correct representation of slower clocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: BURT on 27 Jul 2010 16:22 On Jul 26, 7:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When passing the station at high speed the train is supposed observe the station's clock running slow. But if it is running slow how would that same clock be aging faster along with the station? Mitch Raemsch
From: rbwinn on 27 Jul 2010 22:42 On Jul 25, 8:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "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. Time is relative. Clocks are slower.
From: rbwinn on 27 Jul 2010 22:44 On Jul 26, 7:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Well, sorry I hurt your feelings. I thought I told you in the beginning that I was going to keep using the Galilean transformation equations.
From: rbwinn on 27 Jul 2010 22:45 On Jul 26, 7:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No, I know what it means. Scientists are using the wrong equations.
From: rbwinn on 27 Jul 2010 22:49
On Jul 26, 7:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Oh, well this is different. So you are saying that the satellite has a lower altitude from the frame of reference of the satellite. You are the first scientist I have seen say this. OK, then, I will explain what I believe. The slower clock does not mean the altitude is lower. It means that the clock is slower and is showing a faster speed for the satellite because the length of the orbit is still the same. > > > > > 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 - |