correct representation of slower clocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: BURT on 3 Aug 2010 15:57 On Aug 3, 8:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If time slow down is mutual one clock cannot age more. Mitch Raemsch
From: YBM on 3 Aug 2010 16:15 BURT a �crit : > If time slow down is mutual one clock cannot age more. As absurd as usual, this time not even written in english.
From: BURT on 3 Aug 2010 16:38 On Aug 3, 1:15 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > BURT a écrit : > > > If time slow down is mutual one clock cannot age more. > > As absurd as usual, this time not even written in english.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 3 Aug 2010 17:12 On 30.07.2010 09:27, rbwinn 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, I have decided to use the Galilean transformation equations, > and scientists can do whatever they decide to do. Here is an example of how scientists of today make GR match the experimental result: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/ I am sure you can see that what Ashby is doing is that he worked the arithmetic wrong. So can you please point out where his error is, and show us how to use the Galilean transform to predict how a clock in GPS orbit will behave. You can do that, can't you? Or can't you? :-) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Paul B. Andersen on 3 Aug 2010 17:18
On 30.07.2010 21:32, rbwinn wrote: > On Jul 30, 5:24 am, YBM<ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> rbwinn a �crit : >> >>> 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. Hilarious, no? :-) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |