correct representation of slower clocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: PD on 24 Jul 2010 10:50 On Jul 23, 3:52 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 12:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > >news:a4b1e0e1-2e42-4a28-ab27-32ce66e30a87(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com.... > > > >On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > >>news:9c342fcd-ef8d-4b43-9ba3-c17cd82876ef(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >On Jul 22, 10:28 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> Inertial wrote: > > > >> >> [snip all] > > > >> >> rbwinn has nothing to say except the same thing he has been saying for > > >> >> ~15 > > >> >> years now. Just like the seto, the rbwinn deserves short bursts of > > >> >> contempt > > >> >> or straight up killfiling. > > > >> >The problem I see for you, eric, is that I am right > > > >> No .. you just proved yourself wrong. Galilean transforms do not agree > > >> with > > >> what happens in reality. You showed it very nicely. > > > >A parrot could do what you are doing just as well. > > > it is indeed very easy to show you are wrong. You did it yourself. > > > > Here, if you think > > >you want to talk to me, solve this little problem. In the Etvos > > >experiment, a clock was put in the nosecone of a Vanguard missile and > > >recovered and compared to a clock kept on the ground. The clock in > > >the missile nosecone showed less time. > > > So, Galilean transforms (which say there is no change in time when you > > change inertial frames) is refuted. Thanks for playing. > > This is not a game, Inertial. How does a slower clock change time? It doesn't. But time changes, and this does affect the way that all clocks with that relative motion display time, even the ones that work properly. > I > bought an alarm clock that lost ten minutes every day. How did that > affect time at your house? If you see a clock that loses time, it could either be due to something wrong with the clock or something that is different with time. Fortunately, there's a really simple way to tell the difference between these two things. You collect a bunch of clocks of different designs, different operational principles, different materials, and so on. If all the clocks lose time identically, then you can be pretty sure that the cause does not have to do with something being wrong with the clocks. After all, it's highly unlikely that clocks of wildly different mechanisms would all lose time identically if the problem was in the clock. This would then lead a normal person to think that something was different with time. And if you had a theory about time that told you IN ADVANCE how much time each of the clocks would lose, regardless of the mechanism of the clock, then a normal person would think that the theory probably is right. Now, an abnormal and unbalanced person might still reject the theory and say, "I don't believe it, and I believe scientists have all conspired to lie and have secretly arranged to have all those different clocks run slow by the same amount, just so that they could convince people the theory is right." And then the abnormal and unbalanced person would put another layer of aluminum foil on the screen door of his trailer. PD
From: rbwinn on 24 Jul 2010 14:43 On Jul 24, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 6:08 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 11:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >"rbwinn" wrote in message > > > >news:114f2da8-f6d4-4a98-8af4-79dd4e710f71(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > > > >On Jul 22, 10:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > >>news:3f93b27a-8cb5-48fa-a85a-bd880bd73984(a)x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> > You did not prove anything > > > > >> You proved Galilean transforms do not work .. in that they are > > > >> contradicted > > > >> by what we observe experimentally. I just pointed out that you did it. > > > > >> > except that you are capable of saying, > > > >> > Absolute time, absolute time, absolute time, just as I predicted.. > > > > >> Funny .. you predict that the thing the shows Galilean transforms are > > > >> incorrect would be used to prove Galilean transforms are incorrect.. Not > > > >> a > > > >> terribly clever prediction. > > > > >> Nor does your prediction reduce in anyway the validity of the arguments > > > >> that > > > >> refute Galilean transforms, because those transforms mean that time is > > > >> the > > > >> same in all frames (and we know, and you admit, that time is NOT the same > > > >> in > > > >> all frames). > > > > >> > I already proved what I set out to prove. > > > > >> No .. You proved Galilean transforms do not work. That's not what you > > > >> set > > > >> out to prove. But you did it anyway. > > > > >Whatever. > > > > What a dishonest way of ignoring that you've just proved yourself wrong. > > > Galilean transforms mean time is the same everywhere, reality shows > > > otherwise, so Galilean transforms do not work in realirty. Simple. And you > > > just proved it yourself > > > Well, I am just using the Galilean transformation equations to > > describe the rotation of the earth. For you scientists, the earth > > rotates every 24 hours. > > That's not quite so, Robert. For scientists, the Earth rotates in 24 > hours only in a particular frame of reference. In other frames of > reference, the rotation rate is different. You sound like you're > shocked to hear that. > > Time has not been based on the rotation of the earth for a long, long > time, and for good reason. > > > > > From S the earth rotates once every 24 > > hours. From S', the earth rotates once every 24 hours. The Galilean > > transformation equations show this with the equation t'=t. See, 24 > > hours = 24 hours. Amazing how mathematics works. Well, what you are saying is that a person who is moving is not allowed to say that it takes the earth 24 hours to rotate, but it is OK to say that something that moves has a length contraction. I know how you scientists are sticklers for rules. So how did they enforce it with the astronauts when they were in orbit? They had been taught that the earth rotates every 24 hours. Now, of course, the clock in their spacecraft did not show the earth rotating every 24 hours, but they had been taught that all of their lives. So what did they do, send them to a special class taught by scientists to keep them from saying that the earth rotated every twenty four hours while they were making their spaceflights?
