Real experiment to test mutual time dilation
Tom Roberts
merely displays various peoples' ignorance, and other peoples' ill-fated
attempts to explain physics to them. Rather than get mired down in such
nonsense, I though I'd discuss a real experiment that can be interpreted as
measuring mutual time dilation.
Classically, the Doppler shift of light is given by
f' = f (1 - (v/c) cos(theta))
Where f is the frequency of the source in its rest frame, v is the velocity of
the source relative to the lab, theta is the angle between the light ray and the
velocity of the source, and f' is the frequency measured in the lab.
In SR, the Doppler shift of light is instead given by
f' = f gamma (1 - (v/c) cos(theta))
where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). The origin of the factor of gamma can be traced
directly to the time dilation between inertial frames; note it is independent of
direction.
Doppler shift measurements of sources moving relative to the lab are common, and
the SR formula is known to be valid to high accuracy for sources moving relative
to a detector in the lab. So validation of the above formula using a moving
detector and a lab source would be a test of mutual time dilation.
The following experiment did just that:
Saathoff, G., Karpuk, S., Eisenbarth, U., Huber, G., Krohn, S., Horta,
R.M., Reinhardt, S., Schwalm, D., Wolf, A., and Gwinner, G., “Improved
Test of Time Dilation in Special Relativity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91,
190403, (2003).
Their detector is a beam of Li+ ions moving with speed 0.064 c. The basic idea
is that the beam from their lab laser must have the correct frequency in the
ion's rest frame to excite the lithium ion transition, and they scan the laser
frequency to determine that. So they have the pieces required to test the SR
formula for Doppler shift IN THE ION'S FRAME:
f = measured frequency of the laser (in the lab) at transition
f' = known frequency of the Li+ ion transition
v = measured speed of the lab relative to the ion frame (= minus
the speed of the ion beam relative to the lab)
cos(theta) = +-1 due to the construction of the apparatus
They confirmed the SR formula to 0.22 parts per million (read the paper for a
more precise statement).
[Their actual technique was spectacular, using two counter-
propagating laser beams and a double resonance, in order to
reduce systematic errors (read the paper for details). They
used Li+ because it happens to have a suitable meta-stable
state with triplet hyperfine splitting.]
Interestingly, in contrast to some people around here, neither the authors nor
the referees thought it important to point out that in this experiment it was
the detector that is moving, not the source. An inertial frame is an inertial
frame, and all are equivalent.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Divine Albert's Divine Theory seems to be perfect now and for that
reason the confirmations are not fraudulent at all. The classical
technique was no so perfect and accordingly the confirmations were all
fraudulent:
The three classical tests of Einstein's general relativity - the 1919
measurement of the deflection of starlight, Mercury's anomalous
perihelion advance and Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement of
Sirius B gravitational redshift (in a world different from
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world "classical" would be replaced by
"fraudulent"):
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's
theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and
the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse
measurements to confirm general relativity."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not
be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in
progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition,
observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed
deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a
German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of
reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic,
therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that
expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were
trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of
knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in
science."
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it
on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington
declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged
the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No
wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'expédition britannique envoie deux équipes
indépendantes sur le trajet de l'éclipse : l'une dirigée par Andrew
Crommelin dans la ville de Sobral, dans le nord du Brésil, l'autre
conduite par Eddington lui-même sur l'île de Principe, en face de
Libreville, au Gabon. Le matériel embarqué est des plus sommaires au
regard des moyens actuels : une lunette astronomique de seulement 20
cm de diamètre en chaque lieu, avec un instrument de secours de 10 cm
à Sobral. Pour éviter l'emploi d'une monture mécanique trop lourde à
transporter, la lumière est dirigée vers les lunettes par de simples
miroirs mobiles, ce qui se révélera être une bien mauvaise idée. La
stratégie est assez complexe. Il s'agit d'exposer des plaques
photographiques durant l'éclipse pour enregistrer la position d'un
maximum d'étoiles autour du Soleil, puis de comparer avec des plaques
témoins de la même région du ciel obtenues de nuit, quelques mois plus
tard. La différence des positions entre les deux séries de plaques,
avec et sans le Soleil, serait la preuve de l'effet de la relativité
et le résultat est bien sûr connu à l'avance. Problème non
négligeable : la différence attendue est minuscule. Au maximum, au
bord même du Soleil, l'écart prévu est seulement de un demi dix-
millième de degré, soit très précisément 1,75 seconde d'arc (1,75"),
correspondant à l'écart entre les deux bords d'une pièce de monnaie
observée à 3 km de distance ! Or, quantités d'effets parasites peuvent
contaminer les mesures, la qualité de l'émulsion photographique, les
variations dans l'atmosphère terrestre, la dilatation des miroirs...
Le jour J, l'équipe brésilienne voit le ciel se dégager au dernier
moment mais Eddington n'aperçoit l'éclipse qu'à travers les nuages !
Sa quête est très maigre, tout juste deux plaques sur lesquelles on
distingue à peine cinq étoiles. Pressé de rentrer en Angleterre,
Eddington ne prend même pas la précaution d'attendre les plaques
témoins. Les choses vont beaucoup mieux à Sobral : 19 plaques avec
plus d'une dizaine d'étoiles et huit plaques prises avec la lunette de
secours. L'équipe reste sur place deux mois pour réaliser les fameuses
plaques témoins et, le 25 août, tout le monde est en Angleterre.
Eddington se lance dans des calculs qu'il est le seul à contrôler,
décidant de corriger ses propres mesures avec des plaques obtenues
avec un autre instrument, dans une autre région du ciel, autour
d'Arcturus. Il conclut finalement à une déviation comprise entre 1,31"
et 1,91" : le triomphe d'Einstein est assuré ! Très peu sûr de sa
méthode, Eddington attend anxieusement les résultats de l'autre
expédition qui arrivent en octobre, comme une douche froide : suivant
une méthode d'analyse rigoureuse, l'instrument principal de Sobral a
mesuré une déviation de seulement 0,93". La catastrophe est en vue.
S'ensuivent de longues tractations entre Eddington et Dyson,
directeurs respectifs des observatoires de Cambridge et de Greenwich.
On repêche alors les données de la lunette de secours de Sobral, qui a
le bon goût de produire comme résultat un confortable 1,98", et le
tour de passe-passe est joué. Dans la publication historique de la
Royal Society, on lit comme justification une simple note : "Il reste
les plaques astrographiques de Sobral qui donnent une déviation de
0,93", discordantes par une quantité au-delà des limites des erreurs
accidentelles. Pour les raisons déjà longuement exposées, peu de poids
est accordé à cette détermination." Plus loin, apparaît la conclusion
catégorique: "Les résultats de Sobral et Principe laissent peu de
doute qu'une déviation de la lumière existe au voisinage du Soleil et
qu'elle est d'une amplitude exigée par la théorie de la relativité
généralisée d'Einstein." Les données gênantes ont donc tout simplement
été escamotées."
http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/26/l-erreur-d-einstein-la-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'épilogue du dernier test de la relativité,
celui de l'orbite de Mercure, est encore plus passionnant. Ce fut en
réalité un test a posteriori de la théorie, puisque la prédiction a
fait suite à l'observation et ne l'a pas précédée. L'accord est
stupéfiant. Le décalage observé dans la position de Mercure est de
43,11" par siècle, tandis que la prédiction de la relativité est de
42,98" par siècle ! Cette révision de l'horloge cosmique est toujours
considérée comme le grand succès d'Einstein, mais elle est encore sous
l'épée de Damoclès. En effet, des scientifiques soupçonnent que le
Soleil pourrait ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique et un
"aplatissement" réel introduirait une correction supplémentaire. La
précision actuelle deviendrait alors le talon d'Achille compromettant
le bel accord de la théorie."
http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN
KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS'
MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY
A FACTOR OF FOUR."
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet Bidaud: "Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on
découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très
faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut
supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite
qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à
cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles
caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur
gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation
est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée
pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse
aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson,
en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker
entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une
température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même,
le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20
km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le
grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la
mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il
mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de
corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique,
le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s,
et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés
comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test
de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se
congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat,
pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance
effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était
largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington,
l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup
plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge
mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses
plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné
d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude
a bien été envisagée."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
the source of the wave, the frequency he measures increases and, in
accordance with the formula:
(frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)
either the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) increases as
well or the wavelength decreases. Your brothers Einsteinians believe
it is the wavelength that decreases:
http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
What do YOU think, Honest Roberts? If you agree with brothers
Einsteinians, how do you explain the variation of the wavelength with
the speed of the observer?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
> By the way, Honest Roberts, when the observer starts moving towards
> the source of the wave, the frequency he measures increases and, in
> accordance with the formula:
>
> (frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)
>
> either the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) increases as
> well or the wavelength decreases. Your brothers Einsteinians believe
> it is the wavelength that decreases:
Not just believe, Pentcho. *Measured*, as with a diffraction grating.
>
> http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
> "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
> The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
> frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
> ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
> to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...
> John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
> pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
> BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
>
> What do YOU think, Honest Roberts? If you agree with brothers
> Einsteinians, how do you explain the variation of the wavelength with
> the speed of the observer?
For some waves, as in water waves, the wavelength changes with the
speed.
For some waves, as in light, the wavelength changes inversely with the
frequency, and the speed is constant.
Just because one is true in one case doesn't mean it's the same in the
other case.
Measurement tells you otherwise.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> On Aug 31, 1:19 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
> > "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
> > The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
> > frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
> > ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
> > to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."
>
> > John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> > were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
> > pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> > mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> > have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
> > BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
>
> speed.
> For some waves, as in light, the wavelength changes inversely with the
> frequency, and the speed is constant.
> Just because one is true in one case doesn't mean it's the same in the
> other case.
Clever Draper, the gradation:
clever relativists -> silly relativists -> ....
has a long continuation to the right and I am sure your students will
now place you at the right end. Are they reading this?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:18a1589a-1ffc-40c8...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 31, 1:19 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By the way, Honest Roberts, when the observer starts moving towards
> the source of the wave, the frequency he measures increases and, in
> accordance with the formula:
>
> (frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)
>
> either the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) increases as
> well or the wavelength decreases. Your brothers Einsteinians believe
> it is the wavelength that decreases:
Not just believe, Pentcho. *Measured*, as with a diffraction grating.
===============================================
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"
Not just believe, Duck. *Measured* in the stationary system with Einstein's
own half-hunter and schoolboy ruler.
waldofj
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:18a1589a-1ffc-40c8...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 31, 1:19 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > By the way, Honest Roberts, when the observer starts moving towards
> > the source of the wave, the frequency he measures increases and, in
> > accordance with the formula:
>
> > (frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)
>
> > either the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) increases as
> > well or the wavelength decreases. Your brothers Einsteinians believe
> > it is the wavelength that decreases:
>
> Not just believe, Pentcho. *Measured*, as with a diffraction grating.
> ===============================================
> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
> the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"
which, as usual, has nothing whatsoever to do with what's being
discussed.
Androcles
"waldofj" <wal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:acff5cbc-7ce7-41db...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Not just believe, Duck. *Measured* in the stationary system with Einstein's
own half-hunter and schoolboy ruler.
which, as usual, has nothing whatsoever to do with what's being
discussed.
==============================================
Measurement was discussed, which, as usual, a stupid fuck like you can't
read.
PD
> On Aug 31, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 1:19 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
> > > "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
> > > The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
> > > frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
> > > ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
> > > to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."
>
> > > John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> > > were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
> > > pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> > > mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> > > have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
> > > BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
>
> > For some waves, as in water waves, the wavelength changes with the
> > speed.
> > For some waves, as in light, the wavelength changes inversely with the
> > frequency, and the speed is constant.
> > Just because one is true in one case doesn't mean it's the same in the
> > other case.
>
> Clever Draper, the gradation:
>
> clever relativists -> silly relativists -> ....
>
> has a long continuation to the right and I am sure your students will
> now place you at the right end.
You're sure of an awful lot of silly things.
Tom Roberts
> By the way, Honest Roberts, when the observer starts moving towards
> the source of the wave, the frequency he measures increases and, in
> accordance with the formula:
>
> (frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)
>
> either the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) increases as
> well or the wavelength decreases. Your brothers Einsteinians believe
There you go again, repeating FALSEHOODS.
In relativity, LIGHT DOES NOT POSSESS A WAVELENGTH. So you cannot really discuss
"the wavelength of the light". A given observer can measure a wavelength for the
light, but that it a relationship between the observer and the light, and does
not yield an intrinsic property of the light itself, as you seem to think. So
one can only discuss "the wavelength of this light ray as measured by that
observer".
This completely negates your attempted argument.
To measure the wavelength of the light ray in inertial frame S, one must find
two points on its path which are simultaneous in S and at which the ray has the
same phase in S. To measure the wavelength in inertial frame S', one must do the
same, S => S'. But since S and S' have different simultaneity and different
notions of the light's phase, they obtain different values for the wavelength of
the light.
For real experiments (not figments of your rather limited imagination), an
observer moving toward a light source MEASURES the wavelength to decrease.
Astronomers do this all the time (but usually while moving away from the source;
they call it "redshift").
So physicists don't "believe it is the wavelength that decreases", we MEASURE it
to decrease (for the situation of your statement above).
Grow up. Learn to read. Remember what you read. Study some real physics. Stop
wallowing in your own delusions.
Tom Roberts
Dono.
> Stop wallowing in your own delusions.
to heal himself.
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:-vydnZWMXaF...@giganews.com...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > By the way, Honest Roberts, when the observer starts moving towards
| > the source of the wave, the frequency he measures increases and, in
| > accordance with the formula:
| >
| > (frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)
| >
| > either the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) increases as
| > well or the wavelength decreases. Your brothers Einsteinians believe
| > it is the wavelength that decreases [...]
|
| There you go again, repeating FALSEHOODS.
|
| In relativity, LIGHT DOES NOT POSSESS A WAVELENGTH.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"§ 7. Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration
In the system K, very far from the origin of co-ordinates, let there be a
source of electrodynamic waves...
... the frequency \nu' of the light perceived by the observer..." --
Einstein.
Frequency without wavelength! That's a good one, Roberts, you crazy bastard.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Pentcho, gratings measure 'wavecrest arrival rate' not 'wavelength'.
A photon somewhat resembles a long length of chain, with each link representing
the node of an intrinsic standing wave that runs back and forth along the
photon's length, (as in a vibrating wire with high harmonics).
Like ALL lengths, that of each link (intrinsic wavelength) is absolute and
frame invariant *. This model fully explains the Sagnac effect according to
BaTh.
The 'frequency' of light is a term used to define the 'number of links arriving
per second'. That quantity is clearly dependent on observer speed wrt the light
source.
* Note, a photon's length -- and therefore wavelength -- will change as a
result of an acceleration, since the 'front and back ends' move at different
speeds for some considerable time. That is the basis of the Wilson Acceleration
Shift (WaSh or ADoppler ), the continuing ignorance of which renders almost ALL
astronomy completely wrong and useless.
WaSh is sensationally verified by the fact that cepheid velocity curves are a
virtual mirror image of their brightness curves.
>Pentcho Valev
>pva...@yahoo.com
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
Inertial
news:6q0r765aqkf6o18rs...@4ax.com...
>Pentcho, gratings measure 'wavecrest arrival rate' not 'wavelength'.
Henry has no idea what a grating measures or how it works
[snip stupidity from ignorance]
eric gisse
[...]
> Pentcho, gratings measure 'wavecrest arrival rate' not 'wavelength'.
>
> A photon somewhat resembles a long length of chain, with each link
> representing the node of an intrinsic standing wave that runs back and
> forth along the photon's length, (as in a vibrating wire with high
> harmonics).
Christ.
[...]
Paul Cardinale
> "Henry Wilson DSc" wrote in messagenews:6q0r765aqkf6o18rs...@4ax.com...
>
> >Pentcho, gratings measure 'wavecrest arrival rate' not 'wavelength'.
>
> Henry has no idea what a grating measures or how it works
>
> [snip stupidity from ignorance]
Worse yet, he doesn't even know that he doesn't know those things.
(He seems to think that ignorance and knowledge are the same thing.)
PD
He knows he doesn't know. But he draws his amusement from saying
things that's he's just pulled out of his rear end, because it's easy
for him to do. It's like a boxer playing rope-a-dope when he doesn't
have any strength in his arms anymore. So he now gets his fun from
endless rope-a-dope. When he finds himself being cornered at one point
in the ring, he dances to one side and plays rope-a-dope on the next
side of the ring. When he gets tired of this too, he just lowers his
gloves and says something like "You're too stupid to understand this,"
and he leaves the ring.
PD
JC himself
wrote:
Yes, my boy...Did you want something? A brain perhaps?
Henry Wilson DSc
PD
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:43:51 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 1, 1:35 pm, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 31, 5:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "Henry Wilson DSc" wrote in messagenews:6q0r765aqkf6o18rs...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > >Pentcho, gratings measure 'wavecrest arrival rate' not 'wavelength'.
>
> >> > Henry has no idea what a grating measures or how it works
>
> >> > [snip stupidity from ignorance]
>
> >> Worse yet, he doesn't even know that he doesn't know those things.
> >> (He seems to think that ignorance and knowledge are the same thing.)
>
> >He knows he doesn't know. But he draws his amusement from saying
> >things that's he's just pulled out of his rear end, because it's easy
> >for him to do. It's like a boxer playing rope-a-dope when he doesn't
> >have any strength in his arms anymore. So he now gets his fun from
> >endless rope-a-dope. When he finds himself being cornered at one point
> >in the ring, he dances to one side and plays rope-a-dope on the next
> >side of the ring. When he gets tired of this too, he just lowers his
> >gloves and says something like "You're too stupid to understand this,"
> >and he leaves the ring.
>
> see:www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg
I take it back. He really doesn't have the foggiest idea how a
diffraction grating works.
Henry Wilson DSc
Hahahhahahha! Poor old diaper has obviously never seen a reflection grating.
eric gisse
When was the last time you saw one?
PD
And you don't know that you don't know how a grating works.
Gratings are used every year in a freshman teaching lab, Ralph.
kenseto
> There is a long thread about "Experiment to test mutual time dilation" that
> merely displays various peoples' ignorance, and other peoples' ill-fated
> attempts to explain physics to them. Rather than get mired down in such
> nonsense, I though I'd discuss a real experiment that can be interpreted as
> measuring mutual time dilation.
>
> Classically, the Doppler shift of light is given by
> f' = f (1 - (v/c) cos(theta))
> Where f is the frequency of the source in its rest frame, v is the velocity of
> the source relative to the lab, theta is the angle between the light ray and the
> velocity of the source, and f' is the frequency measured in the lab.
>
> In SR, the Doppler shift of light is instead given by
> f' = f gamma (1 - (v/c) cos(theta))
> where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). The origin of the factor of gamma can be traced
> directly to the time dilation between inertial frames; note it is independent of
> direction.
>
> Doppler shift measurements of sources moving relative to the lab are common, and
> the SR formula is known to be valid to high accuracy for sources moving relative
> to a detector in the lab. So validation of the above formula using a moving
> detector and a lab source would be a test of mutual time dilation.
What you described will not confirm mutual time dilation for the
following reasons:
1. Doppler shift got nothing to do with the rate of an actual clock.
Think about it....how can a clock changes rate instantly because it
moves pass by you? The answer is it doesn't.
2. There is no clock in the moving frame that measure the rate of the
lab clock.
The idea of mutual time dilation is refuted by the GPS. From the
ground clock point of view the velocity effect on the GPS clock is 7
us/day running slow and from the GPS point of view the velocity effect
on the ground clock is ~7 us/day running fast. No mutual time
dilation. When compareing two clocks A and B the following two options
are available:
1. A is running fast compared to B then B is running slow compared to
A.
2. B is running fast compared to A then A is running slow compared to
B.
At no time A claims B runs slow and at the same time B claims A runs
slow.
The origin of mutual time dilation is the PoR. The PoR allows every SR
observer to use any frame to do physics....so every Sr observer uses
the preferred frame to do physics and the result is that every Sr
observer claims every clock moving wrt him is running slow and thus
the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.
Ken Seto
PD
So Ken's response to DIRECT experimental measurement validating mutual
time dilation is (reading down his tick marks):
1. Ken doesn't understand how time dilation of any kind can happen, so
mutual time dilation can't. (How can a clock's rate be changed just by
moving by it?)
2. Ken doesn't have any idea how to measure the rate of clocks from a
different reference frame, and so it just does not happen.. (There is
no clock in the moving reference frame.)
3. Ken doesn't get that mutual time dilation is predicted in some
applications and not in others. (GPS doesn't exhibit it, so this shows
it never happens.)
4. Ken still thinks that relative clock speed is an absolute, frame-
independent statement, or it's a logical contradiction. (If A's clock
is faster than B's clock in some frame, then it is faster in in all
frames.)
In other words, Ken doesn't believe experimental results if they
conflict with his common sense notions. He simply cannot adjust his
common sense to what nature exhibits in real experiment.
This is what separates Ken from scientists. Scientists LEARN from
nature via experiment, and they are able to ADJUST their understanding
of nature based on those results. Ken can't do that, and so he will
never understand relativity, and never be constructive as a scientist.
kenseto
I said no such thing. I said that betwwen two clocks in relative
motion the following twopossibilities exists:
1. A runs faster than B then B run slower than A.
2. B runs faster than A then A run slower than B.
Also I said that at no time A sees B run slower than A and at the same
time B sees A run slower than B.....this is the SR concept of
mutualtime dilaiton that I disagree.
> 2. Ken doesn't have any idea how to measure the rate of clocks from a
> different reference frame, and so it just does not happen.. (There is
> no clock in the moving reference frame.)
The rate of a moving clock is predicted by the observer using the SR
or IRT equations. It is not measured.
> 3. Ken doesn't get that mutual time dilation is predicted in some
> applications and not in others. (GPS doesn't exhibit it, so this shows
> it never happens.)
No you are not entitled to choose what situation mutual time dilation
applies. In the case of the GPS both the velocity and gravitational
effect refute the claim of mutual time dilation.
> 4. Ken still thinks that relative clock speed is an absolute, frame-
> independent statement, or it's a logical contradiction. (If A's clock
> is faster than B's clock in some frame, then it is faster in in all
> frames.)
No it is the claim of the PoR that I reject. The PoR allows every SR
observer to choose any frame to do physics and every SR observer
chooses the preferred frame along with it exclusive properties that
all clocks moving wrt the observer are running slow. This give rise to
the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.
>
> In other words, Ken doesn't believe experimental results if they
> conflict with his common sense notions. He simply cannot adjust his
> common sense to what nature exhibits in real experiment.
But there is no real experiment that confirm mutual time dilation.
From the moving Li clock point of view in Robert's example is alway
runs slower than the lab clock. IOW the moving LI clock will see the
lab clock moving faster than an identical clock in its frame.
Ken seto
> > > Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD
No hope for Seto.
That's ok. Most of the rest of us understand SR perfectly well.
kenseto
The incoming light becomes a new light source in the grating's frame
and the Grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source.
Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > Henry Wilson...
>
> > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.- Hide quoted text -
PD
So you don't understand how a grating works (ever used one in your
whole life?), and you don't know that you don't understand. That makes
two of you.
kenseto
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > By the way, Honest Roberts, when the observer starts moving towards
> > the source of the wave, the frequency he measures increases and, in
> > accordance with the formula:
>
> > (frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)
>
> > either the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) increases as
> > well or the wavelength decreases. Your brothers Einsteinians believe
> > it is the wavelength that decreases [...]
>
> There you go again, repeating FALSEHOODS.
>
> In relativity, LIGHT DOES NOT POSSESS A WAVELENGTH. So you cannot really discuss
> "the wavelength of the light". A given observer can measure a wavelength for the
> light, but that it a relationship between the observer and the light, and does
> not yield an intrinsic property of the light itself, as you seem to think. So
> one can only discuss "the wavelength of this light ray as measured by that
> observer".
>
> This completely negates your attempted argument.
>
> To measure the wavelength of the light ray in inertial frame S, one must find
> two points on its path which are simultaneous in S and at which the ray has the
> same phase in S. To measure the wavelength in inertial frame S', one must do the
> same, S => S'. But since S and S' have different simultaneity and different
> notions of the light's phase, they obtain different values for the wavelength of
> the light.
But you are assuming the bogus concept of relativity of simultaneity.
This concept violates the SR postulate...the isotropy of the speed of
light in all inertial frames.
Henry Wilson DSc
My equation includes that as a possibility.
If it is correct then 'u' = zero
Tom Roberts
Partly right. Yes the clock's rate is not affected. But "time dilation" is real
and measurable, and the genesis of the factor of gamma above is the same as the
genesis of "time dilation".
Please remember that in SR "time dilation" does NOT mean that clocks' rates are
affected, what is affected is how a moving observer MEASURES the interval
between ticks of the moving clock. It is about MEASUREMENTS, not any sort of
"changes in clocks".
I put "time dilation" in quotes because the name is a misnomer
(but historically established). It isn't really time that
is dilating, but rather MEASUREMENTS OF CLOCK RATES that are
dilating.
> 2. There is no clock in the moving frame that measure the rate of the
> lab clock.
You're not paying attention. The ion only responds to light of a certain
frequency, and in effect is a clock measuring the rate of the lab clock while
being at rest in the moving (ion) frame -- the lab laser's frequency is tuned so
it excites the ion in the moving frame. So we know the frequency in the ion
frame from the KNOWN frequency of its transition; the frequency of the lab laser
in the lab frame is directly measured.
The above factor of gamma is shown by this experiment to be required when
measuring the rate of a lab clock in the moving frame. Dozens of other
experiments show the above factor of gamma is required when measuring the rate
of a moving clock in the lab frame. As the factor of gamma comes from "time
dilation", that's a clear demonstration of mutual "time dilation".
> The idea of mutual time dilation is refuted by the GPS.
No, it is NOT. For the physical situation of the GPS, neither SR nor GR predict
mutual "time dilation".
In order to refute a scientific theory, you must have an
experimental measurement that differs significantly from the
prediction of the theory; this does not do that because the
theory actually predicts what is measured to high accuracy.
And that prediction is NOT mutual "time dilation".
[Don't expect me to continue until you learn how to read.
This last point has been mentioned many times.]
Tom Roberts
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
How can a fast moving object slow down time for the other more slowly
moving?
No. This prediction of mutual time slow can not be right in
observation.
Both clocks will not be seen to run slow. Always one is fast(slow
moving) and
always one is slow or fast moving in space. There will be no other
appearence.
One slow. One faster. Determined by their different motions. And
different
gravity will do the same thing.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:6a7cc456-4ef1-4057...@h37g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>How can a fast moving object slow down time for the other more slowly
>moving?
It doesn't
>No. This prediction of mutual time slow can not be right in
>observation.
That is NOT the prediction of mutual time dilation
>Both clocks will not be seen to run slow.
Wrong
>Always one is fast(slow
>moving) and
>always one is slow or fast moving in space.
But WHICH one is MOVING faster depends on who is looking at it .. and so
which one is measured as TICKING faster depends on who is looking at it
> There will be no other
>appearence.
For a given observer .. no. But different observers will see different
things
>One slow. One faster. Determined by their different motions.
Relative to some observer
> And
>different
>gravity will do the same thing.
Unrelated to mutual time dilation.
You fail again.
BURT
> "BURT" wrote in message
>
> news:6a7cc456-4ef1-4057...@h37g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> >How can a fast moving object slow down time for the other more slowly
> >moving?
>
> It doesn't
>
> >No. This prediction of mutual time slow can not be right in
> >observation.
>
> That is NOT the prediction of mutual time dilation
>
> >Both clocks will not be seen to run slow.
>
> Wrong
>
> >Always one is fast(slow
> >moving) and
> >always one is slow or fast moving in space.
>
> But WHICH one is MOVING faster depends on who is looking at it ..
No. Space is the standard for motion.
> and so
> which one is measured as TICKING faster depends on who is looking at it
>
> > There will be no other
> >appearence.
>
> For a given observer .. no. But different observers will see different
> things
>
> >One slow. One faster. Determined by their different motions.
>
> Relative to some observer
NO. Absolute motion to the space frame.
>
> > And
> >different
> >gravity will do the same thing.
>
> Unrelated to mutual time dilation.
>
> You fail again.
If together in gravity field by same strength time will be dilated
mutually.
Mitch Raemsch
kenseto
No it is you who don't understand how the grating works. The grating
defines a new universal wavelength for every light ray passing through
it.
Ken Seto
kenseto
ROTFLOL..Here's what you understand:
1. Mutual time dilation is applicable in situations at you
choosing....The GPS refutes the concept of mutual time dilation and
thus it is ruled out by your choosing.
2. Simultaneity is relative inspite of the fact that it violates the
isotropy of the speed of light in all frames.
3. Length contraction is "physical" and "physical contraction" means
both geometrical projection effect and material contraction
effect...Therefore the "physical length contraction effect" effect
can cause the bug dies at two instants of time....before and after the
head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
Ken Seto
kenseto
So that means that your quoted real experiment does not confirm the
bogus concept of mutual time dilation as you claimed...Right???
>But "time dilation" is real
> and measurable, and the genesis of the factor of gamma above is the same as the
> genesis of "time dilation".
The observed time dilation effect can be interpreted differently as
follows:
Clocks in relative motion runs at different rates and the cause of
this difference is due to different states of absolute motion of the
clocks. The higher is the state of absolute motion of a clock the
higher is the absolute time content for its clock second and thus the
lower is the rate of accumulation of clock seconds (ie..the clock runs
at a slower rate).
This means that a clock second does not represent a set amount of
absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute
motion).
>
> Please remember that in SR "time dilation" does NOT mean that clocks' rates are
> affected,
But clocks in relative motion do accumulate clock seconds at different
rates.
>what is affected is how a moving observer MEASURES the interval
> between ticks of the moving clock. It is about MEASUREMENTS, not any sort of
> "changes in clocks".
An SR observer predicts not measures the interval between ticks of the
moving clock. SR observer assumes that the interval between ticks of
his clock takes less time interval to complete than the interval
between ticks for a moving clock and this is the observed time
dialtion effect.
PD
Objects and instruments don't define anything. People do.
And physicists do not define universal wavelength that way.
PD
No, not my choosing. It is applicable where SR *says* it's applicable.
And SR *says* mutual time dilation is not applicable in the GPS case.
It helps if you understand what SR actually says, rather than your
trying to insist that it should say something that it does not.
>...The GPS refutes the concept of mutual time dilation and
> thus it is ruled out by your choosing.
>
> 2. Simultaneity is relative inspite of the fact that it violates the
> isotropy of the speed of light in all frames.
Simultaneity is relative indeed. This does not violate the isotropy of
light speed. However, closing speed IS anisotropic. You get those two
confused all the time.
>
> 3. Length contraction is "physical" and "physical contraction" means
> both geometrical projection effect and material contraction
> effect.
Not quite. "Physical contractions" INCLUDE both geometric effects and
material contraction effects. Likewise "mammals" INCLUDE both aquatic
whales with no legs and land-dwelling animals with four legs. That
doesn't mean that whales are land-dwelling animals with four legs.
Likewise, it doesn't mean that geometric effects ARE material
contraction effects. I don't know why this is so hard for you.
>..Therefore the "physical length contraction effect" effect
> can cause the bug dies at two instants of time....before and after the
> head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
Before and after the rivet hits the wall of the hole are two different
instants in time in one frame only. But ONE and ONLY ONE instant can
be before the rivet hits the wall of the hole in one frame, and after
the rivet hits the wall of the hole in another frame. I don't know why
this is so hard for you.
kenseto
Yes in the lab frame...How do you know what frequency a moving ion
will respond to? And how do you know what is the reponding time to
complete a cycle for the moving ion vs the lab ion?
>and in effect is a clock measuring the rate of the lab clock while
> being at rest in the moving (ion) frame -- the lab laser's frequency is tuned so
> it excites the ion in the moving frame. So we know the frequency in the ion
> frame from the KNOWN frequency of its transition; the frequency of the lab laser
> in the lab frame is directly measured.
>
> The above factor of gamma is shown by this experiment to be required when
> measuring the rate of a lab clock in the moving frame. Dozens of other
> experiments show the above factor of gamma is required when measuring the rate
> of a moving clock in the lab frame. As the factor of gamma comes from "time
> dilation", that's a clear demonstration of mutual "time dilation".
The gamma factor is correct for use to predict the rate of an
identically moving clock....but Sr does not include all
possibilities....mainly that a clock moving wrt an observer can run
faster than the observer's clock.
>
> > The idea of mutual time dilation is refuted by the GPS.
>
> No, it is NOT. For the physical situation of the GPS, neither SR nor GR predict
> mutual "time dilation".
So when we have a real experiment that refutes mutual time dialtion
and you just choose to say that it does not apply by your choosing??
Ken Seto
>
> In order to refute a scientific theory, you must have an
> experimental measurement that differs significantly from the
> prediction of the theory; this does not do that because the
> theory actually predicts what is measured to high accuracy.
> And that prediction is NOT mutual "time dilation".
>
> [Don't expect me to continue until you learn how to read.
> This last point has been mentioned many times.]
>
PD
> On Sep 2, 11:29 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > The idea of mutual time dilation is refuted by the GPS.
>
> > No, it is NOT. For the physical situation of the GPS, neither SR nor GR predict
> > mutual "time dilation".
>
> So when we have a real experiment that refutes mutual time dialtion
> and you just choose to say that it does not apply by your choosing??
>
> Ken Seto
>
Ken, you've had several scientists explain this to you, and you still
do not get it.
The way a theory is refuted is when it claims to make a prediction in
a particular circumstance, and the observation is different than the
prediction.
SR does not claim to make a prediction of mutual time dilation in the
GPS system. In fact, it says that mutual time dilation will NOT be
exhibited in that case. And that is precisely what is observed.
PD
BURT
No other observer is required. There are already two.
And they will both agree that one of them is slower then and one
faster
because this is the twin paradox.
Mitch Raemsch
Tom Roberts
> On Sep 2, 11:29 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> 2. There is no clock in the moving frame that measure the rate of the
>>> lab clock.
>> You're not paying attention. The ion only responds to light of a certain
>> frequency,
>
> Yes in the lab frame...How do you know what frequency a moving ion
> will respond to?
This experiment is being used to test an aspect of SR, so all concepts of SR can
be used in the analysis. Because the laws of physics are independent of inertial
frame in SR, the frequency the moving ion will respond to MEASURED IN THE MOVING
FRAME is exactly the same frequency as measured previously when the ion was at
rest in the lab (known from reference books).
> And how do you know what is the reponding time to
> complete a cycle for the moving ion vs the lab ion?
I have no idea what you are trying to say. When ions are hit with light of the
correct frequency they excite with known probability. In SR this is independent
of inertial frame, so we know how the ions respond in their moving frame -- the
same as measured earlier in labs with ions at rest.
> The gamma factor is correct for use to predict the rate of an
> identically moving clock....but Sr does not include all
> possibilities....mainly that a clock moving wrt an observer can run
> faster than the observer's clock.
In SR this NEVER HAPPENS. We are testing SR, not "all possibilities that someone
can think up" (or somesuch). That is the whole point -- we are TESTING SPECIAL
RELATIVITY, not whatever it is you are trying to do.
Feel free to test your theory in which "a clock moving wrt an observer can run
faster than the observer's clock". But you'll find that there are no experiments
that confirm this.
[I know this because all existing experiments within its domain
are consistent with SR, and this claim of yours is INCONSISTENT
with SR, and therefore with the existing experiments.]
>>> The idea of mutual time dilation is refuted by the GPS.
>> No, it is NOT. For the physical situation of the GPS, neither SR nor GR predict
>> mutual "time dilation".
>
> So when we have a real experiment that refutes mutual time dialtion
> and you just choose to say that it does not apply by your choosing??
You are not paying attention. When one applies GR to the physical situation of
the GPS, it predicts _NO_ MUTUAL TIME DILATION. So the fact that mutual time
dilation is not observed CONFIRMS the theory, and does not refute it.
So this is not me "choosing to say" that mutual time dilation "does not apply",
this is APPLYING THE THEORY TO THE PHYSICAL SITUATION AND COMPARING TO
MEASUREMENTS. That is how one tests a theory.
[You still cannot read. Goodbye.]
Tom Roberts
BURT
Acceleration slows the clock for energy. Real
acceleration is weighted in the opposite direction
and slows time.
The appearence of movement around energy looks
like an acceleration in the opposite direction
but that is just an appearence and the surounding
energy clock could not be effected.
Mitch Raemsch
kenseto
The point is: the GPS nog only shows that mutual time dilation does
not exist....it show that the velocity effect is opposite what mutual
time dilation claimed....the GPS says that the velocity effect on the
ground clock is 7 us/day RUNNING FAST. This means that mutual time
dilation does not exist in any situation. This also means that when
comparing two clocks the on ly possibilities exists are as follows:
1. A predicts B runs slow and it follows that B must predict that A
run fast.
2. B predicts A runs slow and it follows that A must predict that B
run fast.
The assertion that A predicts that B runs slow and at the same time B
predicts that A runs slow, does not exist in our universe. One of
these prediction is wrong.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
>
> PD
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 11:29 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >>> 2. There is no clock in the moving frame that measure the rate of the
> >>> lab clock.
> >> You're not paying attention. The ion only responds to light of a certain
> >> frequency,
>
> > Yes in the lab frame...How do you know what frequency a moving ion
> > will respond to?
>
> This experiment is being used to test an aspect of SR, so all concepts of SR can
> be used in the analysis. Because the laws of physics are independent of inertial
> frame in SR, the frequency the moving ion will respond to MEASURED IN THE MOVING
> FRAME is exactly the same frequency as measured previously when the ion was at
> rest in the lab (known from reference books).
>
> > And how do you know what is the reponding time to
> > complete a cycle for the moving ion vs the lab ion?
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to say. When ions are hit with light of the
> correct frequency they excite with known probability. In SR this is independent
> of inertial frame, so we know how the ions respond in their moving frame -- the
> same as measured earlier in labs with ions at rest.
My point is: in the GPS situation the GPS second is redefined to have
4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This is designed to make the
GPS second contain the same amount of absolute time as a ground clock
second and thus makes the GPS permanently in synch with the ground
clock. The redefinition of the GPS second means that each period of
the Cs 133 radiation requires less amount of absolute time to complete
than a period of the Cs 133 radiation on the ground clock.
Similarly a period of the traveling ion radiation will take a higher
amount of absolute time to emit than a period of the lab ion
radiation. This is the cause of the observed rate difference between
the traveling ion clock than the lab ion clock. This is also why a
travleing ion clock cannot sees that lab clock to run slow.
>
> > The gamma factor is correct for use to predict the rate of an
> > identically moving clock....but Sr does not include all
> > possibilities....mainly that a clock moving wrt an observer can run
> > faster than the observer's clock.
>
> In SR this NEVER HAPPENS. We are testing SR, not "all possibilities that someone
> can think up" (or somesuch). That is the whole point -- we are TESTING SPECIAL
> RELATIVITY, not whatever it is you are trying to do.
We are testing the SR concept of mutual time dilation. When comparing
two clocks mutual time dilation cannot exist.
>
> Feel free to test your theory in which "a clock moving wrt an observer can run
> faster than the observer's clock". But you'll find that there are no experiments
> that confirm this.
The GPS already proved my point. From the GPS point of view the
velocity effect on the ground clock is ~7 us/day running fast.
>
> [I know this because all existing experiments within its domain
> are consistent with SR, and this claim of yours is INCONSISTENT
> with SR, and therefore with the existing experiments.]
>
> >>> The idea of mutual time dilation is refuted by the GPS.
