Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 10:19
On Jul 24, 2:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.


I think you are confused about what length contraction says. If you
thought it meant that the landing would happen someplace different
than where it did, then I'm afraid you have no idea what length
contraction even means.
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 10:21
On Jul 24, 1:57 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

That's fine that you have that opinion, Bobby, but it is irrelevant to
the question you asked earlier, and to which I gave you an answer.

I see that you enjoy asking questions and then ignoring the answers.
This is just like you.
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 10:29
On Jul 24, 1:43 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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,

Well, they can certainly *say* that, Robert, but it would be foolish
to do so. It would be fine for a moving observer to say that *to an
observer at rest relative to the Earth* it takes the Earth 24 hours to
rotate. But to say it without that qualifation would make the
statement wrong. A moving observer can *measure* the rotation of the
earth, and they would discover that the rotation is not 24 hours afer
all.

> 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?

No, they just told the astronauts that time dilation or length
contraction was not going to be tested on the flight, and they agreed
to use whatever reading showed up on the clock on the ground. For the
practical purpose it hand, it was convenient to do so, though if they
had needed to make time measurements with a lot of precision, that
convenience would have gotten in the way.
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 11:35
On Jul 24, 1:48 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but the earth is not used as a reference for time, and for really
good reasons.

You can use it if you want for welder purposes, and I'm sure it was
good enough for instruments of Galileo's day. But it's woefully
inadequate for scientists today who need a time standard of MUCH
higher precision.

>  What do you think
> time is, anyway?
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 11:49
On Jul 24, 11:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

The Etvos experiment was performed in 1889. Perhaps you mean something
else, Bobby. Or perhaps your head has turned to pudding.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER