The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity
Pentcho Valev
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes
of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey
from A to B.
It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and
B coincide."
Let there be, initially, many synchronous stationary clocks scattered
on the polygonal line (or the original line AB). Then they get moved
along the polygonal line, simultaneously and with constant speed v,
some in one direction, others in the other. According to Einstein's
theory, any moving clock lags behind stationary clocks by tv^2/2c^2.
Therefore, judging from the stationary system, as moving clocks pass
one another, their readings coincide (on their meeting, moving clocks
prove equally slow with respect to a nearby stationary clock).
On the other hand, according to Einstein's theory, as moving clocks
pass one another, their readings cannot coincide. Judging from their
own inertial systems, moving clocks lag behind with respect to one
another as described on p. 7 in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
The only solution to the problem involves abandoning Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light (the c principle) and
returning to Newton's true principle of variability of the speed of
light (the c+v principle).
Pentcho Valev
donsto...@hotmail.com
Helmut Wabnig
>1 = 2
Too much for Pentcho
w.
Lloyd Parker
Henri Wilson
Plenty of people know there is a big problem.
Einstein's version of relativity is plain BULL!!!!
>
>>principle of constancy of the speed of light (the c principle) and
>>returning to Newton's true principle of variability of the speed of
>>light (the c+v principle).
>>
>>Pentcho Valev
>>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
[snip]
>
> Plenty of people know there is a big problem.
> Einstein's version of relativity is plain BULL!!!!
Yet you are incapable of stating what Einstein's version of relativity
IS without getting it wrong.
[...]
Sam Wormley
>
> Plenty of people know there is a big problem.
> Einstein's version of relativity is plain BULL!!!!
>
Henri Wilson doesn't even understand relativity. There has
never been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted
by an observation. Who is posting bull?
Henri Wilson
there has never been an observation that is directly related to relativity.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sam Wormley
Lloyd Parker
Bending of light, longer lifetime of particles, clocks running slower, ...
Your inability to read and comprehend is not the same as no evidence.
Paul B. Andersen
A fatal argument!
Well done, Henri.
Paul
Solvay
Haefele and Keating seem completely convincing.
What is your alternative explanation for these empirical findings?
Hexenmeister
"Solvay" <g...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1140933313.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The mu-meson decay-rate experiment and the atomic-clocks experiment by
> Haefele and Keating seem completely convincing.
> What is your alternative explanation for these empirical findings?
How come they don't completely convince the folks at NASA-JPL?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
What is your alternative explanation for these empirical findings?
Androcles.
donsto...@hotmail.com
Hexenmeister
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140956900.7...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> And like NASA never makes a mistake, Scheistenmaster?
>
And like Einstein never made a mistake, Scheißekopf?
Stay in your cosy classroom, talk doesn't kill. NASA's mistakes do.
That's why they are more careful than you'll ever be, Bumsenesprit.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
>In article <fkasv11l00mp0qe34...@4ax.com>,
> HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:19:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Plenty of people know there is a big problem.
>>>> Einstein's version of relativity is plain BULL!!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Henri Wilson doesn't even understand relativity. There has
>>> never been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted
>>> by an observation. Who is posting bull?
>>
>>there has never been an observation that is directly related to relativity.
>>
>>
>
>Bending of light,
Purely ballistic....
>longer lifetime of particles,
... due to the effect of huge constraining magnetic fields....
>clocks running slower, ...
never even observed....
>
>Your inability to read and comprehend is not the same as no evidence.
..you epitomize the pope's message, "if you have enough faith, you will see
evidence for it all around you".
>
>>
>>HW.
>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
>>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
The Muons were superluminal.
The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sam Wormley
> The Muons were superluminal.
False statement
> The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
False statement
GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
relative motion and gravitation on time.
Spaceman
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:TmqMf.799375$_o.511067@attbi_s71...
False Statement:
Repaired statement
GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects
of relative motion and gravitation causing problems
in clocks.. aka clock malfunctions.
The Ghost In The Machine
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:TmqMf.799375$_o.511067@attbi_s71...
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> False Statement:
> Repaired statement
>
> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects
> of relative motion and gravitation causing problems
> in clocks.. aka clock malfunctions.
Well, there you have it. Now how do we fix these malfunctions?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Spaceman
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.27....@earthlink.net...
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:04:23 -0500, Spaceman wrote:
>
>>
>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> news:TmqMf.799375$_o.511067@attbi_s71...
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> False Statement:
>> Repaired statement
>>
>> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects
>> of relative motion and gravitation causing problems
>> in clocks.. aka clock malfunctions.
>
> Well, there you have it. Now how do we fix these malfunctions?
First step would be to find the actual physical cause of course.
Unless you want to keep repeating the history of clock malfunctions.
and some on board clock of the starship will be incorrectly
counting time and will end up causing the ship to crash into an
asteroid that should not have been there yet according to that
malfunctioning clock.
:)
The Ghost In The Machine
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.02.27....@earthlink.net...
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> First step would be to find the actual physical cause of course.
And you have *no idea* what this might be??
>
> Unless you want to keep repeating the history of clock malfunctions.
> and some on board clock of the starship will be incorrectly
> counting time and will end up causing the ship to crash into an
> asteroid that should not have been there yet according to that
> malfunctioning clock.
>> [quoted text muted]
I suppose next you'll want to replace the clock on board a muon, stored in
a storage ring going at high speed. That's malfunctioning, too.
As for ships crashing into asteroids -- NEAR did reasonably well, even
with its malfunctioning clock. Regrettably, there was a Japanese effort
that didn't quite achieve its objective, but it didn't crash into the
asteroid -- though I'm not sure the probe worked. (Its intent: to grab
some of the stuff of the asteroid and transport it back.)
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>> The Muons were superluminal.
>
> False statement
Prove it.
>
>
>> The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
>
> False statement
Prove it.
>
>
> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
> relative motion and gravitation on time.
Did you know that according to the BaTh, light from a GPS orbit will blueshift
by exactly 4.75 parts in 10^10?
Funny that.....
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sam Wormley
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:56:51 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Muons were superluminal.
>>
>> False statement
>
>
> Prove it.
>
>>
>>>The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
>>
>> False statement
>
>
> Prove it.
>
>>
>> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
>> relative motion and gravitation on time.
>
>
No, no, no, Henri... the burden is on *you* to validate *your* claims
with supporting empirical data.
Henri Wilson
It is obvious that the clocks have physically changed by being placed in free
fall and cutting the Earth's fields at 3770 m/s.
This is established by the original observer in the original frame.
The clock made N ticks per GPS orbit before launch and N + n ticks per GPS
orbit after launch.
The GPS orbit period is a common time referemce that can be used by the GO and
the OO.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sam Wormley
>
> It is obvious that the clocks have physically changed by being placed in free
> fall and cutting the Earth's fields at 3770 m/s.
>
> This is established by the original observer in the original frame.
> The clock made N ticks per GPS orbit before launch and N + n ticks per GPS
> orbit after launch.
> The GPS orbit period is a common time referemce that can be used by the GO and
> the OO.
>
Whatever are you trying to say, Henri?
Spaceman
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.27....@earthlink.net...
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:07:15 -0500, Spaceman wrote:
>
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.02.27....@earthlink.net...
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> First step would be to find the actual physical cause of course.
>
> And you have *no idea* what this might be??
Actually I do.
but that will be saved for the big show coming up.
:)
>> Unless you want to keep repeating the history of clock malfunctions.
>> and some on board clock of the starship will be incorrectly
>> counting time and will end up causing the ship to crash into an
>> asteroid that should not have been there yet according to that
>> malfunctioning clock.
>>> [quoted text muted]
>
> I suppose next you'll want to replace the clock on board a muon, stored in
> a storage ring going at high speed. That's malfunctioning, too.
No,
I can show how an object in motion lives longer simple
because it has more energy while in motion.