> >> No, it is NOT. For the physical situation of the GPS, neither SR nor GR predict
> >> mutual "time dilation".
>
> > So when we have a real experiment that refutes mutual time dialtion
> > and you just choose to say that it does not apply by your choosing??
>
> You are not paying attention. When one applies GR to the physical situation of
> the GPS, it predicts _NO_ MUTUAL TIME DILATION.
But the GR effect is a combination of the SR effect and gravitational
potential effect. The SR effect is computed using SR equation.
>So the fact that mutual time
> dilation is not observed CONFIRMS the theory, and does not refute it.
>
> So this is not me "choosing to say" that mutual time dilation "does not apply",
> this is APPLYING THE THEORY TO THE PHYSICAL SITUATION AND COMPARING TO
> MEASUREMENTS. That is how one tests a theory.
The point is: the GPS not only shows that mutual time dilation does
not exist....it show that the velocity effect is opposite what mutual
time dilation claimed....the GPS sees that the velocity effect on the
ground clock is 7 us/day RUNNING FAST. This means that mutual time
dilation does not exist in any situation. This also means that when
comparing two clocks the only possibilities exists are as follows:
PD
> On Sep 4, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 10:57 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 2, 11:29 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > The idea of mutual time dilation is refuted by the GPS.
>
> > > > No, it is NOT. For the physical situation of the GPS, neither SR nor GR predict
> > > > mutual "time dilation".
>
> > > So when we have a real experiment that refutes mutual time dialtion
> > > and you just choose to say that it does not apply by your choosing??
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > Ken, you've had several scientists explain this to you, and you still
> > do not get it.
>
> > The way a theory is refuted is when it claims to make a prediction in
> > a particular circumstance, and the observation is different than the
> > prediction.
> > SR does not claim to make a prediction of mutual time dilation in the
> > GPS system. In fact, it says that mutual time dilation will NOT be
> > exhibited in that case. And that is precisely what is observed.
>
> The point is: the GPS nog only shows that mutual time dilation does
> not exist.
The GPS system cannot show that mutual time dilation does not exist
when SR does not predict it to happen in the GPS system.
>...it show that the velocity effect is opposite what mutual
> time dilation claimed....the GPS says that the velocity effect on the
> ground clock is 7 us/day RUNNING FAST.
No, it doesn't. It means that there are other effects in play --
chiefly the effects of gravity -- which is accurately modeled by GR.
> This means that mutual time
> dilation does not exist in any situation.
Nonsense. If I told you that a theory predicted that there would be a
traffic jam at 23rd and Iowa Streets, and you looked for a traffic jam
at 19th and Louisiana Streets and found no traffic jam, would that
prove the theory wrong? Of course not. Would the fact that there is no
traffic jam at 19th and Louisiana Streets prove that there are no
traffic jams anywhere? Of course not. Would a predicted traffic jam at
23rd and Iowa Streets allow you to jump to the conclusion that there
should also be a traffic jam at any intersection you chose to pick? Of
course not.
Don't be an idiot.
> This also means that when
> comparing two clocks the on ly possibilities exists are as follows:
> 1. A predicts B runs slow and it follows that B must predict that A
> run fast.
> 2. B predicts A runs slow and it follows that A must predict that B
> run fast.
>
> The assertion that A predicts that B runs slow and at the same time B
> predicts that A runs slow, does not exist in our universe.
Your assertion that it does not exist in our universe is an assertion,
your assertion, and an assertion only. Assertion is not an argument.
Evidence for mutual time dilation is exhibited in real, documented
experiments, which you refuse to read about. Instead, you insist that
those experiments cannot be, just because of your assertion that such
a thing does not exist in our universe.
kenseto
Hey idiot...the clock that accumulated less clock seconds between two
events can never claim, predict, see or measure the clock that
accumlated more clock seconds as running slow. You are so fucking
stupid.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 11:29 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >>> 2. There is no clock in the moving frame that measure the rate of the
> >>> lab clock.
> >> You're not paying attention. The ion only responds to light of a certain
> >> frequency,
>
> > Yes in the lab frame...How do you know what frequency a moving ion
> > will respond to?
>
> This experiment is being used to test an aspect of SR, so all concepts of SR can
> be used in the analysis. Because the laws of physics are independent of inertial
> frame in SR, the frequency the moving ion will respond to MEASURED IN THE MOVING
> FRAME is exactly the same frequency as measured previously when the ion was at
> rest in the lab (known from reference books).
When you made such an assumption you are assuming that an ion clock in
the moving ion frame run exactly at the same rate as an ion clock in
the lab frame. Such assumption is refuted by experiments...all
identical clocks in relative motion run at different rates.
Furthermore, the use of doppler shift to test mutual time dilation is
bogus. The rate of a moving clock is not affected by doppler shift. It
is affected only by the transverse Doppler.
Ken Seto
>
> > And how do you know what is the reponding time to
> > complete a cycle for the moving ion vs the lab ion?
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to say. When ions are hit with light of the
> correct frequency they excite with known probability. In SR this is independent
> of inertial frame, so we know how the ions respond in their moving frame -- the
> same as measured earlier in labs with ions at rest.
>
> > The gamma factor is correct for use to predict the rate of an
> > identically moving clock....but Sr does not include all
> > possibilities....mainly that a clock moving wrt an observer can run
> > faster than the observer's clock.
>
> In SR this NEVER HAPPENS. We are testing SR, not "all possibilities that someone
> can think up" (or somesuch). That is the whole point -- we are TESTING SPECIAL
> RELATIVITY, not whatever it is you are trying to do.
That's because every Sr observer assumes that he is at rest in the
preferred frame and that's why all clocks moving wrt him are running
slow....this gives rise to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.
If the SR observer doesn't choose the preferred frame to do physics
then the possibility that an observed clock can run fast is very real.
Ken Seto
BURT
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The two time slowdowns are to small to measure.