4697-bfaa-1649844f3915(a)x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com.... > > > >On Jul 30, 5:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "rbwinn" wrote in message > > >> >On Jul 28, 7:24 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > >> >> "rbwinn" wrote in message > > >> >> 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. > > >> >whoever, > > >> > I thought I told you once. There is no clock in the moving frame > > >> >of reference that shows t'. A clock in S shows t' because t'=t in the > > >> >Galilean transformation equations. The time on a clock going at any > > >> >other rate has to be converted to t' before it can be used in the > > >> >Galilean transformation equations. > > > >> Still avoiding the simple questions eh. 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. > > > >Well, here are the equations. t is the time on a clock in S, a frame > > >of reference at rest. n' is time on a clock in motion. > > > > x'=x-vt > > > y'=y > > > z'=z > > > t'=t > > > There is no n' there. > > > What is the mathematical relationship between what a clock at rest in one > > (arbitrary) inertial frame compared to that of a clock at rest in some other > > (arbitrary) inertial frame? > > > > Scientists show no consistency in the information they > > >disseminate. > > > Lie > > > > One scientist will claim that a moving clock is slower, > > > the next will claim that a moving clock is faster. > > > Lie > > > > What they are > > > saying is that n' is not t' because t'=t, the time on a clock in S. > > > If you claim t' = t, but t' is NOT the time showing on a correct clock. > > Then what is t? And what is the mathematical relationship between what a > > clock at rest in one (arbitrary) inertial frame compared to that of a clock > > at rest in some other (arbitrary) inertial frame? > > > >So in order to use the time on the moving clock, its time has to be > > >converted to the time shown by t'=t. Then it can be used in the > > >Galilean transformation equations. So from the information scientists > > >have given, we can say > > > > n'=F(t) > > > > Once it is determined what the relationship of n' is to t, then n' > > >can be converted to t', and the problem can be solved. > > > So .. yet again you fail to answer.... what is the mathematical relationship > > between what a clock at rest in one (arbitrary) inertial frame compared to > > that of a clock at rest in some other (arbitrary) inertial frame? > > I did not say anything about any frames of reference except S and S' > as they are described by the Galilean transformation equations. > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t > > The equations say S is at rest and S' is moving. No, they don't. Whatever gave you that ridiculous idea? > If you are going to claim that S' can be the frame of reference at > rest and S is moving, as Einstein did with his inertial idea, then you > will quickly see that it does not agree with what was shown from the > other frame of reference. First of all, the clock in S' is slower > than the clock in S. That means that it shows a faster speed for S > relative to S' than was shown from the clock in S. Second, the laws > of physics are not the same in S' the way Einstein's postulate says if > the slower clock is used. If a ball is dropped in S', it hits the > floor sooner by the clock in S' than by the clock in S. So the > acceleration on the ball is more than 32 ft/sec/sec using the S' clock. |