From: rbwinn on 24 Jul 2010 14:48 On Jul 24, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 9:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 4:35 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > >news:6b2e9130-354e-45aa-a6fb-64780df93f6e(a)y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com.... > > > > >On Jul 22, 11:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> >"rbwinn" wrote in message > > > >> What a dishonest way of ignoring that you've just proved yourself wrong. > > > >> Galilean transforms mean time is the same everywhere, reality shows > > > >> otherwise, so Galilean transforms do not work in realirty. Simple. And > > > >> you > > > >> just proved it yourself > > > > >Well, I am just using the Galilean transformation equations to > > > >describe the rotation of the earth. > > > > They say the time is the same everywhere, whether you talk about earth of a > > > spaceship or the sun or some little green man on the other side of the > > > universe. > > > > > For you scientists, the earth > > > > rotates every 24 hours. > > > > Close enough. Galilean transforms say ALL correct clocks will agree on > > > that. But in reality it depends on who measures it. As your own example > > > shows. > > > > > From S the earth rotates once every 24 > > > > hours. From S', the earth rotates once every 24 hours. > > > > Nope .. you just showed that from a missile it take less time to rotate. > > > Try to keep up. > > > > > The Galilean > > > >transformation equations show this with the equation t'=t. > > > > Yes they do .. glad you agree. > > > > > See, 24 > > > >hours = 24 hours. Amazing how mathematics works. > > > > And how it doesn't correspond to reality in this case. Because according to > > > the time in a missile, it takes less than 24 hours. > > > I am talking about reality, Inertial. The earth rotates every 24 > > hours. > > In a particular reference frame. In others, not. > > The earth can rotate once every 24 hours in any frame of reference if the earth is being used as a reference for time. What do you think time is, anyway?
From: rbwinn on 24 Jul 2010 14:55 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. Newton and Galileo were both capable of more than memorizing procedures. Both of them actually worked the mathematics and derived equations.
From: rbwinn on 24 Jul 2010 14:57
On Jul 24, 7:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 3:52 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 12:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > >news:a4b1e0e1-2e42-4a28-ab27-32ce66e30a87(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com.... > > > > >On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > >>news:9c342fcd-ef8d-4b43-9ba3-c17cd82876ef(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >On Jul 22, 10:28 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> Inertial wrote: > > > > >> >> [snip all] > > > > >> >> rbwinn has nothing to say except the same thing he has been saying for > > > >> >> ~15 > > > >> >> years now. Just like the seto, the rbwinn deserves short bursts of > > > >> >> contempt > > > >> >> or straight up killfiling. > > > > >> >The problem I see for you, eric, is that I am right > > > > >> No .. you just proved yourself wrong. Galilean transforms do not agree > > > >> with > > > >> what happens in reality. You showed it very nicely. > > > > >A parrot could do what you are doing just as well. > > > > it is indeed very easy to show you are wrong. You did it yourself. > > > > > Here, if you think > > > >you want to talk to me, solve this little problem. In the Etvos > > > >experiment, a clock was put in the nosecone of a Vanguard missile and > > > >recovered and compared to a clock kept on the ground. The clock in > > > >the missile nosecone showed less time. > > > > So, Galilean transforms (which say there is no change in time when you > > > change inertial frames) is refuted. Thanks for playing. > > > This is not a game, Inertial. How does a slower clock change time? > > It doesn't. But time changes, and this does affect the way that all > clocks with that relative motion display time, even the ones that work > properly. > > > I > > bought an alarm clock that lost ten minutes every day. How did that > > affect time at your house? > > If you see a clock that loses time, it could either be due to > something wrong with the clock or something that is different with > time. > > Fortunately, there's a really simple way to tell the difference > between these two things. > > You collect a bunch of clocks of different designs, different > operational principles, different materials, and so on. > If all the clocks lose time identically, then you can be pretty sure > that the cause does not have to do with something being wrong with the > clocks. > After all, it's highly unlikely that clocks of wildly different > mechanisms would all lose time identically if the problem was in the > clock. > This would then lead a normal person to think that something was > different with time. > > And if you had a theory about time that told you IN ADVANCE how much > time each of the clocks would lose, regardless of the mechanism of the > clock, then a normal person would think that the theory probably is > right. > > Now, an abnormal and unbalanced person might still reject the theory > and say, "I don't believe it, and I believe scientists have all > conspired to lie and have secretly arranged to have all those > different clocks run slow by the same amount, just so that they could > convince people the theory is right." And then the abnormal and > unbalanced person would put another layer of aluminum foil on the > screen door of his trailer. > > PD I think scientists are all like you. They all believe there is a length contraction. That does not make them bad people, just incompetent at math. |