(the same is basically true of ths clock problem)
or course you won't find it because you have already
accepted a stupid "time dilation" that is actually a breaking
of the science of measurements standards.
> As for ships crashing into asteroids -- NEAR did reasonably well, even
> with its malfunctioning clock.
It's clock was our clock here on Earth.
I guess you never knew that huh?
> Regrettably, there was a Japanese effort
> that didn't quite achieve its objective, but it didn't crash into the
> asteroid -- though I'm not sure the probe worked. (Its intent: to grab
> some of the stuff of the asteroid and transport it back.)
Yup, they allowed the probes clock to be a real factor,
and did not account for actual timing or they were just going to
fast to slow it down to begin with.
Lloyd Parker
"Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote:
>
>"Solvay" <g...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:1140933313.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> The mu-meson decay-rate experiment and the atomic-clocks experiment by
>> Haefele and Keating seem completely convincing.
>> What is your alternative explanation for these empirical findings?
>
>
>How come they don't completely convince the folks at NASA-JPL?
Who says they don't?
Lloyd Parker
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Feb 06 08:21:07 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>In article <fkasv11l00mp0qe34...@4ax.com>,
>> HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:19:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Plenty of people know there is a big problem.
>>>>> Einstein's version of relativity is plain BULL!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Henri Wilson doesn't even understand relativity. There has
>>>> never been a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted
>>>> by an observation. Who is posting bull?
>>>
>>>there has never been an observation that is directly related to relativity.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bending of light,
>
>Purely ballistic....
Absurd.
>
>>longer lifetime of particles,
>
>.... due to the effect of huge constraining magnetic fields....
Not required. Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere show this.
>
>>clocks running slower, ...
>
>never even observed....
>
Yes, observed. Take a clock on a fast plane.
>>
>>Your inability to read and comprehend is not the same as no evidence.
>
>...you epitomize the pope's message, "if you have enough faith, you will see
>evidence for it all around you".
>
>>
I take science as proof. You take your imagination.
>>>
>>>HW.
>>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>>
>>>
>
>
>HW.
>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
>
Hexenmeister
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dtv32s$et7$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <16hMf.61936$DM.3...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote:
>>
>>"Solvay" <g...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:1140933313.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> The mu-meson decay-rate experiment and the atomic-clocks experiment by
>>> Haefele and Keating seem completely convincing.
>>> What is your alternative explanation for these empirical findings?
>>
>>
>>How come they don't completely convince the folks at NASA-JPL?
>
> Who says they don't?
Androcles.
Spaceman
"Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:bcLMf.86850$YJ4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:dtv32s$et7$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <16hMf.61936$DM.3...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> "Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Solvay" <g...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1140933313.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> The mu-meson decay-rate experiment and the atomic-clocks experiment by
>>>> Haefele and Keating seem completely convincing.
>>>> What is your alternative explanation for these empirical findings?
>>>
>>>
>>>How come they don't completely convince the folks at NASA-JPL?
>>
>> Who says they don't?
> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
>
> Androcles.
That silly place called NASA, they are ignoring all the relativity
time changes..
They use "absolute" time like science is supposed to do..
How silly of them.
:)
Hexenmeister
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:f5OdnS3-m_nUHJ7Z...@comcast.com...
What the fuck is "emory.edu" anyway?
http://www.emory.edu/research.cfm
"Emory receives more research funding than any other university in Georgia,
including more than $350 million in fiscal year 2004, of which $320 million
was in the health sciences."
Obviously the funding went down in 2005, but it sure looks as if Lloyd
Parker
is there as a guinea pig for the students to practice psychiatry on, no way
would he get into a physics and mathematics school with his attitude.
Perhaps he's on a ping-pong scholarship. Georgia is a backwater state,
second only to Louisiana. Heck, the hillbillies of Tennessee and West
Virginia are smarter than Georgians.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
Henri Wilson
Do the calculation yourself if you don't believe me. I posted it here before.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Randy Poe
Hexenmeister wrote:
> "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:dtv32s$et7$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <16hMf.61936$DM.3...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> > "Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote:
> >>
> >>"Solvay" <g...@charter.net> wrote in message
> >>news:1140933313.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>> The mu-meson decay-rate experiment and the atomic-clocks experiment by
> >>> Haefele and Keating seem completely convincing.
> >>> What is your alternative explanation for these empirical findings?
> >>
> >>
> >>How come they don't completely convince the folks at NASA-JPL?
> >
> > Who says they don't?
> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
Oops, wrong again.
Coordinated Universal Time, the first time listed on that website,
is the synchronized time kept by the world's atomic clocks which
uses relativistically-corrected GPS satellites as a critical part
of the time-keeping system.
- Randy
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141094380.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Randy needs to open his eyes and block off the
relativity figments occuring in his head..
The website states....
Coordinated Universal Time :
The worldwide scientific standard of timekeeping.
It is based upon carefully maintained atomic clocks
and is highly stable. The addition or subtraction of leap
seconds, as necessary, at two opportunities every year
adjusts UTC for irregularities in Earth's rotation.
Where the heck does that say GPS in it except for your
warped relativity mind.
No GPS clocks are involved at all and how you came up
with such bullshit is amazingly ignorant.
Wake up some century Randy,
If you use "non periodic" clocks in reality,
You will crash spaceships into objects.
Such is the reason NASA does not use GPS clocks
at all and they use Earth based clocks only.
If you use Earth based absolute time,
You know where objects in space will be no matter
the speed.
Sheesh!
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Sam Wormley
Spaceman
>
>
> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
> relative motion and gravitation on time.
Yes, they continually confirm the clocks malfunctions predicted
by relativity. (sadly relativity calls them "time changing" instead)
It works good for that although, the malfunctions are removed
by using such predictions so they can keep in sync with Earth
based clocks for absolute positioning on earth using absolute
times to do such absolute positioning.
Too bad Sam does not get "how" it really all works..
:)
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman the Physicistologist.
:)
Lloyd Parker
and bitch and moan on usenet. You do realize, everybody is laughing at you.
Randy Poe
What is this "Coordinated Universal Time"? What are these
"carefully maintained atomic clocks"? Let's search on
"Coordinated Universal Time" and find out:
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/UT.html
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpstt.html
> No GPS clocks are involved at all and how you came up
> with such bullshit is amazingly ignorant.
UTC comes from the US Navy Timekeeping Service. They
use GPS to do it.
- Randy
Randy Poe
Some more links for you showing how GPS is "not involved
at all in coordinating time".
http://www.tf.nist.gov/timefreq/time/commonviewgps.htm
http://www.tf.nist.gov/timefreq/time/carrierphase.htm
http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/projects/tim_trans.html
http://tinyurl.com/qkyo9
(That last one is the Australian master clock service. The
GPS info is buried halfway down the page: "PRECISE TIME
AND FREQUENCY DISSEMINATION: Dissemination of precise
time and frequency from NMI is provided primarily by means of
time transfer via the Global Positioning System (GPS) and 'sync'
pulses in television transmissions. These time transfer methods
varies in accuracy and geographical coverage.")
- Randy
Spaceman
Wow, you truly are brainwashed,
They use ground based labs, and if you want to grab such
time off a ground based lab you need to be close to get the
radio signal or you can grab it off the GPS but the whole point
is GPS removes the "time rate changes" of their own clocks.
Get a clue some century Randy.
It is still absolute time, not "relative time".
Sheesh!
LOL
Spaceman
> (That last one is the Australian master clock service. The
> GPS info is buried halfway down the page: "PRECISE TIME
> AND FREQUENCY DISSEMINATION: Dissemination of precise
> time and frequency from NMI is provided primarily by means of
> time transfer via the Global Positioning System (GPS) and 'sync'
> pulses in television transmissions. These time transfer methods
> varies in accuracy and geographical coverage.")
Do you understand what the sync means in the above statement?
It sounds like you don't.
The sync is the part that removes the clocks malfunctions from the
motion they are experiencing.
Absolute time is what they are syncing the clocks for.
Sheesh! again.
Sam Wormley
Hey Driscoll--I've got the resource for you.
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/time.html
Now you won't have to post out of ignorance!
Spaceman
Hey Sam,
Why do they syncronize the clocks ?
Hint:) To get the absolute time needed for absolute coordinates
DUH!
Maybe you should stop posting your ignorance.
Sam Wormley
Hey Driscoll--Here is a bit of timely education for you!
UTC GPS TAI TT (TDT)
----+---------+-----------------+--------------------------+-----
| | | ET 1984.0
|<--33s Leap Seconds------->|<-----32.184S fixed------>|
| | | |
|<--14s-->|<----19s-------->| |
| fixed |
| |
|
---+------- DeltaT = 32.184 s + (TAI-UTC) - (UT1-UTC) -----+-----
UT1 (UT) 64.882 s 33 s +0.302s TT (TDT)
UTC is variable with respect to UT1 and is kept within ą0.9s
with leap seconds.
The differences between GPS Time and International Atomic Time (TAI) and
Terrestrial Time (TT), also know as Terrestrial Dynaminal Time (TDT), are
constant at at the level of some tens of nanoseconds while the difference
between GPS Time and UTC changes in increments of seconds, each time a
leap second is added to UTC time scale.
A summary of the international standard date and time notation
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html
Navy -- The Official Source of Time for the Department of Defense (DoD)
and the Global Positioning System (GPS), and a Standard of Time for the
United States
USNO GPS Time Transfer
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpstt.html
The time (UTC) is relative time... relative to the Earth's
rotation primarily. GPS has become the primary means of
time dissemination around the world.
Spaceman
ROFLOL
You truly are totally brainwashed.
Still don't get what "sync" means, nor what clocks are "synced" to
what clocks.
LOL
Sam Wormley
Hurts, doesn't it, Driscoll!
Spaceman
It only hurts you Sam, and it is not nice of you
to steal Uncle Al's line.
:)
Hexenmeister
You have that wrong, it is "Those that can, do. Those that cannot, teach".
And of course there is a hierarchy of teachers, the best are at Sussex,
Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, Harvard and Yale, the worst are in Georgia.
> You do realize, everybody is laughing at you.
Good. I'm a better entertainer than you, then, they are weeping with
pity for you. Do you enjoy having needles stuck into you at Emory
school for nursemaids?
Have a real problem, find something wrong with this spreadsheet and
correct it before a med student puts a needle or a boot in your arse.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
Androcles.
T Wake
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
>
> It only hurts you Sam, and it is not nice of you
> to steal Uncle Al's line.
> :)
>
>
Is that the real spaceman or the emulator?
I suspect its the emulator - does anyone know for sure?
Henri Wilson
>
>
> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
> relative motion and gravitation on time.
..but Paul Andersen assures us that clock rates are not physically affected by
movement.
So how come GPS clocks are supposed to physically change due to their movement?
I don't think you know what you are talking about Wormley.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sam Wormley
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:49:25 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
>> relative motion and gravitation on time.
>
>
>
> ..but Paul Andersen assures us that clock rates are not physically affected by
> movement.
Paul Andersen told you your argument was fatal!
>
> So how come GPS clocks are supposed to physically change due to their movement?
The time of *all* processes is altered by relative motion and
gravitation, including GPS atomic clocks.
>
> I don't think you know what you are talking about Wormley.
>
You shouldn't believe me just because I said it... you should
believe the empirical data... It's that data that confirm the
predictions of SR and GTR for the application of GPS.
Spaceman
> The time of *all* processes is altered by relative motion and
> gravitation, including GPS atomic clocks.
It is not the time Sam,
It is the action and reaction that changes rate,
not time itself.
You apparently don't know the difference.
> You shouldn't believe me just because I said it... you should
> believe the empirical data... It's that data that confirm the
> predictions of SR and GTR for the application of GPS.
Yup, it is true, SR anf GTR correctly predict the clock malfunctions,
and those malfunctions are removed for GPS to work correctly.
So it is used, but not as a reality of time changing, but as a reality
of clock malfunction.
Poor Sam, so brainwashed by SR, he has forgotten what
timing things is all about. absolute timing.
LOL
Paul B. Andersen
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:49:25 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
>>> relative motion and gravitation on time.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ..but Paul Andersen assures us that clock rates are not physically
>> affected by
>> movement.
>
>
> Paul Andersen told you your argument was fatal!
I do indeed assure that clock rates are not physically affected
by movement in the sense that a clock's proper, intrinsic rate
is not affected by movement, acceleration or gravitation.
>>
>> So how come GPS clocks are supposed to physically change due to their
>> movement?
Don't be fooled by Henri's intentionally imprecise and
wrong statement.
Of course the intrinsic, proper, physical rates of GPS
clocks are not supposed to change due to their movement.
And they don't.
But clocks keep changing their reading all time.
Is this to "physically change"? :-)
> The time of *all* processes is altered by relative motion and
> gravitation, including GPS atomic clocks.
This is a bit imprecise.
Which "time" is altered by relative motion and gravitation?
1. The intrinsic (or proper) rate of a clock (process)
is not affected by motion and gravitation.
2. The proper time between two events measured by a clock
depend on the clock's path through space time.
3. The clock's path through space time is affected by its
motion, acceleration and gravitation (curvature).
It is the "proper time between events" that is affected.
The clock - or process - is not altered in any way,
it keep running at its proper rate as always.
That was probably what you meant, but by expressing
it so imprecisely, Henri will claim that you have stated
that the clock's intrinsic rate is affected.
>> I don't think you know what you are talking about Wormley.
>>
>
> You shouldn't believe me just because I said it... you should
> believe the empirical data... It's that data that confirm the
> predictions of SR and GTR for the application of GPS.
Indeed.
But remember that what GR predicts is (in this context)
what clocks will read at specific events.
In some cases GR will predict that two clocks will
measure different proper time between a pair of events.
That does _not_ mean that GR predicts that any of the clocks
are physically affected in any way.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:49:25 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
>> relative motion and gravitation on time.
Indeed they do.
> ..but Paul Andersen assures us that clock rates are not physically affected by
> movement.
Indeed he does.
> So how come GPS clocks are supposed to physically change due to their movement?
The intrinsic rates of the GPS clocks are not supposed
to change due to their movement.
And they don't.
So what are you referring to, Henri?
Did you have a point?
Paul
Spaceman
news:du4500$6l0$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> Don't be fooled by Henri's intentionally imprecise and
> wrong statement.
> Of course the intrinsic, proper, physical rates of GPS
> clocks are not supposed to change due to their movement.
> And they don't.
>
> But clocks keep changing their reading all time.
> Is this to "physically change"? :-)
Yes, the clocks rate physically changes.
If it did not they would always show the same times
as all other clocks.
>> The time of *all* processes is altered by relative motion and
>> gravitation, including GPS atomic clocks.
>
> This is a bit imprecise.
> Which "time" is altered by relative motion and gravitation?
clock time.
The "ticking" rate of the clock is physically changed when such
occurs.
> 1. The intrinsic (or proper) rate of a clock (process)
> is not affected by motion and gravitation.
Wrong.
Looks like Paul has no idea of a clock "proper" funtion is.
> 2. The proper time between two events measured by a clock
> depend on the clock's path through space time.
>
> 3. The clock's path through space time is affected by its
> motion, acceleration and gravitation (curvature).
>
> It is the "proper time between events" that is affected.
> The clock - or process - is not altered in any way,
> it keep running at its proper rate as always.
It does not, that is the biggest bunch of crap that is stated
about the clock, the clock did not keep the proper rate,
If it did it would show the same time at end result.
Spaceman
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:49:25 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
>>> relative motion and gravitation on time.
>
> Indeed they do.
Yes, they do, and these "effects" are basically removed when
clocks are synced so we can have absulute times to find absolute
positions WRT Earth on Earth and close to Earth and even further
away from Earth.
>> ..but Paul Andersen assures us that clock rates are not physically
>> affected by
>> movement.
>
> Indeed he does.
Then he is wrong.
And all sorts of clocks prove such emperically.
>> So how come GPS clocks are supposed to physically change due to their
>> movement?
>
> The intrinsic rates of the GPS clocks are not supposed
> to change due to their movement.
> And they don't.
Complete crap as usual.
The clocks do change rate. that is the reason we need
to sync them to find absolute positions WRT Earth.
> So what are you referring to, Henri?
> Did you have a point?
I have a point,
You are wrong, and have no clue about the functions
of a clock.
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:49:25 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
>>>> relative motion and gravitation on time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ..but Paul Andersen assures us that clock rates are not physically
>>> affected by
>>> movement.
>>
>>
>> Paul Andersen told you your argument was fatal!
>
>I do indeed assure that clock rates are not physically affected
>by movement in the sense that a clock's proper, intrinsic rate
>is not affected by movement, acceleration or gravitation.
>
>>>
>>> So how come GPS clocks are supposed to physically change due to their
>>> movement?
>
>Don't be fooled by Henri's intentionally imprecise and
>wrong statement.
>Of course the intrinsic, proper, physical rates of GPS
>clocks are not supposed to change due to their movement.
>And they don't.
100% correct.
>
>But clocks keep changing their reading all time.
>Is this to "physically change"? :-)
Well obviously in that case, if they haven't physically changed due to movement
they have physically changed due to other factors....like being placed in free
fall and cutting the Earth's fields at 3770 m/s.
>
>> The time of *all* processes is altered by relative motion and
>> gravitation, including GPS atomic clocks.
>
>This is a bit imprecise.
>Which "time" is altered by relative motion and gravitation?
>
>1. The intrinsic (or proper) rate of a clock (process)
> is not affected by motion and gravitation.
>
>2. The proper time between two events measured by a clock
> depend on the clock's path through space time.
'spacetime ' doesn't exist. It is just a biggish wrd that impresses smallish
minds.
>
>3. The clock's path through space time is affected by its
> motion, acceleration and gravitation (curvature).
One can have different paths through space but NOT through time.
>It is the "proper time between events" that is affected.
>The clock - or process - is not altered in any way,
>it keep running at its proper rate as always.
>
>That was probably what you meant, but by expressing
>it so imprecisely, Henri will claim that you have stated
>that the clock's intrinsic rate is affected.
It has. I have explained this before.
Here is the experiment again:
You have two identical clocks A and B, on the ground. Clock A is to be sent
into GPS orbit to join clock C, which is already up there.
The GO counts the number of tick the two GCs emit, PER ORBIT of clock C (assume
the orbit is known accurately enough to do this...which it must be since Paul
Andersen assures us that the 'GR correction' has been confirmed to better than
1%)
Clock A is launched into orbit. The GO now registers A's rate as N+n ticks PER
ORBIT of clock C.
It is obvious that clock A now emits more ticks than it did on the ground
during the same time interval, AS MEASURED BY THE ORIGINAL OBSERVER IN THE
ORIGINAL FRAME WITH THE ORIGINAL GEAR AND THE ORIGINAL TIME REFERENCE.
Forget your GR 'timeflow magic'.
Clock A has obviously been physically affected by the experience of being
launched into free fall.
>
>>> I don't think you know what you are talking about Wormley.
>>>
>>
>> You shouldn't believe me just because I said it... you should
>> believe the empirical data... It's that data that confirm the
>> predictions of SR and GTR for the application of GPS.
>
>Indeed.
>But remember that what GR predicts is (in this context)
>what clocks will read at specific events.
>In some cases GR will predict that two clocks will
>measure different proper time between a pair of events.
>That does _not_ mean that GR predicts that any of the clocks
>are physically affected in any way.
I don't think you have any more of a clue than Wormey.
>
>Paul
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sam Wormley
>
> It has. I have explained this before.
> Here is the experiment again:
>
> You have two identical clocks A and B, on the ground. Clock A is to be sent
> into GPS orbit to join clock C, which is already up there.
>
> The GO counts the number of tick the two GCs emit, PER ORBIT of clock C (assume
> the orbit is known accurately enough to do this...which it must be since Paul
> Andersen assures us that the 'GR correction' has been confirmed to better than
> 1%)
>
> Clock A is launched into orbit. The GO now registers A's rate as N+n ticks PER
> ORBIT of clock C.
>
> It is obvious that clock A now emits more ticks than it did on the ground
> during the same time interval, AS MEASURED BY THE ORIGINAL OBSERVER IN THE
> ORIGINAL FRAME WITH THE ORIGINAL GEAR AND THE ORIGINAL TIME REFERENCE.
>
> Forget your GR 'timeflow magic'.
>
> Clock A has obviously been physically affected by the experience of being
> launched into free fall.
>
GPS satellite clocks continually confirm the effects of
relative motion and gravitation on time, as measured by
an observer (user of GPS). In fact, Henri, there has never
be a prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted by an
observation.
Henri Wilson
GPS clocks are currently way out of synch with UTC.
Why would ground based UTC system want to have any interest in GPS clocks?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
Listen Wormey, the 4.65 parts in 10^10 that GR claims, is exactly the blueshift
predicted by the BaTh. I have published the calculatuion here before.
Why don't you accept the facts? Light accelerates as it falls to Earth like
anything else.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Lloyd Parker
can be scattered, absorbed and reemitted, etc.
Paul B. Andersen
> 'spacetime ' doesn't exist. It is just a biggish wrd that impresses smallish
> minds.
>
>
>>3. The clock's path through space time is affected by its
>> motion, acceleration and gravitation (curvature).
>
>
> One can have different paths through space but NOT through time.
Listen Henri.
We are talking about the "path" from one
_event_ to another _event_.
(Don't quibble about words. If you can find
another word for it than "path", it's fine with me.
You can then substitute your own word for "path"
in the following.)
Concrete example:
I am leaving my office at 1600 h Mars 3. 2006
and arrive at my home at 1620 h Mars 3. 2006.
What is my "path" between the two events?
Let's for now ignore gravity and
the rotation of the Earth and pretend
that the "ground frame" is inertial
and that my motion between the events
is inertial.
In the ground frame, my "path through space"
is a two km long straight line.
In the inertial frame "my rest frame",
the "path through space" is a point with
no length at all.
So my "path through space" is a meaningless
expression. It can be anything, depending
on the choice of frame of reference.
Nevertheless, the event "my office at 1600"
is a unique event, independent of frames of references.
So is the event "my home at 1620".
Since my motion between the events is inertial,
my "path" between the events is a unique entity,
not dependent on frames of reference or anything else.
You might call it an absolute entity.
So in what is my "path"?
In space and time. Space-time. Of course.
Space-time as the 4-dimensional continuum
constituted by all possible events obviously
exists whether you accept SR or not.
The dispute isn't about the existence of space-time,
but of the geometry of space time.
It does not matter if you use NM or SR,
my "path" is a geodesic in space time.
Which invariant (frame independent) attributes can
we assign to this path?
Only one.
Its "length" measured in time.
According to NM, the "length" of this geodesic
is 20 minutes. That is the only invariant
you can assign to my journey home!
According to SR, the "length" of this geodesic is
0.999999999999999957*20 minutes.
My point?
Space-time exists by definition.
It is equally meaningful in NM and SR.
The only invariant entity you can assign
to a path between two events is a time,
in NM as well as in SR.
"Path through space" is equally meaningless in NM as in SR.
A path from one event to another is a path through
space-time in NM as well as in SR.
But the geometry of space-time is different in NM and SR.
Paul
Sam Wormley
>
> Listen Wormey, the 4.65 parts in 10^10 that GR claims, is exactly the blueshift
> predicted by the BaTh. I have published the calculatuion here before.
>
> Why don't you accept the facts? Light accelerates as it falls to Earth like
> anything else.
>
>
There are currently *a dozen* relativistic corrections
from both SR and GTR incorporated in the GPS. Not all
have to do with offset in the orbiting clocks.
See: http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
Sam Wormley
>
> GPS clocks are currently way out of synch with UTC.
> Why would ground based UTC system want to have any interest in GPS clocks?
>
Atomic clocks (including those as part of the GPS) are not
"adjusted" to sync with the changing rate of rotation of
the Earth. However, the GPS has built into it's navigation
message, fields that allow GPS receivers to report UTC... and
many receivers can do that with nanosecond precision.
See: http://edu-observatory.org/gps/time.html
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:56:51 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >
> >
> > False statement
>
> Prove it.
The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
distance between the scintillators and the time difference between the
signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
Androcles asserts that the superluminal muons are slowed by passage
through the first muon in this spaced set, thereafter traveling
subluminally to the following scintillators. He makes this assertion
despite the fact that this slowing would have to be to the same
subluminal speed regardless of the initial (superluminal) speed of the
muon, regardless of the thickness of the scintillator (which can be
changed with no observed effect on the time of flight measurement), and
despite the fact that the energy deposited in the first scintillator is
identical to the deposits made in the following scintillators. Would
you offer the same idiotic explanation?
> >
> >
> >> The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
> >
> > False statement
>
> Prove it.
Your assertion is one of historical record. You need to provide
evidence of the "official withdrawal".
PD
Sam Wormley
UTC GPS TAI TT (TDT)
----+---------+-----------------+--------------------------+-----
| | | ET 1984.0
|<--33s Leap Seconds------->|<-----32.184S fixed------>|
| | | |
|<--14s-->|<----19s-------->| |
| fixed |
| |
|
---+------- DeltaT = 32.184 s + (TAI-UTC) - (UT1-UTC) -----+-----
UT1 (UT) 64.889 s 33 s +0.295s TT (TDT)
Spaceman
news:1141403761.0...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
> along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
> distance between the scintillators and the time difference between the
> signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
Fine
so they "live" longer because of the extra motion (energy)
they have.
Just like a top that is spinning will spin longer (live longer) than
a top that is not spinning and falls (dies) basically right away.
(or as fast as it falls anyway)
The more energy you give to the top, the longer it "lives".
PD
Several comments:
1. I was talking to Henri and not to you. He made the claim that muons
are superluminal and I was addressing that claim. This is the last that
I will deal with you on this topic.
2. A top's *motion* lasts longer if you give it a bigger spin, just
like a shopping cart will roll farther if you push it harder. This does
not mean that the top becomes something else when it has stopped moving
or that the shopping cart decays into something else when it stops
rolling.
3. The muon does decay only after slowing down and stopping. A
fast-moving muon decays while it is still going, even if its speed is
unchanged for the whole flight. We know that it is still going when it
decays by at least a couple of independent means:
a) The muon can decay between a pair of scintillators in the chain of
scintillators that is used for the time-of-flight measurement. None of
the previous scintillators indicate a slowing down and there is no
reason to believe that it suddenly decided to slow down to a stop in
that last interval between scintillators before decaying.
b) The muon decays into an electron and neutrinos, conserving energy
and momentum in that process. The momentum of the products tells us
that the muon was still moving when it decayed.
4) It is not true that a muon is only a muon if it is moving. You seem
to be saying that a top ceases to be a top once its motion stops. This
is not true for the top and it is not true for a muon.
5) You have no mechanism, real or imagined, why the *decay* of a muon
into something completely different (electrons and neutrinos) would be
delayed by its having motion.
Basically, you have no idea what you're talking about. You just like
tossing out "maybes" and "sorta likes" and "what ifs" to hear yourself
talk.
PD
Spaceman
>
> Spaceman wrote:
>> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141403761.0...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> > The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
>> > along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
>> > distance between the scintillators and the time difference between the
>> > signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
>>
>> Fine
>> so they "live" longer because of the extra motion (energy)
>> they have.
>> Just like a top that is spinning will spin longer (live longer) than
>> a top that is not spinning and falls (dies) basically right away.
>> (or as fast as it falls anyway)
>> The more energy you give to the top, the longer it "lives".
>
> Several comments:
> 1. I was talking to Henri and not to you. He made the claim that muons
> are superluminal and I was addressing that claim. This is the last that
> I will deal with you on this topic.
LOL
So now I can not talk to you when you post because
you are the usenet god and you should only be addressed
when you have spoken to me!
LOL
> 2. A top's *motion* lasts longer if you give it a bigger spin, just
> like a shopping cart will roll farther if you push it harder. This does
> not mean that the top becomes something else when it has stopped moving
> or that the shopping cart decays into something else when it stops
> rolling.
Fine, a tornado gains energy when it is in motion,
and when it slows down it will lost it's energy and die.
same crap.
You are too ignorant to even think anymore.
You "know all" so nobody can awaken any such clues
in your head anymore.
LOL
> 3. The muon does decay only after slowing down and stopping. A
> fast-moving muon decays while it is still going, even if its speed is
> unchanged for the whole flight.
Storm systems are laughing at you!
You are a time travel moron!
LOL
brian a m stuckless
$$ It's lost it's "path" <snicker>.
$$ GR DECLARED, "No PRiOR geometry" hence "No GR WORLD-line".
$$ The GR G_uv is NOT= T_uv, or equated, in GR Tivity itself.
$$ GR, T_uv = G_absolute / G = 1 / (n - 1) = G_relative = Gr.
$$ Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity.
$$ What's lost, found. ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).
Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity.
Re: It's lost it's "path" <snicker>.
brian a m stuckless
$$ It's lost it's "path" <snicker>.
$$ GR DECLARED, "No PRiOR geometry" hence "No GR WORLD-line".
$$ The GR G_uv is NOT= T_uv, or equated, in GR Tivity itself.
$$ GR, T_uv = G_absolute / G = 1 / (n - 1) = G_relative = Gr.
$$ Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity.
$$ What's lost, found. ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).
Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity.
Re: It's lost it's "path".
Matthew Lybanon
bas...@nf.sympatico.ca wrote on 3/3/06 12:46 PM:
RULES FOR BETTER WRITING
26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not
needed.
Lloyd Parker
does it?
Spaceman
Heating it is not the same type of energy.
That is collision energy, and that might even make
it live less long..
Heat the top and it will spin slower if it gets too hot
and then if it really gets too hot, it will melt and
no longer spin at all.
so.
Like rolling a ball energy, not like making the ball
smash between objects creating heat and friction etc..
Tom Roberts
> 26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not
> needed.
Of course you got both of them wrong.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Lloyd Parker
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:duafol$vam$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <B6udnZ_z-pf...@comcast.com>,
>> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote:
>>>"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1141403761.0...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>> The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
>>>> along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
>>>> distance between the scintillators and the time difference between the
>>>> signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
>>>
>>>Fine
>>>so they "live" longer because of the extra motion (energy)
>>>they have.
>>>Just like a top that is spinning will spin longer (live longer) than
>>>a top that is not spinning and falls (dies) basically right away.
>>>(or as fast as it falls anyway)
>>>The more energy you give to the top, the longer it "lives".
>>>
>>>
>> So if you're right, heating up a muon would make it live longer too.
>> Doesn't,
>> does it?
>
>Heating it is not the same type of energy.
>That is collision energy, and that might even make
>it live less long..
The more energy you give it..." was what you wrote.
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> 'spacetime ' doesn't exist. It is just a biggish wrd that impresses smallish
>> minds.
>>
>>
>>>3. The clock's path through space time is affected by its
>>> motion, acceleration and gravitation (curvature).
>>
>>
>> One can have different paths through space but NOT through time.
>
>Listen Henri.
>We are talking about the "path" from one
>_event_ to another _event_.
...and the end points on the TIME scale are always the same no matter what the
spatial path. End of story...
>(Don't quibble about words. If you can find
> another word for it than "path", it's fine with me.
> You can then substitute your own word for "path"
> in the following.)
You make the assumption that different paths can be taken in TIME.
You would need more than one TIME dimension for that.
>Concrete example:
> I am leaving my office at 1600 h Mars 3. 2006
> and arrive at my home at 1620 h Mars 3. 2006.
>
>What is my "path" between the two events?
>
>Let's for now ignore gravity and
>the rotation of the Earth and pretend
>that the "ground frame" is inertial
>and that my motion between the events
>is inertial.
>
>In the ground frame, my "path through space"
>is a two km long straight line.
It doesn't matter what spatial path you take. The ttrip is going to take 20
minutes.
>
>In the inertial frame "my rest frame",
>the "path through space" is a point with
>no length at all.
>
>So my "path through space" is a meaningless
>expression. It can be anything, depending
>on the choice of frame of reference.
That is the wrong approach entirely.
The one and only interval of space that you intend crossing is defined by two
fixed points on a solid lump of matter called planet Earth.
You will start at one point and end at the other.
The trip will take twenty minutes no matter how you get there.
>Nevertheless, the event "my office at 1600"
>is a unique event, independent of frames of references.
Yes
>So is the event "my home at 1620".
Yes
>Since my motion between the events is inertial,
>my "path" between the events is a unique entity,
>not dependent on frames of reference or anything else.
>You might call it an absolute entity.
I probably would.
>So in what is my "path"?
>In space and time. Space-time. Of course.
>Space-time as the 4-dimensional continuum
>constituted by all possible events obviously
>exists whether you accept SR or not.
Hohohohahahahah!
What a funny conlusion to reach!!
Your path is spatial, nothing more. It requires a twenty minute time interval
by definition.
>The dispute isn't about the existence of space-time,
>but of the geometry of space time.
>
>It does not matter if you use NM or SR,
>my "path" is a geodesic in space time.
>Which invariant (frame independent) attributes can
>we assign to this path?
>Only one.
>Its "length" measured in time.
Paul, if you consider the ground to be flat, you can plot all your possible
paths on a 3D set of axes, one axis being time.
No matter what you spatial path, the two end time coordinates will be the same.
Do you not agree?
To achieve a different path through time, you would need at least two time
axes. I have been pointing this out for years but you are all too bloody dumb
to accept the obvious fact that time must have three subdimensions... just like
space does.
>According to NM, the "length" of this geodesic
>is 20 minutes. That is the only invariant
>you can assign to my journey home!
>
>According to SR, the "length" of this geodesic is
>0.999999999999999957*20 minutes.
What a load of crap.
>
>My point?
>Space-time exists by definition.
Space/time is a graphical convenience. It has no physical significance.
>It is equally meaningful in NM and SR.
>The only invariant entity you can assign
>to a path between two events is a time,
>in NM as well as in SR.
>"Path through space" is equally meaningless in NM as in SR.
>A path from one event to another is a path through
>space-time in NM as well as in SR.
Rubbish, time is irrelevant in allof this.
>
>But the geometry of space-time is different in NM and SR.
SR makes some kind of weird assumption that time FLOW at a point in space,
depends on movement. But it cannot even define timeflow. :)
Everything about SR is circular.
>
>Paul
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
Hooray for Wormey!
After ten yaers, he has finally provided this NG with some correct - albeit -
useless - information.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:56:51 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >
>> >> The Muons were superluminal.
>> >
>> > False statement
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>The time of flight of muons is measured by scintillators separated
>along the path of travel. The speed is easily determined from the
>distance between the scintillators and the time difference between the
>signals in the scintillator. It is a subluminal speed.
>
>Androcles asserts that the superluminal muons are slowed by passage
>through the first (scintillator) in this spaced set, thereafter traveling
>subluminally to the following scintillators. He makes this assertion
>despite the fact that this slowing would have to be to the same
>subluminal speed regardless of the initial (superluminal) speed of the
>muon, regardless of the thickness of the scintillator (which can be
>changed with no observed effect on the time of flight measurement), and
>despite the fact that the energy deposited in the first scintillator is
>identical to the deposits made in the following scintillators. Would
>you offer the same idiotic explanation?
I certainly would include that. You have made quite ridiculous and erroneous
claims here by the way..
I would also point out that most muon slowing takes place in the lower
atmosphere and even though many mouns may pass betwen the scintillators at <c,
they would have been traveling much faster for most of their journeys through
the atmosphere.
If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
muons DO travel at near c.
Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
>> >
>> > False statement
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>Your assertion is one of historical record. You need to provide
>evidence of the "official withdrawal".
>
>PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
Motion wrt what?
Take away the Earth. To what is the muon's 'speed' relative now?
Should it take more time or less time to decay?
>
>Basically, you have no idea what you're talking about. You just like
>tossing out "maybes" and "sorta likes" and "what ifs" to hear yourself
>talk.
>
>PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sam Wormley
Atomic clocks (including those as part of the GPS) are not
PD
A good question to ask spaceman. He's the one that says motion makes
the muon live longer.
PD
Ah, good. Then you should be able to use the information about the
density of the atmosphere and the thickness traversed through that
density to then estimate the *additional* slowing to be expected on the
passage through each slab of much denser scintillator, and then compare
that with experiment to see if this slowing in the scintillator is in
fact observed. Now, if the scintillator does NOT slow it down by nearly
the factor expected, then you'd have to explain how it is a sparse
atmosphere can dramatically slow a muon much more effectively than a
slab of scintillator.
>
> If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
> For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
> muons DO travel at near c.
This technique is called gating. Use arrival of one signal and a
guessed velocity to open a gate at a subsequent detector and see if a
signal is made inside that narrow gate. If there *is* a signal, then
there are two explanations:
1) the particle did indeed travel at the guessed-at velocity and caused
the signal at the subsequent detector
2) the particle did not travel at the guessed-at velocity and the
second signal was created by the arrival of a completely different
particle in an accidental hit.
The second explanation does indeed cause a contribution to the
coincidence (where "coincidence" strictly means the incidence of both
counters firing) rate, which is statistically calculable from the pulse
width and the average rate of single hits in any counter. This
accidental rate is customarily suppressed/controlled by chaining the
gated detectors to include more than just two, which lowers the
fraction of accidentals by a power, equal to the number of detectors in
the chain. For this exercise, it is sufficient to lower the accidental
rate to be less than a percent or so.
> Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
> reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
> Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
Which would be what, exactly?
>
>
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
> >> >
> >> > False statement
> >>
> >> Prove it.
> >
> >Your assertion is one of historical record. You need to provide
> >evidence of the "official withdrawal".
I take it there isn't any, and you just made it up.
> >
> >PD
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Spaceman
LOL
You are also saying so.
You say it lived longer through time dilation caused by the motion.
You still need to answer for such.
So don't ignore the question PD like you always do.
The more motion I am speaking of is simply the more motion
than the "at rest" WRT Earth motion.
Spaceman
> Atomic clocks (including those as part of the GPS) are not
> "adjusted" to sync with the changing rate of rotation of
> the Earth. However, the GPS has built into it's navigation
> message, fields that allow GPS receivers to report UTC... and
> many receivers can do that with nanosecond precision.
Why would they report UTC Sam?
Are you finally realizing the changes in them are basically
being removed to report the absolute time (UTC) needed for
absolute coordinated positioning?
Or will you stay brainwashed for ever?
Sam Wormley
GPS receivers report UTC, because they were designed to
report UTC. There is nothing "absolute" to UTC or any other
time system created by humans.
There is no "absolute" coordinate system either. Try not
to be so stooopid, spaceshit.
Spaceman
ROFLOL
You love to stay clueless and brainwashed huh?
LOL
> There is no "absolute" coordinate system either. Try not
> to be so stooopid, spaceshit.
Wow.
So Latitude and Longitude is not an absolute coordinate system
used on Earth?
Poor Sam, can't even find his house anymore..
Try not to be so ignorant and stupid simultaneously Sam.
LOL
PD
No I didn't. You apparently didn't understand a word I said.
> You still need to answer for such.
Not the way you mangled it.
> So don't ignore the question PD like you always do.
Perhaps if you asked a question...
David Bostwick
I suspect the errors are purposeful, but if you have to explain a satire, it's
hardly worth it.
Henri Wilson
As long as all orbiting clocks and the GC are in close rate synch, it matters
not how their readings differ. A correction factor is merely included in the
signal from each.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
Atmosphere is not exactly empty you know.
10 metres of air has about as many molecules as 2cms of scintillator.
>> If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
>> For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
>> muons DO travel at near c.
>
>This technique is called gating. Use arrival of one signal and a
>guessed velocity to open a gate at a subsequent detector and see if a
>signal is made inside that narrow gate. If there *is* a signal, then
>there are two explanations:
>1) the particle did indeed travel at the guessed-at velocity and caused
>the signal at the subsequent detector
>2) the particle did not travel at the guessed-at velocity and the
>second signal was created by the arrival of a completely different
>particle in an accidental hit.
>
>The second explanation does indeed cause a contribution to the
>coincidence (where "coincidence" strictly means the incidence of both
>counters firing) rate, which is statistically calculable from the pulse
>width and the average rate of single hits in any counter. This
>accidental rate is customarily suppressed/controlled by chaining the
>gated detectors to include more than just two, which lowers the
>fraction of accidentals by a power, equal to the number of detectors in
>the chain. For this exercise, it is sufficient to lower the accidental
>rate to be less than a percent or so.
...which all goes to show that the setup is pretty well incapable of detecting
superluminal muons. They are discarded as 'spurious' because Einsteiniana says
it simply cannot happen.
>> Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
>> reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
>
>Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
>between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
>scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
>time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
>
>> Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
>
>Which would be what, exactly?
Paul, what is the mean of (0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer:..about 1.000001
Its reciprocal is ~0.999999
What is the mean of (1/0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Answer: ..about 10000
Its reciprocal is ~0.00001
The muon experiment uses the first method.
It automaticaly rejects the influence of fast muons.
>> >> >
>> >> >> The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
>> >> >
>> >> > False statement
>> >>
>> >> Prove it.
>> >
>> >Your assertion is one of historical record. You need to provide
>> >evidence of the "official withdrawal".
>
>I take it there isn't any, and you just made it up.
It was found to statistically insignificant.
But we all knew that anyway...
>> >PD
>>
>>
>> HW.
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
PD
Right, at sea level. So on the basis of slowing a v=200c superluminal
muon down to c due to the integrated density of the atmosphere,
calculate the anticipated slowing of a muon through 2 cm of
scintillator. We'll check that against experimental results when you're
done.
>
> >> If you read about these muon eperiments, you will find other obvious flaws.
> >> For instance an electronic delay is inclued BASED ON an assumption that the
> >> muons DO travel at near c.
> >
> >This technique is called gating. Use arrival of one signal and a
> >guessed velocity to open a gate at a subsequent detector and see if a
> >signal is made inside that narrow gate. If there *is* a signal, then
> >there are two explanations:
> >1) the particle did indeed travel at the guessed-at velocity and caused
> >the signal at the subsequent detector
> >2) the particle did not travel at the guessed-at velocity and the
> >second signal was created by the arrival of a completely different
> >particle in an accidental hit.
> >
> >The second explanation does indeed cause a contribution to the
> >coincidence (where "coincidence" strictly means the incidence of both
> >counters firing) rate, which is statistically calculable from the pulse
> >width and the average rate of single hits in any counter. This
> >accidental rate is customarily suppressed/controlled by chaining the
> >gated detectors to include more than just two, which lowers the
> >fraction of accidentals by a power, equal to the number of detectors in
> >the chain. For this exercise, it is sufficient to lower the accidental
> >rate to be less than a percent or so.
>
> ...which all goes to show that the setup is pretty well incapable of detecting
> superluminal muons. They are discarded as 'spurious' because Einsteiniana says
> it simply cannot happen.
Ah, so you think there is a slight mix of superluminal muons mixed in
with a whole bunch of muons with velocity just under c? And why would
the distribution be peaked that way? And are you aware of the procedure
of watching the coincidence rate as the gate width is panned down? You
are aware, then, that this rate is plateaued to be sure some
fundamental rate that is not attributable to accidentals is not being
removed?
>
> >> Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
> >> reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
> >
> >Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
> >between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
> >scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
> >time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
> >
> >> Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
> >
> >Which would be what, exactly?
>
> Paul, what is the mean of (0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
> Answer:..about 1.000001
> Its reciprocal is ~0.999999
>
> What is the mean of (1/0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
> Answer: ..about 10000
> Its reciprocal is ~0.00001
>
> The muon experiment uses the first method.
> It automaticaly rejects the influence of fast muons.
As I said, you certainly need to be careful to take the mean of the
reciprocals, not the reciprocal of the mean. Why, doing the latter
would be just.... stupid.
>
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The H&K has been officially withdrawn.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > False statement
> >> >>
> >> >> Prove it.
> >> >
> >> >Your assertion is one of historical record. You need to provide
> >> >evidence of the "official withdrawal".
> >
> >I take it there isn't any, and you just made it up.
>
> It was found to statistically insignificant.
> But we all knew that anyway...
Back that up, please.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:38:38 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>'spacetime ' doesn't exist. It is just a biggish wrd that impresses smallish
>>>minds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>3. The clock's path through space time is affected by its
>>>> motion, acceleration and gravitation (curvature).
>>>
>>>
>>>One can have different paths through space but NOT through time.
>>
>>Listen Henri.
>>We are talking about the "path" from one
>>_event_ to another _event_.
>
>
> ...and the end points on the TIME scale are always the same no matter what the
> spatial path. End of story...
>
>
>>(Don't quibble about words. If you can find
>> another word for it than "path", it's fine with me.
>> You can then substitute your own word for "path"
>> in the following.)
>
>
> You make the assumption that different paths can be taken in TIME.
> You would need more than one TIME dimension for that.
Below you are doing exactly what I asked you not to do.
You are quibling about the meaning of the word "path".
>
>>Concrete example:
>> I am leaving my office at 1600 h Mars 3. 2006
>> and arrive at my home at 1620 h Mars 3. 2006.
>>
>>What is my "path" between the two events?
>>
>>Let's for now ignore gravity and
>>the rotation of the Earth and pretend
>>that the "ground frame" is inertial
>>and that my motion between the events
>>is inertial.
>>
>>In the ground frame, my "path through space"
>>is a two km long straight line.
>
>
> It doesn't matter what spatial path you take. The ttrip is going to take 20
> minutes.
>
>
>>In the inertial frame "my rest frame",
>>the "path through space" is a point with
>>no length at all.
>>
>>So my "path through space" is a meaningless
>>expression. It can be anything, depending
>>on the choice of frame of reference.
>
>
> That is the wrong approach entirely.
> The one and only interval of space that you intend crossing is defined by two
> fixed points on a solid lump of matter called planet Earth.
> You will start at one point and end at the other.
> The trip will take twenty minutes no matter how you get there.
Does that mean that the spatial distance between
the two event is 2 km independent of frame of reference? :-)
Of course you understand that it is impossible to
assign an absolute distance between two events, Henri.
>>Nevertheless, the event "my office at 1600"
>>is a unique event, independent of frames of references.
>
>
> Yes
>
>
>>So is the event "my home at 1620".
>
>
> Yes
>
>
>>Since my motion between the events is inertial,
>>my "path" between the events is a unique entity,
>>not dependent on frames of reference or anything else.
>>You might call it an absolute entity.
>
>
> I probably would.
>
>
>>So in what is my "path"?
>>In space and time. Space-time. Of course.
>>Space-time as the 4-dimensional continuum
>>constituted by all possible events obviously
>>exists whether you accept SR or not.
>
>
> Hohohohahahahah!
> What a funny conlusion to reach!!
>
> Your path is spatial, nothing more. It requires a twenty minute time interval
> by definition.
We are talking about "the watever you prefer to call it"
between two events.
I think you just said that "the whatever you prefer to call it"
is spatial, and it is 20 minutes long.
Or what did you try to say?
>>The dispute isn't about the existence of space-time,
>>but of the geometry of space time.
>
>
>>It does not matter if you use NM or SR,
>>my "path" is a geodesic in space time.
>>Which invariant (frame independent) attributes can
>>we assign to this path?
>>Only one.
>>Its "length" measured in time.
>
>
> Paul, if you consider the ground to be flat, you can plot all your possible
> paths on a 3D set of axes, one axis being time.
> No matter what you spatial path, the two end time coordinates will be the same.
> Do you not agree?
>
> To achieve a different path through time, you would need at least two time
> axes. I have been pointing this out for years but you are all too bloody dumb
> to accept the obvious fact that time must have three subdimensions... just like
> space does.
Don't diverge.
Nobody but you are talking about "different paths in time."
It is stupid. It is irrelevant. It is nonsense.
So why the hell do you bring it in?
The question was:
Which invariant (frame independent) attributes can
we assign to this "whatever you prefer to call it"?
I think you answered it above, Henri.
Only one.
A time.
>>According to NM, the "length" of this geodesic
>>is 20 minutes. That is the only invariant
>>you can assign to my journey home!
>>
>>According to SR, the "length" of this geodesic is
>>0.999999999999999957*20 minutes.
>
>
> What a load of crap.
>
>
>>My point?
>>Space-time exists by definition.
>
>
> Space/time is a graphical convenience. It has no physical significance.
But this "graphical convenience" exists by definition, doesn't it?
>
>
>>It is equally meaningful in NM and SR.
>>The only invariant entity you can assign
>>to a path between two events is a time,
>>in NM as well as in SR.
>>"Path through space" is equally meaningless in NM as in SR.
>>A path from one event to another is a path through
>>space-time in NM as well as in SR.
>
>
> Rubbish, time is irrelevant in allof this.
Time is irrelevant to "the whatever you prefer to call it"
between two events, but it requires a twenty minute
time interval ? :-)
>
>
>>But the geometry of space-time is different in NM and SR.
>
>
> SR makes some kind of weird assumption that time FLOW at a point in space,
> depends on movement. But it cannot even define timeflow. :)
> Everything about SR is circular.
Whatever.
Back to the point.
What do you call the something that is constituted by all
possible events, Henri?
Crap?
Paul
Spaceman
news:duka0k$kk6$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> Of course you understand that it is impossible to
> assign an absolute distance between two events, Henri.
Dear Paul,
Why would you say such?
Paul B. Andersen
Snap your fingers. That's event #1.
Wait 10 seconds.
Snap your fingers again. That's event #2.
What is the absolute spatial distance between the events?
Remember that:
Your (finger's) sped in the ground frame is zero.
Your speed in the ECI-frame is ca. 400 m/s.
Your speed in the Solar frame is ca. 30000 m/s
Paul
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
>> news:duka0k$kk6$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>>
>>>Of course you understand that it is impossible to
>>>assign an absolute distance between two events, Henri.
>>
>>
>> Dear Paul,
>> Why would you say such?
>>
>
> Snap your fingers. That's event #1.
> Wait 10 seconds.
> Snap your fingers again. That's event #2.
> What is the absolute spatial distance between the events?
Well,
It depends on what absolute spatial distance you wish
to look for.
If you are looking for the absolute spatial difference WRT
the ground where I stand and if I did not move at all
except for my snapping the absolute spatial difference
would be of course 0 WRT the ground where I stand.
I know you mean the relative distances but the whole point
in relative distances are the absolute distances that are merely
relative.
:)
> Remember that:
> Your (finger's) sped in the ground frame is zero.
> Your speed in the ECI-frame is ca. 400 m/s.
> Your speed in the Solar frame is ca. 30000 m/s
Yes,
but if you really look, are they not absolutes in each case.
:)
Why do people hate the absolute relative approach?
:)
Do we need to know the absolute distance of all that stuff
to make a building?
No.
So the absolutes that are in a large enough frame
for what you are working on work fine for reality.
and the absolute distance between two events does not
always have to be absolute to the rest of the universe
to be absolute to the total frame you are using.
:)
Henri Wilson
Spaceman, do you ever wonder why relativists never get past second base when
they try to apply logic?
Paul's error is so obvious to the unbrainwashed that it is embarrassing to have
to explain it to him.
Let's lay down a few indisputable facts.
The end points of a rigid rod define an absolute distance in space...and no
matter how that rod moves, that absolute distance remains the same. Neither
point however defines an absolute POSITION in space.
It follows that two events occuring at ONE end of the rod at TWO different
times obviously DO NOT define an absolute interval of space. They define an
absolute interval of TIME.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 5 Mar 2006 15:34:54 -0800, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ah, good. Then you should be able to use the information about the
>> >density of the atmosphere and the thickness traversed through that
>> >density to then estimate the *additional* slowing to be expected on the
>> >passage through each slab of much denser scintillator, and then compare
>> >that with experiment to see if this slowing in the scintillator is in
>> >fact observed. Now, if the scintillator does NOT slow it down by nearly
>> >the factor expected, then you'd have to explain how it is a sparse
>> >atmosphere can dramatically slow a muon much more effectively than a
>> >slab of scintillator.
>>
>> Atmosphere is not exactly empty you know.
>> 10 metres of air has about as many molecules as 2cms of scintillator.
>
>Right, at sea level. So on the basis of slowing a v=200c superluminal
>muon down to c due to the integrated density of the atmosphere,
>calculate the anticipated slowing of a muon through 2 cm of
>scintillator. We'll check that against experimental results when you're
>done.
Why did you assume they start out at 200c and end up at c?
Plenty could start out at 2c and end up at 1.9c...or whatever.
Are you asuming they all travel at around the same 0.998c for the whole trip?
The system rejects coincidences that would undicate speeds >c....because
Einsteiniana says they MUST BE spurious.
The bloody system is not quick enough to detect superluminal time differencess
anyway.
>> >> Another very strange feature is the mean muon velocity is calculated as the
>> >> reciprocal of their mean travel time between scintillators.
>> >
>> >Indeed for any passage, the velocity is D/t where D is the distance
>> >between the scintillators and t is the time of flight between the
>> >scintillators. And be sure you mean "reciprocal of their mean travel
>> >time" as opposed to the "mean of the reciprocal of the travel time".
>> >
>> >> Any fool can see the obvious statistical error here.
>> >
>> >Which would be what, exactly?
>>
>> Paul, what is the mean of (0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
>> Answer:..about 1.000001
>> Its reciprocal is ~0.999999
>>
>> What is the mean of (1/0.00001),1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
>> Answer: ..about 10000
>> Its reciprocal is ~0.00001
>>
>> The muon experiment uses the first method.
>> It automaticaly rejects the influence of fast muons.
>
>As I said, you certainly need to be careful to take the mean of the
>reciprocals, not the reciprocal of the mean. Why, doing the latter
>would be just.... stupid.
that's what happens in the muon experiment I have in front of me.
The mean muon speed is calculated as the inverse of the mean travel time
between detectors. Stupid, right!
>> >
>> >I take it there isn't any, and you just made it up.
>>
>> It was found to statistically insignificant.
>> But we all knew that anyway...
>
>Back that up, please.
Why do you think the experiment has never been repeated?
>> >> >PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm