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 6 Aug 2010 11:29 On Aug 3, 2:12 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > 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/ Well, yes I can to the extent that the Galilean transformation equations predict it. They only account for position and time, not gravitation, which you were quick to point out only scientists have the information about, so here is what the Galilean transformation equations predict. You have a satellite in GPS orbit. The satellite has a velocity in its orbit of v as measured from earth. According to the Galilean transformation equations, if a clock in the satellite shows light to be traveling at c, then by the Galilean transformation equations, that clock cannot be showing t' because t'=t. According to the Galilean transformation equations, if a clock in the satellite is showing c, then x=ct x'=cn' where n' is the time on the clock in the satellite. From this we can determine the time on the clock in the satellite. x'=x-vt cn'=ct-vt n'=t(1-v/c) This does not account for any difference in times attributable to gravitation.
From: rbwinn on 6 Aug 2010 11:31 On Aug 3, 8:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Yes, and you do not think I bathe often enough. Why don't you just go ahead and move into my trailer house and live my life, PD, and I can go do something else?
From: rbwinn on 6 Aug 2010 11:35 On Aug 3, 8:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I use experimental evidence. For example, I used the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment to derive my equation for time on a slower clock in S'. x=ct x'=cn' x'=x-vt cn'=ct-vt n'=t(1-v/c) That does not mean I trust the scientists who conducted and interpreted the Michelson-Morley experiment. I just used the information they gave to work the mathematics correctly.
From: PD on 6 Aug 2010 12:16 On Aug 6, 10:35 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I use experimental evidence. For example, I used the results of the > Michelson-Morley experiment to derive my equation for time on a slower > clock in S'. No you didn't. There was no clock measurement in the Michelson Morley experiment. You're lying. You know it. What does that make you, Robert? > > x=ct > x'=cn' > > x'=x-vt > cn'=ct-vt > n'=t(1-v/c) > > That does not mean I trust the scientists who conducted and > interpreted the Michelson-Morley experiment. I just used the > information they gave to work the mathematics correctly.
From: PD on 6 Aug 2010 12:17
On Aug 6, 10:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > Yes, and you do not think I bathe often enough. Why don't you just go > ahead and move into my trailer house and live my life, PD, and I can > go do something else? Why would I want to live in a life you've created for yourself, Bobby? You've done it for you. The way I see it, you can choose to do something else anytime you want. PD |