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 25 Jul 2010 23:40 On Jul 25, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"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) Your questions are completely off-topic and irrelevant, but I will answer them anyway. 1. Measurements of length are the same in different frames of reference. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. 2. Measurements of the ticking rate of a clock are slower if the clock is in motion relative to the frame of reference with the clock that shows t in the Galilean transformation equations. 3. If two clocks are at rest, they both show the same time regardless of the motion of an observer.
From: Inertial on 25 Jul 2010 23:44 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:369cd03a-7da5-4d94-a308-935f84476a64(a)g6g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 25, 3:34 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [snip] >> You have two choices here >> >> 1) Gallilean transforms do not apply and time is slower for something >> moving (like the missile in your examploe). If this is the case .. >> what transform DOES apply for time in different frames? >> 2) Gallilean transforms DO apply, but all clocks and processes run >> slow for something moving (like the missile in your examploe). If >> this is the case .. what transform applies what clocks read in >> different frames? > >The Galilean transformation equations work in any application. They >treat all slower clocks the same. Avoiding the questions gain, eh? Typical .. can't get a straight answer out of you .. but lets try again anyway .. maybe you'll be honest for once... We have that ONE of these two alternatives hold true: 1) Galilean transforms do not apply and time is slower for something moving (like the missile in your example). If this is the case .. what transform DOES apply for time in different frames? 2) Galilean transforms DO apply, but all clocks and processes run slow for something moving (like the missile in your example). If this is the case .. what transform applies to what clocks read in different frames? Which is it .. can be only one or the other. You seem afraid to answer .. just need to know which of the two possible answers: 1 or 2 And then, for an extra test of your honesty .. answer the corresponding question for whichever of 1 or 2 you say is correct. Come on RB .. show some backbone and state which one of the two possibilities bove you think is the case.
From: Inertial on 25 Jul 2010 23:59 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:0352950e-30d4-4e0b-9915-137e55183aaf(a)w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 25, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> 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) > >Your questions are completely off-topic and irrelevant, BAHAHAHAHAHA > but I will >answer them anyway. What a novelty .. though you still couldn't manage answer with just a,b,c, or d for the answer .. what are you afraid of? >1. Measurements of length are the same in different frames of >reference. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. So you answer was a ... why not just say so? So you agree with the x'=x, y'=y and z'=z of Galilean transforms (which apply between how different frames measure things) >2. Measurements of the ticking rate of a clock are slower if the clock >is in motion relative to the frame of reference with the clock that >shows t in the Galilean transformation equations. So you answer is b .. why not just say so? So you DISAGREE with the t'=t of Galilean transforms (which apply between how different frames measure things) What then IS the relationship between what a moving observer measures as the ticking rate of a clock, compared to when an observer at rest with the clock measures ? >3. If two clocks are at rest, they both show the same time regardless >of the motion of an observer. OK .. so by what you said above, you reject Galilean transforms as the relationship between what different observers measure for the lengths of objects and the rate at which clocks tick, instead you have *some* of the Galilean transforms applying x' = x y' = y z' = z but NOT the relationship t' = t for clocks (you say clocks are not measured to tick at the same rate, so they can't always show the same time) Now all you need to do is put in what the relationship between what a moving observer (S') reads on his clock, t', when an at-rest clock reading is reading t. If you want to use different letters .. that doesn't matter .. its still describing the relationship between what the two clocks read. So ... what is the relationship between what a moving clocks reads compared to an at-rest clock.
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 10:11 On Jul 25, 10:40 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >"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) > > Your questions are completely off-topic and irrelevant, but I will > answer them anyway. > 1. Measurements of length are the same in different frames of > reference. That is what the Galilean transformation equations show. Equations do not show what the results of measurements are. Measurements do. Actual measurements. > 2. Measurements of the ticking rate of a clock are slower if the clock > is in motion relative to the frame of reference with the clock that > shows t in the Galilean transformation equations. > 3. If two clocks are at rest, they both show the same time regardless > of the motion of an observer.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 10:15
On Jul 24, 2:57 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So, what you are suggesting is that rather than seeing if two different observers make actual measurements to see which set of transformations are correct, it's better if one observer just tells the other observer not to bother measuring at all, and just to take his word for it that the Galilean transformations are correct. Ah. > Are you saying that the satellite has a different altitude in the > frame of reference of the satellite than is observed from the ground? Yes, of course. > > > > 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. No, the Lorentz transforms and general relativity do NOT say v is the same from either frame of reference. That would be true for an inertial reference frame, but not for a satellite circling the earth. > > > > 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. No, only for inertial reference frames, Bobby. It would help if you would learn what special and general relativity actually say. > > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |