Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: rbwinn on 24 Jul 2010 15:47
On Jul 24, 7:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 11:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >         There seems little doubt that the clock in the nosecone of the
> > Vanguard missile was slower than the clock on the ground by the amount
> > the equations showed, but we are still brought to a conflict of
> > interpretation by the fact that the equations used to make the
> > calculation of time for the slower clock incorporate a length
> > contraction which does not manifest itself in the parameters of the
> > experiment.
>
> And how do you know that length contraction did not manifest itself?
> Where in this experiment was the measurement of length that did not
> agree with a prediction of length contraction?
> If in an experiment you do not even bother to measure a length, does
> this tell you that length contraction did not occur?
>
> > For instance, suppose that the Vanguard missile had been
> > put in orbit around the earth instead of falling back to earth and
> > recovered.  How do we then calculate the rate of the clock in the
> > nosecone?
>
> It would have involved a different calculation with the same
> principles.

The measurement of length that did not agree with a prediction of
length contraction was the distance between where the missile was
launched and the point where it landed.
From: rbwinn on 24 Jul 2010 15:57
On Jul 24, 7:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> 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.  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 nosecone and a
> > clock on the moon.  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.
>
> And indeed, the same would be predicted by relativity in the case you
> mention!
>
> > Both clocks would be slightly slower than a
> > clock on earth.
>
> Which is different than what the Galilean transformations and
> Newtonian mechanics predicts.
> Newton was in fact quite emphatic that time was absolute and
> immutable, regardless of where it is measured.
>
> What happens to clocks in orbit actually agrees with relativity very
> well.
>
> >  So now let us consider a third satellite at the same
> > altitude that has an astronaut.
> >          "Calculate your speed," the astronaut is instructed.  The
> > astronaut knows his exact altitude.
>
> How does he know his exact altitude, Robert?
There are a number of ways it could be done. To avoid confusion, maybe
we should have scientists on the ground tell him what it is.
Are you saying that the satellite has a different altitude in the
frame of reference of the satellite than is observed from the ground?

> >  From this he knows the exact
> > length of his orbit.  He times one orbit with the clock in his
> > satellite and divides that time into the length of his orbit.  Does he
> > get a length contraction or does he get a faster speed for his
> > satellite than an observer on the ground making the same calculation?
> >        You cannot make this calculation with Einstein's theory of
> > relativity.
>
> Actually, you can. I'm shocked that you think it can't be done.

OK, make the calculation. How do you get a faster speed for the
satellite using the Lorentz equations or General Relativity? They
both say v is the same from either frame of reference.
>
> > It requires a length contraction and the same speed
> > calculated from the satellite as observed from the ground.
>
> What on earth makes you say THAT, Robert?
>
v is the same from either frame of reference in Special or General
Relativity.
>
> >  So,
> > although Einstein's equations give an answer that agrees with
> > experimental data for time, the equations do not agree with reality
> > with regard to distance.

From: Tom Roberts on 24 Jul 2010 18:06
rbwinn 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 [...]

The REAL problem is that you got it all screwed up. Your description is totally
and completely wrong, in MANY details:

1. It was a SCOUT rocket.

2. The rocket flew in the late 1970s, and the papers reporting
scientific results were published in 1979 and 1980.

3. Neither the rocket nor its clock were recovered. They compared
the on-board clock to a ground-based clock via telemetry
signals. Yes, MULTIPLE signals -- why they used three is
of considerable interest, and greatly reduced their errorbars.

4. Overall, the rocket clock was FASTER than the ground clock.

5. Onboard was a Hydrogen maser, not a "cesium clock". And it was
not in the "nosecone" (the science package was far too large).

6. They did not claim "exactly the amount predicted", they
claimed agreement with GENERAL Relativity at the 70 ppm level.

7. This is by no means the "most famous experiment" about relativity.

8. I know of no other experiment with "the same reported results".
But there are LOTS of experiments with results consistent with
the predictions of SR, and no believable and reproducible ones
that are inconsistent with SR.

How can you possibly hope to do anything worthwhile when you cannot even get
basic facts correct? You would be well advised to stop wasting your time on this
and do something that is within your (limited) abilities.


Tom Roberts
From: rbwinn on 25 Jul 2010 00:19
On Jul 24, 3:06 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> rbwinn 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 [...]
>
> The REAL problem is that you got it all screwed up. Your description is totally
> and completely wrong, in MANY details:
>
>         1. It was a SCOUT rocket.
>
>         2. The rocket flew in the late 1970s, and the papers reporting
>            scientific results were published in 1979 and 1980..
>
>         3. Neither the rocket nor its clock were recovered. They compared
>            the on-board clock to a ground-based clock via telemetry
>            signals. Yes, MULTIPLE signals -- why they used three is
>            of considerable interest, and greatly reduced their errorbars.
>
>         4. Overall, the rocket clock was FASTER than the ground clock.
>
>         5. Onboard was a Hydrogen maser, not a "cesium clock". And it was
>            not in the "nosecone" (the science package was far too large).
>
>         6. They did not claim "exactly the amount predicted", they
>            claimed agreement with GENERAL Relativity at the 70 ppm level.
>
>         7. This is by no means the "most famous experiment" about relativity.
>
>         8. I know of no other experiment with "the same reported results".
>            But there are LOTS of experiments with results consistent with
>            the predictions of SR, and no believable and reproducible ones
>            that are inconsistent with SR.
>
> How can you possibly hope to do anything worthwhile when you cannot even get
> basic facts correct? You would be well advised to stop wasting your time on this
> and do something that is within your (limited) abilities.
>
> Tom Roberts

No, Tom, I am talking about the Etvos experiment which took place in
1958 and was reported to agree with the mathematics of Einstein's
theory with regard to the slower clock in the nosecone of the
missile. What are you trying to say, that this experiment you
describe disproved the Etvos experiment?
From: Inertial on 25 Jul 2010 22:44
>"rbwinn" wrote in message
>news:d9d01d61-d162-4090-b2c8-a1528ce45568(a)t5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
[snip]

Lets see if RB is honest enough to clarify his position here with simple
direct answers to a couple of questions. Here's three multiple-choice
questions for you RB.

1) Are the measurements of the length of an object (in general)
a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring it
b) smaller if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the object
c) larger if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the object
d) smaller or larger depending on the motion, if the observer measuring
it (using his own rulers and clocks) is in motion wrt the object

2) Are the measurements of the ticking rate of a clock
a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring it
b) slower if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the clock
c) faster if the observer measuring it is in motion wrt the clock
d) slower or faster depending on the motion, if the observer measuring
it is in motion wrt the clock

3) Are the differences in times shown on a pair of mutually at rest
separated clocks (in general)
a) always the same regardless of the motion of the observer measuring
them
b) different if the observer measuring them is in motion wrt the clocks

NOTE: That in the above we assume that observer use their own clocks and
rulers, at rest wrt them, for making measurements.

OK .. what are you answers ... no need for any lengthy explanations, or
ad-homs about scientists. I just want to know what your position is:

1)
2)
3)

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER