H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity.
Max Keon
of this post. But Qbasic is well up to the task. So I've set up the
entire post as a Qbasic program.
This entire post can be loaded into the Qbasic program window where
all calculations can be done in a flash, and the consequences of
any alteration can be readily noted.
It won't run until this header and the footer have been removed,
including the lines "--------------".
If this is all too inconvenient, it's still quite readable as is.
-----------------
'According to any of the formula sets listed in the program, if both
'aircraft altitudes had remained constant, or had each varied by the
'same margin on average over the journey, regardless of the altitude
'at which the experiment is conducted, and no matter what the
'velocity of the aircrafts, the east bound and west bound clock time
'difference is always exactly the same. The currently active formula
'set in the program always results in a 414ns airborne clock
'difference when they are brought back to compare with the ground
'based clock. The currently inactive set results in 621ns difference
'between these two clocks (ALWAYS).
'In order to arrive at the actual H&K result, the east bound aircraft
'would necessarily have traveled at a **noticeably** higher altitude
'on average than the west bound aircraft.
DEFDBL A-Z
gr = -.00116 'Change this value, and the altitude of BOTH
'airborne clocks is equally altered. All that changes is the
'relationship between each airborne clock and the ground based
'clock. The value -.00116 nanoseconds/second, for the duration of
'the flight, aligns the east bound clock reading with the H&K
'result according to the velocity that is currently set in the
'program, while the west bound clock aligns with the H&K result if
'the value is changed to -.00068 , for the same velocity. This
'represents a substantial altitude discrepancy between the two
'aircrafts.
'gr = -.0019 'Remove the ( ' ) symbol from this equation and
'from the set of three equations located further down in the program
'that have been similarly rendered inactive, then add the same
'symbols to the three currently active equations above them, which
'renders them inactive. -.0019 then satisfies the H&K east clock
'requirement (per current velocity), while -.00023 satisfies the
'west clock requirement. These figures are even harder to justify
'as being altitude discrepancies of indeterminate parameters. The
'margin in both cases is huge.
'Either set of formulas can be assumed to be correct for a zero
'altitude H&K experiment. According to my interpretation of how
'things work, the initially inactive set of equations is correct.
'A data set from a H&K type experiment conducted at an intermediate
'height would provide a third graph point through which to generate
'a curve, and that curve could indicate which set of equations is
'correct. If the influence of the earth's mass on the oscillator of
'an atomic clock, relating only to its motion through the ECI frame,
'falls away at the rate of 1/r^2 (r being centered from every bit
'of matter in the earth) the three graph points will align according
'to only one set of equations.
v = 232.5 'Changing this value alters the aircraft velocity
'relative to the ground based clock. Using the actual H&K altitude
'and velocity won't change anything. The results simply cannot be
'explained by current theory.
CLS : c = 3E+08
PRINT " Aircraft velocity ="; v; "meters per second"
t = 86160 * (465 / v): grt = gr * t
PRINT " Time for the journey ="; t / 3600; "hours."
PRINT
PRINT " Clock rate increase per altitude is applied equally to"
PRINT " both airborne clocks. You have chosen "; gr; "ns"
PRINT " per second for this journey. = "; grt; "ns total"
PRINT " subtracted from the time slowing of each aircraft clock."
vw = 465 - v
ve = 465 + v
vx = 465
PRINT
PRINT " West bound clock velocity (per ECI frame) ="; vw; "m/sec."
PRINT " East bound clock velocity (per ECI frame) ="; ve; "m/sec."
PRINT " Equator fixed clock ="; vx; "m/sec."
tw = SQR(1 - (vw ^ 2 / c ^ 2)) * t
te = SQR(1 - (ve ^ 2 / c ^ 2)) * t
tx = SQR(1 - (vx ^ 2 / c ^ 2)) * t
'tw = ((SQR(1 - (vw ^ 2 / c ^ 2)) + (1 - vw ^ 2 / c ^ 2)) / 2) * t
'te = ((SQR(1 - (ve ^ 2 / c ^ 2)) + (1 - ve ^ 2 / c ^ 2)) / 2) * t
'tx = ((SQR(1 - (vx ^ 2 / c ^ 2)) + (1 - vx ^ 2 / c ^ 2)) / 2) * t
tw = ((t - tw) * 1E+09) + grt
te = ((t - te) * 1E+09) + grt
tx = (t - tx) * 1E+09
PRINT
PRINT " Relative to the time rate in the ECI frame;"
PRINT " West bound clock slowing is "; tw; "ns for the journey"
PRINT " East bound clock slowing is "; te; "ns for the journey"
PRINT " Equator clock loses"; tx; "ns for the journey"
PRINT " -----------------------------------------------------"
PRINT " Invariably______ "; te - tw; "ns ______difference"
PRINT " between the east and west bound clocks."
PRINT " -----------------------------------------------------"
PRINT " Relative to the equator fixed clock the west"
PRINT " bound clock is slower by "; tw - tx; "ns, while the"
PRINT " east bound clock is slower by "; te - tx; "ns."
END
'H&K time slowing results relative to the ground based clock
'are tx - 273ns west and tx + 59ns east. Total difference between
'aircraft clocks was 332ns.
----------------
The zero origin concept predicts exactly what the H&K experiment has
demonstrated, that the speed of light is locally isotropic around
all matter in the universe. The degree of control over the location
of local isotropy is dependent on the masses involved and the
distance between them.
The zero origin concept is unstoppable. It will steamroll everything
in its path, in time (including half baked alternatives).
I would much rather be seen to be actively involved in the building
of a solid foundation based on its predictions than to be caught
scurrying red faced from the rubble after the house of cards in
which I had chosen to shelter has tumbled down around my ears.
--
Max Keon
Eric Prebys
Moron.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CD7B3DE...@ozemail.com.au...
[snip]
> CLS : c = 3E+08
Here you forgot the statement
GOTO EXIT
Here you forgot the label
EXIT:
> END
Dirk Vdm
Logicalpike
> Here you forgot the label
> EXIT:
>
> > END
>
> Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
> of this post. But Qbasic is well up to the task. So I've set up the
> entire post as a Qbasic program.
So 10 digit's precision isn't good enough, but a computer program
where you enter the data with 3 digits precision is? :-)
> 'According to any of the formula sets listed in the program, if both
> 'aircraft altitudes had remained constant, or had each varied by the
> 'same margin on average over the journey, regardless of the altitude
> 'at which the experiment is conducted, and no matter what the
> 'velocity of the aircrafts, the east bound and west bound clock time
> 'difference is always exactly the same. The currently active formula
> 'set in the program always results in a 414ns airborne clock
> 'difference when they are brought back to compare with the ground
> 'based clock. The currently inactive set results in 621ns difference
> 'between these two clocks (ALWAYS).
This is correct.
But you will have to add that both aircrafts must go along equator.
(Or at least at a constant latitude.)
But you could have arrived at this result in a much simpler way:
The he proper time of the clocks will be (first order approximation):
te = (1 - 0.5*ve^2/c^2 + gr)*t
tw = (1 - 0.5*vw^2/c^2 + gr)*t
where t is the duration of the journey
te-tw = 0.5(ve^2-vw^2)*t
ve = u + v, vw = u - v
where u is the peripheral speed of the Earth
and v is the ground speed of the aircrafts
thus:
te-tw = 2*u*v*t/c^2
u = 465 m/s
v*t = 4.007*10^7 m circumference of Earth at equator
te-tw = 414*10^-9 s
Note that the difference is proportional to the circumference of the Earth.
So at 36.7 degrees latitude it would be 414*cos(36.7deg) = 332 ns
I suppose your point is that the difference between the clocks
in the H&K experiment was different from 414 ns:
> 'H&K time slowing results relative to the ground based clock
> 'are tx - 273ns west and tx + 59ns east. Total difference between
> 'aircraft clocks was 332ns.
and that the prediction of GR therefore must be wrong.
But this is of course utter nonsense, because:
The eastwards and westwards clocks in H&K did NOT:
1) Go at the same speed.
2) Go at a constant speed (it wasn't even non stop!)
3) Go along equator.
4) Go at the same height.
So why the heck should the difference be as calculated
for the very special case above?
Paul
Oriel36
> But you could have arrived at this result in a much simpler way:
> The he proper time of the clocks will be (first order approximation):
Clocks can be alternatively described as 86 400 seconds or 24 hours
now go back and write the same sentence and it looks like this -
the proper time of the 86 400 seconds will be (absurd)
the proper time of 24 hours will be (absurd)
Now if you can find a way to describe clocks without incorporating
'days' and seconds as anything other than proportions of these days it
would be interesting.
Robert J. Kolker
Oriel36 wrote:
>
> Now if you can find a way to describe clocks without incorporating
> 'days' and seconds as anything other than proportions of these days it
> would be interesting.
How about the frequency of light in certain spectra?
Atomic clocks do not need the rotation or revolution of the earth for
their time definition.
Bob Kolker
>
Bilge
Re: H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity. to usenet:
>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
>>
>> But you could have arrived at this result in a much simpler way:
>> The he proper time of the clocks will be (first order approximation):
>
>Clocks can be alternatively described as 86 400 seconds or 24 hours
>now go back and write the same sentence and it looks like this -
[*yikes*]
>Now if you can find a way to describe clocks without incorporating
>'days' and seconds as anything other than proportions of these days it
>would be interesting.
I start with N radioactive nuclei. I define the time by counting
decays. To reinforce the idea that these are _NOT_ seconds or even a
linear multiple of seconds, I'll call the time, \tau and choose it to be a
direct proportionality: \Delta N = k \Delta\tau. I wait for 1/2 of the
particles to decay and call that 1 orielmoronsecond, abbreviated as 1 o.
So N = N(0) - k\tau or N/N(0) = 1 - (k/N(0))\tau. So, k has units of
decays/orielmoronsecond. When 1/2 the particles have decayed, I define it
to be exactly 1 orielmoronsecond. So, I get 1/2 = k/N(0). I'll let you
ponder how to equate it to the Orieldumbasssecond, i.e., 1 day/86400,
where 86400 is the orielidiotmagicnumber or whatever. (Warning: some
higher math involving a logarithm is required, so highschool algebra is a
pre-requisite - if you're stumped find someone to translate it into a
bad viual basic program and have it draw an incorrect plot, if it doesn't
crash first).
Paul B. Andersen
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:273f8e06.02050...@posting.google.com...
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> >
> > But you could have arrived at this result in a much simpler way:
> > The he proper time of the clocks will be (first order approximation):
>
> Clocks can be alternatively described as 86 400 seconds or 24 hours
And a thermometer can be described as 300K.
And an odometer can be described as 84563 metres.
You are free to add more idiotic descriptions of
measuring instruments.
Paul
Stephen Speicher
>
> 'According to any of the formula sets listed in the program, if both
> 'aircraft altitudes had remained constant, or had each varied by the
> 'same margin on average over the journey, regardless of the altitude
> 'at which the experiment is conducted, and no matter what the
> 'velocity of the aircrafts, the east bound and west bound clock time
> 'difference is always exactly the same...
>
> I would much rather be seen to be actively involved in the building
> of a solid foundation based on its predictions than to be caught
> scurrying red faced from the rubble after the house of cards in
> which I had chosen to shelter has tumbled down around my ears.
>
Is this a joke? You cannot really be serious about this. Did you
even read the Hafele and Keating _Science_ papers, or Hafele's
theoretical analysis in the AJP? Apparently not, or you would
never so embarass yourself by writing this.
Come on, tell the truth. This _is_ a joke. Right?
--
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
A sign in Munich: "Heisenberg might have slept here."
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
~
Max Keon
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
wrote:
>
>Moron.
Such comments from some posters can be dismissed as mumblings from
the beer can throwing element of a football crowd. But your comments
may not be in the best interests of the banner you are waving.
--
Max Keon
Paul B. Andersen
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.42.0205092154450.28116-100000@sue...
> On Tue, 7 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
>
> > 'According to any of the formula sets listed in the program, if both
> > 'aircraft altitudes had remained constant, or had each varied by the
> > 'same margin on average over the journey, regardless of the altitude
> > 'at which the experiment is conducted, and no matter what the
> > 'velocity of the aircrafts, the east bound and west bound clock time
> > 'difference is always exactly the same...
> Is this a joke? You cannot really be serious about this.
If you are referring to the above quote of Max, it is actually correct.
I will admit that it surprised me somewhat, but when I looked into it
GR does indeed predict that the difference between the proper times of
the eastgoing and the westgoing clock will be the same regardless of
the speed and altitude of the clocks provided that:
1) Both clocks go at the same ground speed.
2) Both clocks go at the same altitude.
3) Both clocks go at the same latitude.
4) If the clocks go at equator, the difference will always be 414ns.
When this does not apply to the H&K experiment where the difference
was 332ns, it is because the conditions above are not met.
Thus the claim in the subject field is nonsense - of course.
THAT is indeed a joke, maybe the joke you were referring to?
Paul
Oriel36
I'll let you
> ponder how to equate it to the Orieldumbasssecond, i.e., 1 day/86400,
> where 86400 is the orielidiotmagicnumber or whatever.
86 400 seconds is another way to describe the social construct known
as Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday etc,each of which provides the foundation
for a clock which is also another way of expressing 86 400 seconds,of
course taking into account that there are 86 400 seconds in Monday or
1440 minutes or 24 hours.
(Warning: some
> higher math involving a logarithm is required, so highschool algebra is a
> pre-requisite - if you're stumped find someone to translate it into a
> bad viual basic program and have it draw an incorrect plot, if it doesn't
> crash first).
The SRist never had to stand against inviolate Pi which is natures
way of coming down hard on relativity,as a quantity it will always
form part of a cicle just like a second as a proportion will be of
rotation.You can neither speed up or slow down Pi/second and even
though you can interchange day/clock/86 400 seconds as terms,you can
pretend they are different things.
The only pre-requisite for living is that you don't waste time,that
you don't pretend to say something worthwhile when you are saying less
than nothing,the idea that future generations inherit nothing but a
stupid concept that a bunch of men thought was profound weakens the
ability of future generations to make those decisions based on clear
interpretation of data not airy fairy notions of QM and relativistic
'thought experiments'.I will be precise -you can't speed up or slow
down a proportion,now however weak or mesmerised by clocks and frame
hopping you may be,if you want to appear as a complete idiot to the
present or future generations go on ahead and believe in the nonsense
but I will do my part to present that we are not all complete idiots
even if I have to deal with you at present.
Max Keon
>
>"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CD7B3DE...@ozemail.com.au...
>>A ten digit calculator is of little use for analyzing the contents
>>of this post. But Qbasic is well up to the task. So I've set up the
>>entire post as a Qbasic program.
> So 10 digit's precision isn't good enough, but a computer program
> where you enter the data with 3 digits precision is? :-)
A ten digit calculator won't do the trick for the equations that
I chose to calculate. i.e. t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) As it's
written, the answer is always 1 for velocities less than 2200m/sec.
Qbasic still gives (imprecise) answers at 4m/sec.
>>'According to any of the formula sets listed in the program, if both
>>'aircraft altitudes had remained constant, or had each varied by the
>>'same margin on average over the journey, regardless of the altitude
>>'at which the experiment is conducted, and no matter what the
>>'velocity of the aircrafts, the east bound and west bound clock time
>>'difference is always exactly the same. The currently active formula
>>'set in the program always results in a 414ns airborne clock
>>'difference when they are brought back to compare with the ground
>>'based clock. The currently inactive set results in 621ns difference
>>'between these two clocks (ALWAYS).
> This is correct.
> But you will have to add that both aircrafts must go along equator.
> (Or at least at a constant latitude.)
Not at all. Only the average of all latitudes traveled (per time)
needs be the same for both aircrafts.
> But you could have arrived at this result in a much simpler way:
My intention was to set the program up in easily understood steps,
according to your theory. Not to arrive at the shortest possible,
and usually most confusing, solution. I think I did well.
> Note that the difference is proportional to the circumference of the Earth.
> So at 36.7 degrees latitude it would be 414*cos(36.7deg) = 332 ns
But that latitude was certainly not the average path taken over the
journey was it. Anyway, I can only make it 26.7 degrees = 332ns.
>>'H&K time slowing results relative to the ground based clock
>>'are tx - 273ns west and tx + 59ns east. Total difference between
>>'aircraft clocks was 332ns.
> and that the prediction of GR therefore must be wrong.
Time slowing due to motion relative to the ECI frame is an SR
problem, according to SR equations. The GR input is only to do
with altitude, and if the average altitude per time of each aircraft
is the same for the journey, exactly the same GR value is directly
subtracted from the SR time slowing of both airborne clocks. If
there was some average altitude difference at the end of the
journeys, there has been an error in the experiment. GR is simply
an add on that is best accommodated by close monitoring of the
average altitude traveled by each aircraft, and that should not be
difficult.
If the two H&K aircrafts had traveled along the line of the equator,
and the east bound clock arrives at its destination with its time
lagging behind the west bound clock by 332ns, instead of the
anticipated 414ns, it would have necessarily traveled the entire
journey at around 4.5 kilometer higher than the west bound clock.
> But this is of course utter nonsense, because:
> The eastwards and westwards clocks in H&K did NOT:
> 1) Go at the same speed.
But did their journeys take the same time? The average velocity
for the journey is all that matters.
> 2) Go at a constant speed (it wasn't even non stop!)
They could both stop for days, and the east-west clock difference
would remain unchanged. So long as everything that happened for one
aircraft along the journey was compensated for at the other aircraft
at some time during the journey, it makes no difference at all.
> 3) Go along equator.
Nor did they necessarily travel at an average latitude as low as
26.7 degrees. And since (in my opinion) the clock difference for
the equator journey should be 621nm, the latitude that aligns with
332ns is a long way further around.
> 4) Go at the same height.
If the average height for the total of the journey was not going
to be fairly strictly monitored, what was the point of the
experiment?
I find it very hard to believe that Hafele and Keating were just
taking their little clockies on an outing.
For a peanut's worth of the dollars that have been invested in
experiments to test highly speculative theory, the very sound logic
behind the H&K experiment could be tested under stringent monitoring
conditions. But you perhaps already know what the result will be.
And I **know** it's not the one you want.
The zero origin concept won't stay under the carpet forever. Keep
your ear to the ground.
--
Max Keon
Stephen Speicher
Yes, of course. Which is why I said that the poster had
apparently not even read the Hafele & Keating papers in
_Science_, or Hafele's prior theoretical paper in the AJP. How
can the experiment be shown to falsify relativity by providing a
computer program based on premises which do not apply to the
experiment? How could the poster think that he would be taken
seriously.
As to your surprise: many scenarios have been thoroughly
investigated and some give results for which I can believe that
on first glance might seem surprising. For instance, if the
altitude were taken to be zero, a westward circumnavigation at a
groundspeed v = -2rw (where r is the radius of the Earth and w is
its angular speed), there would not be any offset at all from the
Earthbound clock. If that groundspeed were -rw the
circumnavigating clock would "run fast" as compared to the
Earthbound clock. But change the direction from westward to
eastward, then whatever the magnitude of the groundspeed the
circumnavigating clock will always "run slow" as compared to the
Earthbound clock.
Hafele also points out the interesting case where (now we are
including altitude) for |v| >> rw "the directional dependence
becomes imperceptible and the flying clock runs slow for either
direction."
In any case, yes, it was the absurdity of the claim that the
Hafele and Keating experiment falsfies relativity to which I
granted no greater status than being a joke.
Stephen Speicher
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > But this is of course utter nonsense, because:
> > The eastwards and westwards clocks in H&K did NOT:
> > 1) Go at the same speed.
>
> But did their journeys take the same time? The average velocity
> for the journey is all that matters.
>
My god, Paul's judgment of what you say as being "utter nonsense"
was an understatement! You really have _no_ idea of what you are
talking about. Here are the _facts_, which _you_ should have
researched _before_ you made your ludicrous accusations of the
Hafele and Keating experiment falsifying relativity. Doing so
might have made you look a little less of the fool you apparently
are.
1. The flight paths in the experiment did not follow an
equatorial path, and the altitude, ground speed, and latitude
constantly varied.
2. To calculate the predicted proper times of the clocks it was
necessary to integrate the general relativistic expression along
the actual flight paths.
3. To faciliate such an integration the cockpit output data was
recorded by the flight captains, tracing on flight maps along
with the GMT time, altitude, and ground speed at particular
navigation points. For the eastward flight there were 125 such
navigation intervals, and for the westward flight there were 108.
4. The data from these navigation intervals was input to a
program run on an IBM 360/50 at Washington University. The
program was designed to numerically integrate the general
relativistic expressions along the actual flight path, as broken
up into the 125 or 108 intervals, depending on the direction of
travel.
5. The actual general relativistic expression used for
calculation was:
<delta tau> = integral, across the flight path of,
{gh(tau)/c^2 - (1/2c^2)(2rwcos[lamda(tau)]cos[theta(tau)]v(tau) +
v^2(tau)} d(tau).
where for each of the intervals,
lamda = latitude.
theta = azimuth or bearing of the plane's velocity relative to east.
r = radius of Earth.
w = angular speed of Earth.
v = ground speed.
h = altitude.
g = surface value of gravity.
c = speed of light.
6. The trip time eastward was 65.42 hours with a flight time of
41.2 hours. The westward trip time was 80.33 hours with 48.6
hours of flight.
So, aside from the fact that the altitude, ground speed, etc.
constantly varied, and aside from the fact that for each trip
these variables were numerically integrated for the actual flight
path broken up into more than 100 intervals -- aside from all of
this -- you got eveything else right. Of course, that
"everything else" is devoid of any significance, since the actual
predictions were made with the real flight data and not your own
comic book-like version of the experiment.
>
> For a peanut's worth of the dollars that have been invested in
> experiments to test highly speculative theory, the very sound logic
> behind the H&K experiment could be tested under stringent monitoring
> conditions.
>
It has been done many times since, but, considering your
ignorance of this seminal experiment, it is not surprising you
are also ignorant of the later work.
> But you perhaps already know what the result will be.
>
Yes. Excellent agreement with the predictions of general relativity.
> And I **know** it's not the one you want.
>
You "know" nothing. You are an ignorant fool who does not even
bother to learn the facts which are relevant to the judgments you
make. Any judgments from you are worthless.
> The zero origin concept won't stay under the carpet forever. Keep
> your ear to the ground.
>
And once in a while raise your head off the ground so you can see
what is actually going on in the real world.
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CDC45D7...@ozemail.com.au...
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> >"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CD7B3DE...@ozemail.com.au...
> >>A ten digit calculator is of little use for analyzing the contents
> >>of this post. But Qbasic is well up to the task. So I've set up the
> >>entire post as a Qbasic program.
>
> > So 10 digit's precision isn't good enough, but a computer program
> > where you enter the data with 3 digits precision is? :-)
>
> A ten digit calculator won't do the trick for the equations that
> I chose to calculate. i.e. t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) As it's
> written, the answer is always 1 for velocities less than 2200m/sec.
> Qbasic still gives (imprecise) answers at 4m/sec.
I will give you a tip: sqrt(1 - x) = ca. 1 - 0.5x when x << 1.
The approximation sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 1 - 0.5v^2/c^2 is extremely
good for these kind of speeds, and it gets better the lower the speed.
Use it, and a calculator with four digits precision will do the job.
And even Q-basic will give more precise answers with this approximation.
Wrong.
SR isn't applicable in the curved spacetime around the Earth.
This is a GR problem.
Look at Stephen's response.
The equation actually used to calculate the proper times of
the clocks is a first order approximation of the Schwartschild
solution. It's GR all the way.
However, in a first order approximation like this, the answer
will consist of two additive terms, one depending on velocity only,
the other on altitude only.
They are both part of the GR-solution, but since the velocity
term is equal to the SR solution, it is often called
"the SR part" while the altitude term is called "the GR part."
> The GR input is only to do
> with altitude, and if the average altitude per time of each aircraft
> is the same for the journey, exactly the same GR value is directly
> subtracted from the SR time slowing of both airborne clocks. If
> there was some average altitude difference at the end of the
> journeys, there has been an error in the experiment. GR is simply
> an add on that is best accommodated by close monitoring of the
> average altitude traveled by each aircraft, and that should not be
> difficult.
I see you have no clue.
Why the hell should there be an error if the aircrafts didn't
travel at the same average altitude?
H&K obviously calculated GR's prediction for the journey
the two (set of) clocks actually travelled.
Say - isn't that rather obvious?
> If the two H&K aircrafts had traveled along the line of the equator,
> and the east bound clock arrives at its destination with its time
> lagging behind the west bound clock by 332ns, instead of the
> anticipated 414ns, it would have necessarily traveled the entire
> journey at around 4.5 kilometer higher than the west bound clock.
But as they didn't, what's your point?
> > But this is of course utter nonsense, because:
> > The eastwards and westwards clocks in H&K did NOT:
> > 1) Go at the same speed.
>
> But did their journeys take the same time? The average velocity
> for the journey is all that matters.
>
> > 2) Go at a constant speed (it wasn't even non stop!)
>
> They could both stop for days, and the east-west clock difference
> would remain unchanged. So long as everything that happened for one
> aircraft along the journey was compensated for at the other aircraft
> at some time during the journey, it makes no difference at all.
>
> > 3) Go along equator.
>
> Nor did they necessarily travel at an average latitude as low as
> 26.7 degrees. And since (in my opinion) the clock difference for
> the equator journey should be 621nm, the latitude that aligns with
> 332ns is a long way further around.
>
> > 4) Go at the same height.
>
> If the average height for the total of the journey was not going
> to be fairly strictly monitored, what was the point of the
> experiment?
>
> I find it very hard to believe that Hafele and Keating were just
> taking their little clockies on an outing.
But that was in fact not very far from what was done.
The clocks were flown on board commercial aeroplanes at
their normal flights. The only special was that the flights
were monitored closely, and the actual speeds, headings, altitude,
etc. were logged.
So of course just about everything were different for the two (set of)
clocks. Different speeds, different altitudes, different times.
But why should the flights be equal?
It doesn't matter as the GR prediction for the difference
were calculated using the data from the actual flights.
See Stephen's excellent response, where this is explained.
> For a peanut's worth of the dollars that have been invested in
> experiments to test highly speculative theory, the very sound logic
> behind the H&K experiment could be tested under stringent monitoring
> conditions. But you perhaps already know what the result will be.
Indeed.
The very sound logic behind the H&K experiment was tested by
Alley in his much more elaborate experiment than the simple H&K-X.
He did use special aircraft for the purpose, and they
were stringently monitored by advanced instrumentation.
But it probably didn't cost peanut's like the H&K experiment.
The same could be said about the Vessot experiment.
So I know the result.
The predictions of GR were confirmed to a much higher precision
than in the rather crude H&K experiment.
> And I **know** it's not the one you want.
What do you mean by that?
I don't "want" any particular result from any experiment,
I want the experiments to show how nature actually works.
But I note that all experiments testing GR done
to date have confirmed it, and none have falsified it.
> The zero origin concept won't stay under the carpet forever. Keep
> your ear to the ground.
I haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
But I note that the claim in the subject field is incredibly stupid.
Paul
Bilge
>
>way of coming down hard on relativity,as a quantity it will always
No relation to pi, you say?
angle A = ct/r
v/c = exp(-i\pi/2)tan(iA + k\pi), k = 0,1,2,3...
tan(iA + k\pi) = (v/c)exp(i\pi/2)
tan^2(iA + k\pi) = sec^2(iA + 2k\pi) - 1 = (v/c)^2 exp(-i\pi)
1/cos^2(iA + 2k\pi) = 1 - (v/c)^2
cos^2(iA + 2k\pi) = 1/[1-(v/c)^2]
cos(iA + 2k\pi) = 1/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]
cos(iA + 2k\pi) = cosh(A + 2ki\pi) = 1/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]
= cosh(A) = \gamma
Bilge
Re: H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity. to usenet:
>>
>>"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3CD7B3DE...@ozemail.com.au...
>>>A ten digit calculator is of little use for analyzing the contents
>>>of this post. But Qbasic is well up to the task. So I've set up the
>>>entire post as a Qbasic program.
>
>> So 10 digit's precision isn't good enough, but a computer program
>> where you enter the data with 3 digits precision is? :-)
>
>A ten digit calculator won't do the trick for the equations that
>I chose to calculate. i.e. t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) As it's
>written, the answer is always 1 for velocities less than 2200m/sec.
place prescision with a 10 digit calculator, you're in trouble, which
you've indidcated below:
>Qbasic still gives (imprecise) answers at 4m/sec.
You can't store 10 significant digits in a 32 bit word. The number
you want to store is +2200.000000 not 2200 .
Try the following and see what roundoff error does.
The bessel function J_n(x) is defined by the recursion relation:
J_n+1(x) = (2m/x)[J_n(x) - J_n-1(x)]
Given J_0(x) and J_1(x), you can calculate J_n(x) for any n.
To get J_2(x), J_3(x) for example:
J_2(x) = (2*1/x)J_1(x) - J_0(x)
J_3(x) = (2*2/x)J_2(x) - J_1(x)
For x = 1 and the values:
J_0(1) = 0.7651976866
J_1(1) = 0.4400505857
write a program to calculate J_10(1) using the recursion relation
above. The correct value is 0.0000000003
>> But this is of course utter nonsense, because:
>> The eastwards and westwards clocks in H&K did NOT:
>> 1) Go at the same speed.
>
>But did their journeys take the same time? The average velocity
>for the journey is all that matters.
No, it's not. Consider just the 2-dimensional case, with
v(t) = v_x(t) + v_y(t)
The (time) average velocity is:
<v> = \integral [v_x(t) + v_y(t)] dt / \integral dt
For a constant speed V over a circular path, the x and y
velocities as a function of time, are given by: v_x(t) = V*cos(Vt/r)
v_y(t) = V*sin(Vt/r) and the average velocity over the circumference
is zero. In fact, its zero for every integral multiple of the
circumference, despite the speed being constant.
>> 2) Go at a constant speed (it wasn't even non stop!)
>
>They could both stop for days, and the east-west clock difference
>would remain unchanged. So long as everything that happened for one
>aircraft along the journey was compensated for at the other aircraft
>at some time during the journey, it makes no difference at all.
I believe the point is contained in your qualifier "so long as
everything was...", which you seem to be treating as "everything
was..."
[...]
>If the average height for the total of the journey was not going
>to be fairly strictly monitored, what was the point of the
>experiment?
Well, if you want to argue the experiment is or is not
useful, shouldn't you calculate whether this matters, how much
it matters and how it relates to the experimental uncertainty
before doing so?
>I find it very hard to believe that Hafele and Keating were just
>taking their little clockies on an outing.
>
>For a peanut's worth of the dollars that have been invested in
>experiments to test highly speculative theory, the very sound logic
>behind the H&K experiment could be tested under stringent monitoring
>condition.
And perhaps any reduction in the systematic uncertainty that
would be gained cost more than any available funding would support.
If one has X dollars to perform an experiment, one spends them
on that which provides the most improvement. Improving A at the
expense of B, where the systematics associated with B have
just rendered any error associated with A, irrelevant, is dumb.
>But you perhaps already know what the result will be.
Sure. And, I'd vote for not bothering to perform more such tests
and just assume special relativity works.
>And I **know** it's not the one you want.
Well, you're wrong and fortunately for you, people will still
probably perform such tests, just in case and in spite of the
fact you think anyone does it to _validate_ special relitivity.
>The zero origin concept won't stay under the carpet forever. Keep
>your ear to the ground.
Whatever this means.
Max Keon
Your first mistake was to choose the wrong paragraph to call a joke.
Your second mistake was to assume that nobody would notice.
Your third mistake could be that you will choose to ignore the fact
that, if all of Paul's stated conditions are met, for an around the
equator journey, the clock difference will always be 414ns when they
return to the starting point. That applies for any specific altitude
relative to any specific ground speed.
At a constant latitude of 26.7 degrees, the final clock difference
is expected to be 332ns. And it will always be thus at that latitude
if the above conditions are met. However, all of the above
conditions can be varied so long as any variation at one clock has
been mimicked at the other clock before journey's end.
According to the above, if two satellites from the group of GPS
satellites were traveling in opposite directions along the line
of the equator, the east bound clock would end up with a 414ns
shortfall on the west bound clock at the end of each completed cycle
from one passing to the next.
If two geosynchronous satellites were to do the same, the east bound
clock would also end up with the same shortfall.
The two clocks would be first synchronized in the ECI frame, but
they wouldn't need to return to that frame to check time difference.
That can easily be checked while in motion when they pass by each
other. To elimate any error, the number of cycles can be compounded
as many times as you like. And since they are both in exactly the
same freefall state, they will be equally affected.
Assuming that this could all be easily achieved, do you think that
this is what we would find? If not, why not? (But I do see added
complications for my initial view.)
> As to your surprise: many scenarios have been thoroughly
> investigated and some give results for which I can believe that
> on first glance might seem surprising. For instance, if the
> altitude were taken to be zero, a westward circumnavigation at a
> groundspeed v = -2rw (where r is the radius of the Earth and w is
> its angular speed), there would not be any offset at all from the
> Earthbound clock. If that groundspeed were -rw the
> circumnavigating clock would "run fast" as compared to the
> Earthbound clock. But change the direction from westward to
> eastward, then whatever the magnitude of the groundspeed the
> circumnavigating clock will always "run slow" as compared to the
> Earthbound clock.
I fail to visualize the surprise. The real surprises will come when
relativity is abolished. It will breathe a bit of life back into a
currently stagnant physics community.
--
Max Keon
Stephen Speicher
>
> The real surprises will come when relativity is abolished.
>
When and if relativity is "abolished," I can assure you it will
not occur because of an audacious dolt who makes ludicrous claims
about experiments falsifying relativity while simultaneously
remaining ignorant of the experimental facts.
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CDE46BE...@ozemail.com.au...
> At a constant latitude of 26.7 degrees, the final clock difference
> is expected to be 332ns. And it will always be thus at that latitude
> if the above conditions are met. However, all of the above
> conditions can be varied so long as any variation at one clock has
> been mimicked at the other clock before journey's end.
But the two clocks did not "mimic each other".
So this is quite irrelevant to H&K experiment
> According to the above, if two satellites from the group of GPS
> satellites were traveling in opposite directions along the line
> of the equator, the east bound clock would end up with a 414ns
> shortfall on the west bound clock at the end of each completed cycle
> from one passing to the next.
You are very wrong.
If two GPS satellites orbited in the opposite direction in
the same orbit, they would stay in synch.
They would show the same time every time they met.
And it wouldn't matter at all what angle to equator
the orbit made.
I will leave to you to figure out why this is very different
from the above scenario. It should be rather obvious.
> If two geosynchronous satellites were to do the same,
> the east bound
> clock would also end up with the same shortfall.
The satellite going in the "wrong" direction wouldn't be
geosynchronous of course, but never mind.
The result would be the same; the clocks would show the same
every time they met.
> The two clocks would be first synchronized in the ECI frame, but
> they wouldn't need to return to that frame to check time difference.
> That can easily be checked while in motion when they pass by each
> other. To elimate any error, the number of cycles can be compounded
> as many times as you like. And since they are both in exactly the
> same freefall state, they will be equally affected.
>
> Assuming that this could all be easily achieved, do you think that
> this is what we would find? If not, why not? (But I do see added
> complications for my initial view.)
I have stated what we would find.
Of obvious reasons; that's what GR predicts.
And GR is very well confirmed in this area.
Paul
Max Keon
>
> "Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:3CDE46BE...@ozemail.com.au...
>> At a constant latitude of 26.7 degrees, the final clock difference
>> is expected to be 332ns. And it will always be thus at that latitude
>> if the above conditions are met. However, all of the above
>> conditions can be varied so long as any variation at one clock has
>> been mimicked at the other clock before journey's end.
> But the two clocks did not "mimic each other".
> So this is quite irrelevant to H&K experiment
It may be irrelevant to the H&K experiment, but it's certainly not
irrelevant. I acknowledge your criticism regarding the precision of
the H&K experiment, but that's not where the story ends.
Precision experiments using the basic structure of the H&K
experiment **can** reinforce, or falsify relativity.
As you acknowledged in an earlier post; If all other required
conditions are met, for every completed cycle around the globe,
the time shortfall in the clock of the east bound aircraft when
compared with the clock of the west bound aircraft will remain
constant, whatever the altitude, so long as that altitude remains
constant for both aircraft. That condition apparently extends to
infinity according to GR. That is the point I refute. According to
my guiding light, there is no such constant. The time difference
between clocks reduces with altitude. That statement is easily
falsifiable. But not by me.
>> According to the above, if two satellites from the group of GPS
>> satellites were traveling in opposite directions along the line
>> of the equator, the east bound clock would end up with a 414ns
>> shortfall on the west bound clock at the end of each completed cycle
>> from one passing to the next.
> You are very wrong.
> If two GPS satellites orbited in the opposite direction in
> the same orbit, they would stay in synch.
> They would show the same time every time they met.
> And it wouldn't matter at all what angle to equator
> the orbit made.
> I will leave to you to figure out why this is very different
> from the above scenario. It should be rather obvious.
Thank you. I see my obvious mistake.
--
Max Keon
Max Keon
>
>On Sun, 12 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
>>
>>The real surprises will come when relativity is abolished.
> When and if relativity is "abolished,"
"abandoned" was probably more appropriate.
> I can assure you it will
> not occur because of an audacious dolt who makes ludicrous claims
> about experiments falsifying relativity while simultaneously
> remaining ignorant of the experimental facts.
Relativity will fall only because of a theory that can confidently
stand on its own, a theory that can lead us out of this stagnant
quagmire which is a natural legacy of a theory based on postulates.
The audacious dolts and the ill mannered egocentric dorks each make
up only one very small link in the vast chain that makes up the
whole physics community which, through its tireless efforts, makes
it possible to theorize beyond the realm of superstition.
You've been living in a dream world Neo. (The Matrix)
--
Max Keon
Patrick Reany
Max Keon wrote:
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> >On Sun, 12 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
> >>
> >>The real surprises will come when relativity is abolished.
>
> > When and if relativity is "abolished,"
>
> "abandoned" was probably more appropriate.
>
> > I can assure you it will
> > not occur because of an audacious dolt who makes ludicrous claims
> > about experiments falsifying relativity while simultaneously
> > remaining ignorant of the experimental facts.
>
> Relativity will fall only because of a theory that can confidently
> stand on its own, a theory that can lead us out of this stagnant
> quagmire which is a natural legacy of a theory based on postulates.
>
What is your suggestion for replacing "a theory based on postulates"?
Patrick
Robert J. Kolker
Max Keon wrote:
>
>
> Relativity will fall only because of a theory that can confidently
> stand on its own, a theory that can lead us out of this stagnant
> quagmire which is a natural legacy of a theory based on postulates.
Every theory is based on postulates. The Ur-Postulate is that a reality
external to our minds and existence exists. And furthermore no
contradictions can really exist. Contradictions are an artifact of our
descriptions.
> The audacious dolts and the ill mannered egocentric dorks each make
> up only one very small link in the vast chain that makes up the
> whole physics community which, through its tireless efforts, makes
> it possible to theorize beyond the realm of superstition.
Do you not find it strange that the computer your are using is the
result of these "superatitions"?
Bob Kolker
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CE1003C...@ozemail.com.au...
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > "Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:3CDE46BE...@ozemail.com.au...
> >> At a constant latitude of 26.7 degrees, the final clock difference
> >> is expected to be 332ns. And it will always be thus at that latitude
> >> if the above conditions are met. However, all of the above
> >> conditions can be varied so long as any variation at one clock has
> >> been mimicked at the other clock before journey's end.
>
> > But the two clocks did not "mimic each other".
> > So this is quite irrelevant to H&K experiment
>
> It may be irrelevant to the H&K experiment, but it's certainly not
> irrelevant. I acknowledge your criticism regarding the precision of
> the H&K experiment, but that's not where the story ends.
And since it is irrelevant to the H&K experiment,
then your claim in the subject field is wrong.
> Precision experiments using the basic structure of the H&K
> experiment **can** reinforce, or falsify relativity.
Of course.
> As you acknowledged in an earlier post; If all other required
> conditions are met, for every completed cycle around the globe,
> the time shortfall in the clock of the east bound aircraft when
> compared with the clock of the west bound aircraft will remain
> constant, whatever the altitude, so long as that altitude remains
> constant for both aircraft. That condition apparently extends to
> infinity according to GR. That is the point I refute. According to
> my guiding light, there is no such constant. The time difference
> between clocks reduces with altitude. That statement is easily
> falsifiable. But not by me.
So you insist that the predictions of GR are wrong,
but can refer to no experiment which support you claim.
All the experiment done to date with macroscopic clocks
(Pound&Rebka, H&K, Alley, Vessot, GPS) confirm GR, none
falsifies it.
Your claim is thus not very convincing.
Paul
Patrick Reany
Max Keon wrote:
[snip]
>
> Relativity will fall only because of a theory that can confidently
> stand on its own, a theory that can lead us out of this stagnant
> quagmire which is a natural legacy of a theory based on postulates.
> The audacious dolts and the ill mannered egocentric dorks each make
> up only one very small link in the vast chain that makes up the
> whole physics community which, through its tireless efforts, makes
> it possible to theorize beyond the realm of superstition.
In the olden days of science, when people naively
thought they could reverse-engineer deep reality
by using rational (anthropomorphic) thought and
formal scientific theories, a movement slowly grew
up to debunk this both on epistemological reasons
and on practical reasons, meaning that this dogma is
so encouraging to rampant dogmatism as to undermine
the *objective* pursuit of science. But science grew
up and realized that it is not possible to fulfill the
dream of knowing the TRUE nature of nature by
human conceptualization. It is pure superstition. So,
science decided to keep on doing science without the
arrogant claims that it was accomplishing anything
more than just making up good theories, which it
seems to do very well! All scientific knowledge of
the world is contexted within the conventional
foundation of science generally and one or more
theories.
I already KNOW from past experience that
most readers of this last sentence will NOT
really give an effort to understand it. That's not
my fault. If the reader doesn't know about
conventionalism he or she should read up on
it now.
See:
http://www.fmag.unict.it/PolPhil/Ajduk/AjdukKey1.html
as a reference. Do a search for more references than
this if you wish.
For example, the notion that experience is enough
to KNOW the external world is nonsense in science.
In science, one is require to adopt a formal "scientific"
methodology to organize data into theories and then
call that "knowledge." Even "just" facts are conventionalized
because they are taken by equipment whose function
is theory dependent. For example, a measuring
device that cannot be explained by some theory is no
measuring device I've ever heard of. A ruler is counted
on to consistently give reliable measurements because
we believe in the theories of the rigid nature of the
matter they are made of. We trust a pendulum clock
to keep consistent time intervals as its amplitude
diminishes because we believe by theory that its
period of swing is independent of its amplitude. One
could argue that we can simply accept these properties
as inductions from observations, but that is not quite
as convincing as having a good theory to back it up.
Science is about having a reasonable basis to believe
in something, be it a law or theory. A law being a
stated mathematical relationship on the variables of
science. A theory being an explanation of some law
or phenomena.
But the educational systems of the world don't seem
to want to tell the truth about the nature of science to
students. I'm not sure why. Maybe they don't want to
get involve in what they perceive as "philosophy."
Maybe they think the issue is a non-issue, which this
NG proves beyond reasonable doubt to be a false
assumption. Maybe they think that students will just
come to see the "obvious" on their own if they study
enough science. But this is also not the case.
Any belief that a scientific theory can tell us
what is "really true about the external world" is
a fantasy, a superstition. Science can take no
responsibility for this delusion belief. But is the
goal to find a convincing belief system of the
natural realm intrinsically wrong? No! It's just
not a scientific belief system per se. Make these
metaphysical beliefs based on theories as part
of your personal natural philosophy and no one
can contest it as your right!
I'm impressed by Francis Bacon's view on the
separation of science and natural philosophy given
below:
Meanwhile let no man look for much progress
in the sciences -- especially the practical part
of them -- unless natural philosophy be carried
on and applied to particular sciences, and particular
sciences be carried back to natural philosophy.
I define natural philosophy as the set of all possible
beliefs of the natural realm. I regard science as the
technical part of natural philosophy. As "natural"
as my definition of natural philosophy is, it always
seems to deeply piss off a lot of people. Pure
irrationality!!! My definition does not favor any
one philosophical viewpoint over any other, and
maybe the resentment it engenders has to do
with that fact.
When I say that I believe in the germ theory of
disease as a good explanation of disease, I
am playing it safe in science proper. When I say
that the germ theory of disease is a true explanation
of disease, I have gone into another realm
altogether, the realm of natural philosophy. I
don't have a problem with this because I don't
have the bigoted belief that all knowledge is
"scientific knowledge," or that all "truth" is
"scientific truth." I don't have a problem
admitting that I do natural philosophy! We
all do it, but do we all admit that we do it?
Patrick
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> >On Sun, 12 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
> >>
> >>The real surprises will come when relativity is abolished.
>
> > When and if relativity is "abolished,"
>
> "abandoned" was probably more appropriate.
>
> > I can assure you it will
> > not occur because of an audacious dolt who makes ludicrous claims
> > about experiments falsifying relativity while simultaneously
> > remaining ignorant of the experimental facts.
>
>
> Relativity will fall only because...
Permit me to remind you that it was you who initiated this thread
and titled it "H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity." However, the
evidence you have provided only exposes your own gross
incompetence in understanding relativity, and your own ignorance
of the experimental facts regarding the experiment.
If you were a decent person with even a shred of honesty and
integrity, you would have acknowledged, several posts ago, that
you did not know what you were talking about, and you would have
apologized for making claims for which there is no basis in fact.
Instead, however, all we hear is more of the same mantra,
"Relativity will fall..." The fact of the matter is that, the
only thing which will fall is you -- flat on your face. And, you
already did, as anyone who has followed this thread can readily
see.
Max Keon
>
>Max Keon wrote:
>>Relativity will fall only because of a theory that can confidently
>>stand on its own, a theory that can lead us out of this stagnant
>>quagmire which is a natural legacy of a theory based on postulates.
> What is your suggestion for replacing "a theory based on postulates"?
Replace it with a theory based on only the ONE mandatory postulate
required to explain the origin of the universe. Postulate correctly
and the whole universe falls into place. The zero origin concept
performs such a feat of magic. Try doing the same using the wrong
origin. You will be postulating forever, as is very evident.
The zero origin concept is easy to find. However, a visit is
pointless while the sounds of relativity are gently playing in the
back of your mind. But it will take a fair thump to dislodge the
brain from the groove where it's been clonking about for many years.
Using the disjointed jumble of theories that currently describe
different aspects of the universe was understandable while that
was the best we had. But there is now no excuse.
F-r-e-e y-o-u-r m-i-n-d.
--
Max Keon
Max Keon
>
>"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:3CE1003C...@ozemail.com.au...
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > >>> news:3CDE46BE...@ozemail.com.au...
>>>>At a constant latitude of 26.7 degrees, the final clock difference
>>>>is expected to be 332ns. And it will always be thus at that latitude
>>>>if the above conditions are met. However, all of the above
>>>>conditions can be varied so long as any variation at one clock has
>>>>been mimicked at the other clock before journey's end.
>>> But the two clocks did not "mimic each other".
>>> So this is quite irrelevant to H&K experiment
>> It may be irrelevant to the H&K experiment, but it's certainly not
>> irrelevant. I acknowledge your criticism regarding the precision of
>> the H&K experiment, but that's not where the story ends.
> And since it is irrelevant to the H&K experiment,
> then your claim in the subject field is wrong.
Not at all. The H&K experiment was geared around three clocks, two
aeroplanes and the earth. The **principles** involved were the basis
of the H&K experiment, and since it was the milestone in such
experiments, it is entitled to be recognized as such. Relativity is
falsifiable according to those principles. How that particular
experiment was conducted is of little consequence.
I think the sometimes fiery responses to the inconsequential subject
heading are a fair indication of "skeletons in the closet".
>> Precision experiments using the basic structure of the H&K
>> experiment **can** reinforce, or falsify relativity.
> Of course.
>> As you acknowledged in an earlier post; If all other required
>> conditions are met, for every completed cycle around the globe,
.> the time shortfall in the clock of the east bound aircraft when
>> compared with the clock of the west bound aircraft will remain
>> constant, whatever the altitude, so long as that altitude remains
>> constant for both aircraft. That condition apparently extends to
>> infinity according to GR. That is the point I refute. According to
>> my guiding light, there is no such constant. The time difference
>> between clocks reduces with altitude. That statement is easily
>> falsifiable. But not by me.
> So you insist that the predictions of GR are wrong,
> but can refer to no experiment which support you claim.
Two independent H&K type experiments, one high and one low altitude,
would support my claim.
> All the experiment done to date with macroscopic clocks
> (Pound&Rebka, H&K, Alley, Vessot, GPS) confirm GR, none
> falsifies it.
Pound&Rebka and GPS are of course not relevant in this case.
The remainder can't confirm GR until the high and the low altitude
comparisons have been made.
These experiments could be conducted at any specific latitude, and
the clocks would be expected to return a specific time difference
between them which will be according to the predictions of GR. To
keep things simple, suppose the experiments were set up so that each
aircraft traveled along the line of the equator. GR then expects a
414ns difference between clocks for any altitude (common for both
aircrafts) while I expect the time difference to lessen with
altitude, beginning at 621ns difference for a zero altitude run.
The rate of time difference decrease per altitude can only be
established by experiment because it will mostly depend on the
relationship of the clock oscillator with its atomic environment.
Thus (according to me) there is one specific altitude at which the
414ns constant required by GR will exactly occur. Alley or Vessot
may have come close it.
--
Max Keon
Patrick Reany
Max Keon wrote:
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> >
> >Max Keon wrote:
> >>Relativity will fall only because of a theory that can confidently
> >>stand on its own,
In what way does relativity not "stand on its own"?
> a theory that can lead us out of this stagnant
> >>quagmire which is a natural legacy of a theory based on postulates.
>
> > What is your suggestion for replacing "a theory based on postulates"?
>
> Replace it with a theory based on only the ONE mandatory postulate
> required to explain the origin of the universe. Postulate correctly
> and the whole universe falls into place.
Do you have a suggestion of how physicists should
proceed along these lines of postulation? Why isn't
a theory based on a single mandatory postulate
a "quagmire" as well?
> The zero origin concept
> performs such a feat of magic. Try doing the same using the wrong
> origin. You will be postulating forever, as is very evident.
I'm not familiar with this "zero origin concept"
you speak of.
> The zero origin concept is easy to find. However, a visit is
> pointless while the sounds of relativity are gently playing in the
> back of your mind. But it will take a fair thump to dislodge the
> brain from the groove where it's been clonking about for many years.
You don't think that Newton's relativity
is a good thing either? [Physics misconception # 2:
Newtonian mechanics is NOT a relativistic theory.
Wrong!]
> Using the disjointed jumble of theories that currently describe
> different aspects of the universe was understandable while that
> was the best we had. But there is now no excuse.
Then there's no excuse for you not to tell us
what that best thing is.
> F-r-e-e y-o-u-r m-i-n-d.
Free our minds form what?
Patrick
Martin Gradwell
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:3CE3ABDE...@asu.edu...
[to Max Keon]
> You don't think that Newton's relativity
> is a good thing either? [Physics misconception # 2:
> Newtonian mechanics is NOT a relativistic theory.
> Wrong!]
From Newton's Principia:
1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from
its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything
external, and by another name is called "duration"; relative,
apparent, and common time is some sensible and external
(whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the
means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time,
such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.
2. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to
anything external, remains always similar and immovable.
Relative space is some movable dimension or measure
of the absolute spaces, which our senses determine by
its position to bodies and which is commonly taken for
immovable space;
See
http://pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html
Martin Gradwell, mtgra...@btinternet.com
Robert J. Kolker
Max Keon wrote:
>
> Using the disjointed jumble of theories that currently describe
> different aspects of the universe was understandable while that
> was the best we had. But there is now no excuse.
O.K. Big Shot. Show us how to get as good (if not better) from your One
Postulate. Prove it. Show it. Demonstrate it. And verify it
experimentally. The world holds its breath until you do just that. Until
you show genuine scientific results you will (as you should be) regarded
as a blowhard and a crackpot.
Bob Kolker
>
> F-r-e-e y-o-u-r m-i-n-d.
>
>
S-t-o-p t-h-e b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t
Bob Kolker
>
Bennett Standeven
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> >On Fri, 10 May 2002, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> If you are referring to the above quote of Max, it is actually correct.
> >> I will admit that it surprised me somewhat, but when I looked into it
> >> GR does indeed predict that the difference between the proper times of
> >> the eastgoing and the westgoing clock will be the same regardless of
> >> the speed and altitude of the clocks provided that:
> >> 1) Both clocks go at the same ground speed.
> >> 2) Both clocks go at the same altitude.
> >> 3) Both clocks go at the same latitude.
> >> 4) If the clocks go at equator, the difference will always be 414ns.
> >>
> >> When this does not apply to the H&K experiment where the difference
> >> was 332ns, it is because the conditions above are not met.
> >>
>
> According to the above, if two satellites from the group of GPS
> satellites were traveling in opposite directions along the line
> of the equator, the east bound clock would end up with a 414ns
> shortfall on the west bound clock at the end of each completed cycle
> from one passing to the next.
>
No. They do not have the same ground speed.
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CE39DAB...@ozemail.com.au...
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> >"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:3CE1003C...@ozemail.com.au...
> >> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > >>> news:3CDE46BE...@ozemail.com.au...
> >>>>At a constant latitude of 26.7 degrees, the final clock difference
> >>>>is expected to be 332ns. And it will always be thus at that latitude
> >>>>if the above conditions are met. However, all of the above
> >>>>conditions can be varied so long as any variation at one clock has
> >>>>been mimicked at the other clock before journey's end.
>
> >>> But the two clocks did not "mimic each other".
> >>> So this is quite irrelevant to H&K experiment
>
> >> It may be irrelevant to the H&K experiment, but it's certainly not
> >> irrelevant. I acknowledge your criticism regarding the precision of
> >> the H&K experiment, but that's not where the story ends.
>
> > And since it is irrelevant to the H&K experiment,
> > then your claim in the subject field is wrong.
>
> Not at all. The H&K experiment was geared around three clocks, two
> aeroplanes and the earth. The **principles** involved were the basis
> of the H&K experiment, and since it was the milestone in such
> experiments, it is entitled to be recognized as such. Relativity is
> falsifiable according to those principles. How that particular
> experiment was conducted is of little consequence.
Say - what are you babbling about?
Of bloody course the H&K experiment might have falsified SR.
But it didn't. It _confirmed_ SR.
Thus is your claim in the subject field wrong.
The aeroplanes did NOT run in the way YOU thought.
Therefore it is utterly irrelevant to the H&K experiment
that its result (the difference) was NOT what it should
have been if the aeroplanes had flown as you thought.
Got it now?
> I think the sometimes fiery responses to the inconsequential subject
> heading are a fair indication of "skeletons in the closet".
So when you write an assertion which is plain and simply wrong,
it is because you have "skeletons in the closet"?
What kind of skeletons make you do such a silly thing?
> >> Precision experiments using the basic structure of the H&K
> >> experiment **can** reinforce, or falsify relativity.
>
> > Of course.
>
> >> As you acknowledged in an earlier post; If all other required
> >> conditions are met, for every completed cycle around the globe,
> .> the time shortfall in the clock of the east bound aircraft when
> >> compared with the clock of the west bound aircraft will remain
> >> constant, whatever the altitude, so long as that altitude remains
> >> constant for both aircraft. That condition apparently extends to
> >> infinity according to GR. That is the point I refute. According to
> >> my guiding light, there is no such constant. The time difference
> >> between clocks reduces with altitude. That statement is easily
> >> falsifiable. But not by me.
>
> > So you insist that the predictions of GR are wrong,
> > but can refer to no experiment which support you claim.
>
> Two independent H&K type experiments, one high and one low altitude,
> would support my claim.
So you yet again assert that the predictions of GR are wrong.
But:
> > All the experiment done to date with macroscopic clocks
> > (Pound&Rebka, H&K, Alley, Vessot, GPS) confirm GR, none
> > falsifies it.
>
> Pound&Rebka and GPS are of course not relevant in this case.
Why not?
They confirm the predictions of GR.
> The remainder can't confirm GR until the high and the low altitude
> comparisons have been made.
Of bloody course they all confirm GR.
And you know it, of course.
> These experiments could be conducted at any specific latitude, and
> the clocks would be expected to return a specific time difference
> between them which will be according to the predictions of GR. To
> keep things simple, suppose the experiments were set up so that each
> aircraft traveled along the line of the equator. GR then expects a
> 414ns difference between clocks for any altitude (common for both
> aircrafts) while I expect the time difference to lessen with
> altitude, beginning at 621ns difference for a zero altitude run.
> The rate of time difference decrease per altitude can only be
> established by experiment because it will mostly depend on the
> relationship of the clock oscillator with its atomic environment.
>
> Thus (according to me) there is one specific altitude at which the
> 414ns constant required by GR will exactly occur. Alley or Vessot
> may have come close it.
I can only repeat that your assertions that the predictions of GR
are wrong are not very convincing.
If GR had been wrong in this area (macroscopic clocks in
the vicinity of the Earth), why weren't any of the predictions
for the listed experiments wrong?
This is but another variant of the typical crackpot assertion:
"All experiments done to date are false. Only the experiment
I am proposing would be a valid experiment, and that experiment
would certainly falsify GR."
Paul
Patrick Reany
Martin Gradwell wrote:
Newtonian mechanics is consistent with the Galilean
principle of relativity, and the Galilean transformation
equations. No explicit absolute velocities were
used or indeed needed.
Patrick
Stephen Speicher
>
> I think the sometimes fiery responses to the inconsequential subject
> heading are a fair indication of "skeletons in the closet".
>
No. They are a fair response of your attempt to backpeddle, and a
response to your failure to admit both your ignorance of
relativity and your ignorance of the experimental facts upon
which you made the bogus claim that the experiment falsified
relativity. If you had a shred of honesty or integrity, you would
admit to your error.
Max Keon
If you don't have an answer to my question, that's OK. But there's
not much point proclaiming proof of relativity until you do.
The speed of light is locally isotropic only in the ECI frame. The
consequences of motion relative to that frame are according to
very simple geometry. Each light path length will increase according
to the path that it scribes through the ECI frame. The formula that
encompasses the global light path changes for a relatively moving
object must incorporate all possible path options, and this can be
achieved by averaging the equations for the direction of motion and
for the direction perpendicular to the motion.
l' = l / (((1 - (v^2 / c^2)) + SQR(1- (v^2 / c^2))) / 2)
The (perhaps global action) pathway length of the natural oscillator
in a Caesium atom would increase per velocity according to that
equation and the clock would slow accordingly. But the influence
of the earth **must** reduce as altitude increases. **It can't
possibly remain constant to infinity**. So wouldn't one expect the
time shortfall between the east and west clocks to reduce with
altitude? Why is it constant according to GR?
Both GR and SR would be falsified if it could be demonstrated that
the geometry on earth's surface produces a result which is in
accordance with the above equation. A high and a low altitude H&K
type test would verify whether or not that condition is true.
That question won't go away until it's resolved.
--
Max Keon
Max Keon
>
>Max Keon wrote:
>>Using the disjointed jumble of theories that currently describe
>>different aspects of the universe was understandable while that
>>was the best we had. But there is now no excuse.
> O.K. Big Shot. Show us how to get as good (if not better) from your One
> Postulate. Prove it. Show it. Demonstrate it. And verify it
> experimentally. The world holds its breath until you do just that. Until
> you show genuine scientific results you will (as you should be) regarded
> as a blowhard and a crackpot.
The proof is already there. Go and read it then come back and tell
me where it fails. I'll even save you the trouble of searching for
it. http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html
Pay particular attention when you get to the section devoted to the
background radiation. I think it says a lot.
Off you go then.
--
Max Keon
Robert J. Kolker
Max Keon wrote:
it. http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html
>
> Pay particular attention when you get to the section devoted to the
> background radiation. I think it says a lot.
Pictures and simulations are NOT scientific evidence. Where is the
experimental verification of your stuff?
That is "Disney Science" you are doing. I am underwhelmed.
Bob Kolker
Stephen Speicher
> So wouldn't one expect the time shortfall between the east and
> west clocks to reduce with altitude? Why is it constant
> according to GR?
>
It isn't. It is only constant for someone like you who uses a
formula without having the slightest idea from whence it came, or
what it means. The formula you are using is a linearized
solution to the full general relativistic expression, and further
it only holds true for the condition where h << R. I have given
the reference several times ("Relativistic Time for Terrestrial
Circumnavigations", J. C. Hafele, AJP, Volume 40, January 1972,
pp. 81-85.") if you want to see the full general relativistic
expression which holds true where the very restrictive condition
of h << R is no longer the case.
>
> That question won't go away until it's resolved.
>
The "question" has been resolved for some time, at least as far
as those who actually understand these issues are concerned. The
real question here is why "won't [you] go away" and stop posting
your nonsense here -- your silly and bogus claims at falsifying
GR -- at least until such time as you educate yourself well
enough to be able to have an intelligent discussion about these
issues.
If you had come here expressing the attitude of wanting to know
and understand, instead of presumptuously claiming to falsify
relativity with your comic book-like understanding of physics,
you might have found some knowledgeable people gracious enough to
invest their time educating you. Your loss.
Logicalpike
> On Thu, 16 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
>
> >
> > I think the sometimes fiery responses to the inconsequential subject
> > heading are a fair indication of "skeletons in the closet".
> >
>
> No. They are a fair response of your attempt to backpeddle, and a
> response to your failure to admit both your ignorance of
> relativity and your ignorance of the experimental facts upon
> which you made the bogus claim that the experiment falsified
> relativity. If you had a shred of honesty or integrity, you would
> admit to your error.
>
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CE7900F...@ozemail.com.au...
Which question of yours can I not answer?
You are asserting something which is contrary to GR.
GR is well confirmed in this area.
So your assertion isn't very convincing.
> The speed of light is locally isotropic only in the ECI frame.
Nonsense.
> The
> consequences of motion relative to that frame are according to
> very simple geometry. Each light path length will increase according
> to the path that it scribes through the ECI frame. The formula that
> encompasses the global light path changes for a relatively moving
> object must incorporate all possible path options, and this can be
> achieved by averaging the equations for the direction of motion and
> for the direction perpendicular to the motion.
> l' = l / (((1 - (v^2 / c^2)) + SQR(1- (v^2 / c^2))) / 2)
> The (perhaps global action) pathway length of the natural oscillator
> in a Caesium atom would increase per velocity according to that
> equation and the clock would slow accordingly. But the influence
> of the earth **must** reduce as altitude increases. **It can't
> possibly remain constant to infinity**. So wouldn't one expect the
> time shortfall between the east and west clocks to reduce with
> altitude? Why is it constant according to GR?
>
> Both GR and SR would be falsified if it could be demonstrated that
> the geometry on earth's surface produces a result which is in
> accordance with the above equation. A high and a low altitude H&K
> type test would verify whether or not that condition is true.
Sure GR would be falsified if an experiment falsified it.
No experiment has.
>
> That question won't go away until it's resolved.
It is resolved.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CE7900F...@ozemail.com.au...
>
> The speed of light is locally isotropic only in the ECI frame. The
> consequences of motion relative to that frame are according to
> very simple geometry. Each light path length will increase according
> to the path that it scribes through the ECI frame. The formula that
> encompasses the global light path changes for a relatively moving
> object must incorporate all possible path options, and this can be
> achieved by averaging the equations for the direction of motion and
> for the direction perpendicular to the motion.
> l' = l / (((1 - (v^2 / c^2)) + SQR(1- (v^2 / c^2))) / 2)
> The (perhaps global action) pathway length of the natural oscillator
> in a Caesium atom would increase per velocity according to that
> equation and the clock would slow accordingly. But the influence
> of the earth **must** reduce as altitude increases. **It can't
> possibly remain constant to infinity**. So wouldn't one expect the
> time shortfall between the east and west clocks to reduce with
> altitude? Why is it constant according to GR?
OK. Let me answer your question in some detail.
Firstly:
I never said it was constant, because it isn't.
It is only approximately constant as long as the approximations
made in the calculations are valid. One of these approximations
is that the altitude of the aircraft is small compared to the radius
of the Earth. This approximation will be reasonably good for all
real aircraft, (we were talking about the H&K experiment) but you
can obviously not let the altitude increase to infinity.
However, if you DO increase the altitude very much, the difference
between the clocks will be greater - not less as you insist.
But let's redo the calculation without said approximation:
Scenario:
Two clocks are moving in a circle with radius r around the Earth.
One clock move with the speed v + u, the other clock move
with the speed v - u, where v is the speed of a geostationary
point on the circle. The duration of the journey is
from the clocks are co-located to they are co-located again
when the fastest moving clock have made two revolutions more than
the slowest moving clock.
What is the difference between the proper times of the clocks?
The Schwarzschild solution for the proper time of a clock
in the gravity field of the Erth is:
ds^2 = (1 - 2m/r)dt^2 - 1/(1 - 2m/r)dr^2 - r^2 (d p^2 + (sin p)^2 dq^2)
where t is the temporal co-ordinate,
r is the radial co-ordinate,
p is latitude, and q is longitude.
m = G*M/c^2 where G is the gravitational constant
and M is the mass of the Earth.
If the speed (in ECI-frame) is v, we have v*dt = r*dp.
Constant height (dr=0) around equator (dq=0)
and the equation above becomes:
ds^2 = (1 - 2*m/r - v^2/c^2)*dt^2 (conventional units - thus c^2)
or
ds = sqrt(1 -2*m/r - v^2/c^2)*dt
or a first order approximation (m/r << 1, v << c):
ds = (1 - m/r - 0.5*v^2/c^2)*T
where T' is the proper time of the clock, and T is the travelling
time in the ECI-frame.
(Note that the validity of this approximation does not depend on r.)
This was for one clock. Now, let's insert the two different speeds
and calculate the difference between the clocks:
T1' - T2' = -0.5*(((v+u)^2-(v-u)^2)/c^2)*T = -2*v*u*T/c^2
But the duration of the journey T = 2*pi*r/u.
Thus: T2'-T1' = 4*pi*v*r/c^2
Now, if the meeting location for clocks is geostationary,
v = w*r where w is the angular velocity of the Earth:
T2'-T1' = 4*pi*w*r^2/c^2
Note that if w = 7.29*10^-5 rad/s and r = 6.378*10^6 m
T2'-T1' = 414ns
So the conclusion is that the difference between the clocks
will increase proportionally to the square of the radius of
the circle.
But why would you have the difference to disappear?
The effects of gravity is the same for both clocks and
does not contribute. But as the diameter of the circle
increases, the speed will increase (v=w*r) and the duration
of the journey will increase (supposing that u is constant.)
In this specific scenario the only influence of the Earth
is that it's the centre of the circle.
>
> Both GR and SR would be falsified if it could be demonstrated that
> the geometry on earth's surface produces a result which is in
> accordance with the above equation. A high and a low altitude H&K
> type test would verify whether or not that condition is true.
>
> That question won't go away until it's resolved.
It is resolved. The general equation above (The Schwarzschild solution ..)
is tested in a number of experiments with macroscopic clocks.
Its predictions have been correct every time.
So why would you expect it to fail for an experiment which
is only slightly different from experiments already done?
Paul
Logicalpike
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.42.0205161832500.19616-100000@blinky>...
> > On Thu, 16 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think the sometimes fiery responses to the inconsequential subject
> > > heading are a fair indication of "skeletons in the closet".
> > >
> >
> > No. They are a fair response of your attempt to backpeddle, and a
> > response to your failure to admit both your ignorance of
> > relativity and your ignorance of the experimental facts upon
> > which you made the bogus claim that the experiment falsified
> > relativity. If you had a shred of honesty or integrity, you would
> > admit to your error.
You should practice what you preach.
Logicalpike
>
> >
> > I think the sometimes fiery responses to the inconsequential subject
> > heading are a fair indication of "skeletons in the closet".
> >
>
> No. They are a fair response of your attempt to backpeddle, and a
> response to your failure to admit both your ignorance of
> relativity and your ignorance of the experimental facts upon
> which you made the bogus claim that the experiment falsified
> relativity. If you had a shred of honesty or integrity, you would
> admit to your error.
You should practice what you preach!
Max Keon
>
>On Sun, 19 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
>> So wouldn't one expect the time shortfall between the east and
>> west clocks to reduce with altitude? Why is it constant
>> according to GR?
> It isn't. It is only constant for someone like you who uses a
> formula without having the slightest idea from whence it came, or
> what it means. The formula you are using is a linearized
> solution to the full general relativistic expression, and further
> it only holds true for the condition where h << R. I have given
> the reference several times ("Relativistic Time for Terrestrial
> Circumnavigations", J. C. Hafele, AJP, Volume 40, January 1972,
> pp. 81-85.") if you want to see the full general relativistic
> expression which holds true where the very restrictive condition
> of h << R is no longer the case.
Looks convincing. But that's not what was implied in the following
extract from an earlier post. You didn't seem to disagree with Paul
at all.
I wrote:
{>>> According to any of the formula sets listed in the program, if both
{>>> aircraft altitudes had remained constant, or had each varied by the
{>>> same margin on average over the journey, regardless of the altitude
{>>> at which the experiment is conducted, and no matter what the
{>>> velocity of the aircrafts, the east bound and west bound clock time
{>>> difference is always exactly the same...
{
You wrote:
{>> Is this a joke? You cannot really be serious about this.
{
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
{> If you are referring to the above quote of Max, it is actually correct.
{> I will admit that it surprised me somewhat, but when I looked into it
{> GR does indeed predict that the difference between the proper times of
{> the eastgoing and the westgoing clock will be the same regardless of
{> the speed and altitude of the clocks provided that:
{> 1) Both clocks go at the same ground speed.
{> 2) Both clocks go at the same altitude.
{> 3) Both clocks go at the same latitude.
{> 4) If the clocks go at equator, the difference will always be 414ns.
{>
{> When this does not apply to the H&K experiment where the difference
{> was 332ns, it is because the conditions above are not met.
{>
{> Thus the claim in the subject field is nonsense - of course.
{> THAT is indeed a joke, maybe the joke you were referring to?
{
You wrote:
{ Yes, of course. Which is why I said that the poster had
{ apparently not even read the Hafele & Keating papers in
{ _Science_, or Hafele's prior theoretical paper in the AJP. How
{ can the experiment be shown to falsify relativity by providing a
{ computer program based on premises which do not apply to the
{ experiment? How could the poster think that he would be taken
{ seriously.
As usual, your comments are completely void of credibility.
>> That question won't go away until it's resolved.
> The "question" has been resolved for some time, at least as far
> as those who actually understand these issues are concerned.
It hasn't been resolved at all.
You can't hide the question under a barrage of tripe like the stuff
you keep on posting. A high and a low altitude H&K type experiment
must result in either, exactly the same time shortfall between the
east-west clocks for all altitudes, or a different time shortfall
between the east-west clocks according to altitude. Until such tests
have been undertaken, the question remains unresolved, whatever way
you wish to sway.
If you now choose to back a variable time shortfall between
east-west clocks per altitude, at what rate would the shortfall
alter per altitude? What would be the appropriate formula for
determining this? And don't forget that it must point to
t' = t* SQR(1-v^2/c^2) for a ground level test.
> The
> real question here is why "won't [you] go away" and stop posting
> your nonsense here -- your silly and bogus claims at falsifying
> GR -- at least until such time as you educate yourself well
> enough to be able to have an intelligent discussion about these
> issues.
According to your rules, intelligent discussion is only possible
while we all read from the good book of relativity. You seem to have
a truckload of tripe at your disposal from which you can extract
just about anything you require to prop up your belief.
My guiding light shows very clearly what's going on in the universe,
and phony diversions can be easily recognized.
--
Max Keon
Oriel36
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
>
> > So wouldn't one expect the time shortfall between the east and
> > west clocks to reduce with altitude? Why is it constant
> > according to GR?
> >
>
> It isn't. It is only constant for someone like you who uses a
> formula without having the slightest idea from whence it came, or
> what it means.
The same can be said of 'clocks' and you.This is a GEOMETRICALLY valid
description of " clocks measure time"
http://www.hammondmap.com/sites/hammond/geography/images/projection/mra150x.gif
If you were'nt so wrapped up in thought experiments you would probably
be capable of noticing the fundamental distinction between geometry
(space) of spherical and cylindrical geometry and not combine the two
(spacetime).
You need the aetherist to prop you up but rightfully the aetherist
does not need you if there is a genuine interest in geometry as a
facet of nature.Reducing everything to 'distance covered' turns you
and the concepts you peddle in into mush.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> >On Sun, 19 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
> >> So wouldn't one expect the time shortfall between the east and
> >> west clocks to reduce with altitude? Why is it constant
> >> according to GR?
>
> > It isn't. It is only constant for someone like you who uses a
> > formula without having the slightest idea from whence it came, or
> > what it means. The formula you are using is a linearized
> > solution to the full general relativistic expression, and further
> > it only holds true for the condition where h << R. I have given
> > the reference several times ("Relativistic Time for Terrestrial
> > Circumnavigations", J. C. Hafele, AJP, Volume 40, January 1972,
> > pp. 81-85.") if you want to see the full general relativistic
> > expression which holds true where the very restrictive condition
> > of h << R is no longer the case.
>
> Looks convincing.
After another attempt to discredit relativity, again based on
your own ignorance, all you have to say is "Looks convincing"???
I'll bet anything you did not get the referenced paper, and if
you did get it you did not read it, and if you did read it you
did not understand it.
You are an uneducatable dolt. A second-hander with a third-rate
mind, one who does not let the facts get in the way of your
feelings.
> But that's not what was implied in the following...
>
Oh bull! You are incapable of logical thought, and you still do
not understand what was "implied" even after it was explained to
you.
>
> As usual, your comments are completely void of credibility.
>
_MY_ comments are "void of credibility"???
Armed with nothing but abject ignorance, YOU have _repeatedly_
claimed falsification of relativity when all that was falsified
was your own credibility. Aside from myself, Paul Anderson also
has -- with greater patience than I can exhibit towards an
arrogant dolt like yourself -- explained what you have done wrong
and what the correct approach actually is. But, regardless, you
just forge ahead, remaining blissfully ignorant of the facts, yet
continuing to wave your ghostly anti-relativist banner.
> >> That question won't go away until it's resolved.
> >
> > The "question" has been resolved for some time, at least as
> > far as those who actually understand these issues are
> > concerned.
>
> It hasn't been resolved at all. You can't hide the question
> under a barrage of tripe like the stuff you keep on posting.
>
That "barrage of tripe" consists of the facts, facts which you
continue to ignore in an an attempt to make the world into being
the way you feel it should be, rather than the way it is.
> > The real question here is why "won't [you] go away" and stop
> > posting your nonsense here -- your silly and bogus claims at
> > falsifying GR -- at least until such time as you educate
> > yourself well enough to be able to have an intelligent
> > discussion about these issues.
>
> According to your rules, intelligent discussion is only
> possible while we all read from the good book of relativity.
>
I know that this will come as a revelation to someone like
yourself, but the usual procedure is that one familiarizes
oneself with what a theory advocates _before_ you present a
critique of what you feel it predicts. Of course, such an
approach might cramp your style, such style being to let your
feelings and imagination have free reign, rather than become
knowledgeable about the facts.
> You seem to have a truckload of tripe at your disposal from
> which you can extract just about anything you require to prop
> up your belief.
>
That "truckload of tripe" are the facts of relativity, and rather
than "prop up [my] belief" they support my knowledge and
understanding.
> My guiding light shows very clearly what's going on in the
> universe, and phony diversions can be easily recognized.
>
Your "guiding light" is naught but your ignorance and feelings,
and your own "phony diversions" are away from the facts. Get lost
from this group for a couple of years and attempt to educate
yourself regarding the facts of relativity. You may still come to
the wrong conclusions, but at least then you will seen as
mistaken, rather than being seen as an ignorant fool.
Max Keon
The time for the journey doesn't matter of course. Relative to a
geostationary point at zero altitude above the equator, being the
clock orbit radius, if the common velocities of clocks T2' T1' are
halved, the time for the journey will have doubled, but the T2'-T1'
result is still 414ns.
I was wrong however in assuming that the 414ns difference would
prevail for any altitude, to infinity. According to your scenario
and also according to the Qbasic program contained in my original
post, doubling the radius from earth's centerline would increase
the time difference by a factor of four, as your conclusion below.
> So the conclusion is that the difference between the clocks
> will increase proportionally to the square of the radius of
> the circle.
>
> But why would you have the difference to disappear?
> The effects of gravity is the same for both clocks and
> does not contribute. But as the diameter of the circle
> increases, the speed will increase (v=w*r) and the duration
> of the journey will increase (supposing that u is constant.)
>
> In this specific scenario the only influence of the Earth
> is that it's the centre of the circle.
The t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) part of the GR solution applies for
any H&K type test at any radius from the center of the circle,
regardless of whether the earth is present or not. And that scenario
can be taken to infinity using the same equation. **This I reject.**
Relativity **is** falsifiable by these two H&K type tests. If
T2-T1 at one test altitude happens to provide a clock difference
which aligns with t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) , the result of T2-T1
at the other altitude must also provide a result according to that
same formula. My claim is that the high altitude and low altitude
test will never both exactly comply with **any** specific formula
of this kind.
According to my guiding light, the relevant equation on the earth's
surface is t' = t * (((1 - v^2/c^2) + SQR(1 - v^2/c^2)) / 2) and
this will shift toward (and past) the t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2)
end of the equation as the influence of the earth decreases with
distance.
>>Both GR and SR would be falsified if it could be demonstrated that
>>the geometry on earth's surface produces a result which is in
>>accordance with the above equation. A high and a low altitude H&K
>>type test would verify whether or not that condition is true.
>>
>>That question won't go away until it's resolved.
> It is resolved. The general equation above (The Schwarzschild solution ..)
> is tested in a number of experiments with macroscopic clocks.
> Its predictions have been correct every time.
> So why would you expect it to fail for an experiment which
> is only slightly different from experiments already done?
-------------
I must say, it's pleasing to catch a glimpse of the
Paul B. Anderson of old. After so many years at the helm
your frustration is understandable. It will be a very sad
day when you decide to throw in the towel in this newsgroup.
(Now try being mean to me.)
--
Max Keon
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CEE1101...@ozemail.com.au...
So you insist that SR is wrong as well as GR.
> Relativity **is** falsifiable by these two H&K type tests. If
> T2-T1 at one test altitude happens to provide a clock difference
> which aligns with t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) , the result of T2-T1
> at the other altitude must also provide a result according to that
> same formula. My claim is that the high altitude and low altitude
> test will never both exactly comply with **any** specific formula
> of this kind.
I have got that. You insist that GR and SR are both wrong.
But the "speed part" of the Swharzschild solution is tested
in a number of experiments at very different altitude:
The H&K at low altitude, Alley at a domewhat higher altidude,
Vessot at a still higher altitude, and the GPS at a much higher
altitude than all the others.
In all cases it has been correct.
So your assertions that it is wrong are not convincing.
> According to my guiding light, the relevant equation on the earth's
> surface is t' = t * (((1 - v^2/c^2) + SQR(1 - v^2/c^2)) / 2) and
> this will shift toward (and past) the t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2)
> end of the equation as the influence of the earth decreases with
> distance.
The best "guiding light" in physics is experiment.
They are done.
They show that your unsupporterd fantasies are wrong.
>
> >>Both GR and SR would be falsified if it could be demonstrated that
> >>the geometry on earth's surface produces a result which is in
> >>accordance with the above equation. A high and a low altitude H&K
> >>type test would verify whether or not that condition is true.
> >>
> >>That question won't go away until it's resolved.
>
> > It is resolved. The general equation above (The Schwarzschild solution ..)
> > is tested in a number of experiments with macroscopic clocks.
> > Its predictions have been correct every time.
>
> > So why would you expect it to fail for an experiment which
> > is only slightly different from experiments already done?
> -------------
>
> I must say, it's pleasing to catch a glimpse of the
> Paul B. Anderson of old. After so many years at the helm
> your frustration is understandable. It will be a very sad
> day when you decide to throw in the towel in this newsgroup.
My frustrasion?
I don't get what you are referring to.
But you didn't aswer the question.
Why do you think an experiment which is only slightly different
from all those experiments which have confirmed GR, would
falsify it?
Paul
Max Keon
>
>On Thu, 23 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
>> According to your rules, intelligent discussion is only
>> possible while we all read from the good book of relativity.
> I know that this will come as a revelation to someone like
> yourself, but the usual procedure is that one familiarizes
> oneself with what a theory advocates _before_ you present a
> critique of what you feel it predicts. Of course, such an
> approach might cramp your style, such style being to let your
> feelings and imagination have free reign, rather than become
> knowledgeable about the facts.
I'm assuming you mean "facts" according to relativity. But these
are the "facts" that I dispute. Why don't you become knowledgeable
in the facts of the theory of my conviction before you make some
of the blatantly ignorant comments that you do?
Logging well documented and "proven" knowledge which was obtained
entirely from somebody else's efforts, into one's memory, can still
enhance one's ego when they spout forth this stored knowledge to a
necessarily captive audience. Mistakes that couldn't be offloaded
onto someone else would be rare. "Hey, it wasn't me who said it,
it was him." But outside that protective fence you will find all
sorts of weird characters who, for various reasons are ready to
jump on and insult every comment you make. In that world, you
**will** make errors, and they will be directly attributable to
you. There is nowhere to hide.
But you seem to have developed an unwarranted arrogance with regard
to your position in your world. Since very little, if any, of the
knowledge that you spout belongs to you, you are of little more
significance in your community than any other information storage
facility. Admittedly, you have put in the effort for collecting this
knowledge, but the same knowledge can be stored and accessed with
any PC. And a computer doesn't carry on as you do.
--
Max Keon
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> >On Thu, 23 May 2002, Max Keon wrote:
> >> According to your rules, intelligent discussion is only
> >> possible while we all read from the good book of relativity.
>
> > I know that this will come as a revelation to someone like
> > yourself, but the usual procedure is that one familiarizes
> > oneself with what a theory advocates _before_ you present a
> > critique of what you feel it predicts. Of course, such an
> > approach might cramp your style, such style being to let your
> > feelings and imagination have free reign, rather than become
> > knowledgeable about the facts.
>
> I'm assuming you mean "facts" according to relativity. But these
> are the "facts" that I dispute.
No! I mean the facts _of_ relativity.
Before you can "dispute" whether or not general relativity
correctly predicts the facts of reality, you first need to know
what those predictions are. Doing so is precisely where you
continue to fail, miserably. You are, quite simply, incredibly
ignorant of what general relativity is and what it predicts.
However, your ignorance does not stand in your way of continually
making erroneous claims for what the predictions of general
relativity are. You then proceed to criticize GR for _your_
erroneous predictions.
> Why don't you become knowledgeable in the facts of the theory
> of my conviction
Why should I, or anyone else, give a damn about any of your
convictions? You waltz in here with claims of falsifying
relativity, while simultaneously exhibiting abject ignorance of
it. What sort of "convictions" does such an act imply? First, it
demonstrates that you are a sloppy thinker, unwilling or unable
to put forth the intellectual effort required for you to
understand. Second, it shows that, despite your protestations
otherwise, you really have little concern or respect for the
facts of reality. Why should anyone care about the "convictions"
of such an ignorant dolt?
>
> Logging well documented and "proven" knowledge which was
> obtained entirely from somebody else's efforts, into one's
> memory,
I suspect you mean this rote learning to stand in contrast to
your own "creative thinking," which in fact is nothing more than
letting your imagination run free, unconstrained. The fact of
the matter is, what you characterize here as accumulation and
storage is as comic book-like an understanding of epistemology as
you have exhibited of physics.
Unless one validates what one learns, by testing it for logical
consistency and correspondence with reality, and by integrating
it with everything else that one knows, until then it is not
knowledge. An idea really becomes your own only when you exert
the mental effort required to recreate it just as well as the
source from whence it came.
What I know is a direct result of the time and effort I put into
the process of thinking, in collaboration with the healthy
respect I have for care and precision of thought, and concern
with a correspondence to facts. This contrasts with what you have
demonstrated here of yourself.
[snip bizarre, out-of-touch-with-reality comments]
Max Keon
>
> "Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:3CEE1101...@ozemail.com.au...
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
-------
>>> So the conclusion is that the difference between the clocks
>>> will increase proportionally to the square of the radius of
>>> the circle.
>>>
>>> But why would you have the difference to disappear?
>>> The effects of gravity is the same for both clocks and
>>> does not contribute. But as the diameter of the circle
>>> increases, the speed will increase (v=w*r) and the duration
>>> of the journey will increase (supposing that u is constant.)
>>>
>>> In this specific scenario the only influence of the Earth
>>> is that it's the centre of the circle.
>> The t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) part of the GR solution applies for
>> any H&K type test at any radius from the center of the circle,
>> regardless of whether the earth is present or not. And that scenario
>> can be taken to infinity using the same equation. **This I reject.**
> So you insist that SR is wrong as well as GR.
No. The time differences between the high and the low altitude
clocks can only test the SR component. This does however rely on
the rest of the GR solution being correct, as you have pointed out.
>> Relativity **is** falsifiable by these two H&K type tests. If
>> T2-T1 at one test altitude happens to provide a clock difference
>> which aligns with t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) , the result of T2-T1
>> at the other altitude must also provide a result according to that
>> same formula. My claim is that the high altitude and low altitude
>> test will never both exactly comply with **any** specific formula
>> of this kind.
> I have got that. You insist that GR and SR are both wrong.
> But the "speed part" of the Swharzschild solution is tested
> in a number of experiments at very different altitude:
> The H&K at low altitude, Alley at a domewhat higher altidude,
> Vessot at a still higher altitude, and the GPS at a much higher
> altitude than all the others.
> In all cases it has been correct.
>
> So your assertions that it is wrong are not convincing.
All clocks in the GPS system have the same velocity relative to the
ECI frame so they are not comparable. The Vessot experiment to which
I assume you are referring is not really comparable either. And the
Alley experiment that you described previously will only complete
one half of the experiment. The proper clock comparisons can only
be made using two sets of data from a H&K type setup, recorded at
two different altitudes.
--
Max Keon
Max Keon
Carrying with me a theory that successfully describes our universe
with great precision, I wander into your world, where I find that
I'm confronted with the daunting task of demonstrating that this
theory predicts exactly what all of the currently successful
theories based on postulates predict, and that it is far more
logical to plot a path to the future using this theory because
it's **not** based on postulates.
One consequence of my actions has been to awaken the resident demon.
It rises up from the sand, spitting and snarling, then it promptly
plunks its head straight back in again.
--
Max Keon
Stephen Speicher
The _logical_ way to approach your "daunting task" would have
been to make a post with a brief abstract giving the essence of
your theory, and highlighting what you consider its advantages to
be over the standard theory. However, _instead_ of doing the
_logical_ thing, you make a post with a provocative subject line
claiming that the H & K experiment falsifies standard relativity,
and then proceed to demonstrate that you have a profound
ignorance of both the H & K experiment and of relativity, and it
was your ignorance which led you to making such false claims.
A sane approach to interest people in your theory is not by
making false accusations against the theory with which you
disagree. If you did want to critique the standard theory (which,
as I suggest above, is not necessarily the best approach to
garner interest in your theory), then you should have done your
homework well enough not to have made sophomoric errors about the
nature of the experiment you chose and about the theory which you
claim to be false. By exhibiting such arrogant ignorance you
lose _all_ credibility. Again, why should I, or anyone else,
care about your theory when you present yourself as such a sloppy
and inept thinker?
> One consequence of my actions has been to awaken the resident
> demon. It rises up from the sand, spitting and snarling, then
> it promptly plunks its head straight back in again.
>
Oh bull. The consequence of your actions is that you have
revealed yourself to be an arrogant yet ignorant dolt, and it
takes a lot less than demons to slay the likes of you. Even to
this moment you fail to acknowledge the gross errors you made.
Instead of honestly facing the truth, it is _you_ who buries your
head, but you bury it in the quagmire of feelings which pass for
thoughts inside your brain.
Charles Cagle
Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> That "truckload of tripe" are the facts of relativity, and rather
> than "prop up [my] belief" they support my knowledge and
> understanding.
You stupid bastard, Mr. Sphincter...er Mr. Speicher, "the facts of
relativity" (GR) are that it happens to be based upon the
pseudoscientific concept that quantum particles can have motion with
respect to an arbitraritly contrived reference frame instead of only
with respect to each other.
You're such an egregiously arrogant son of a bitch that you probably
can't quite see what could be wrong with that. I find it utterly
amazing that nitwits like you can probably max your SATs and get into a
place like CalTech but can't quite grasp what is wrong with that
picture. I feel a bit sorry for you because you really got cut loose
on the world by parents that didn't love you at all (since they turned
you loose on the world without any manners).
The fact is, Speicher, you really need to take some deep meditative
courses in epistemology because you consistently confuse your
pseudoknowledge for actual 'knowledge'. As far as 'understanding'
hell, you don't have much if you can't understand that you're a boorish
prick of a fellow that thinks he can bully people around on the
internet because he's got a CalTech address.
You think people have to become completely immersed in a load of
pseudoscientific tripe like GR before they can make a valid criticism
against it? By that stupid nitwit standard then people who see a dog
turd floating in their soup should eat it all up anyway. Personally,
it's plain to me that you have no discriminatory capability and that
you are utterly ignorant with respect to epistemological standards
being applied to knowledge to give it a reliability index.
For instance, I'd bet money that you're stupid enough to believe that
you can get two nuclei to fuse by providing them with sufficient
kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. You don't have the
brains to figure out that there's not a single piece of data in the
world that can substantiate such a mechanism for nuclear fusion. You
have theory and you have evidence of fusion but you don't have a clear
picture of the developing antecedent relationships between nuclei which
lead to their subsequent fusion. There isn't a piece of data in
existence that can show that two elementary charged particles of the
same sign will be repulsively interactive if they are overlapping in
momentum space with respect to each other. Yet, I'd wager that you
believe that they'd repel one another, that there'd be an
'electrostatic' repulsion between them. Why do you believe such
things you stupid son of a bitch? There's no data that shows that is
true so why believe it? Let me answer. You're a god damned
pseudoscientist who prefers to believe things because he read it
somewhere. You suck the tit of consensus for your mental milk and
until you can actually learn to do science in the right manner (like
Rene Descartes and Pascal recommended) then you're going to remain a
pseudoscientist. Go back to your halfwit friends and piddle around for
another generation doing your pseudoscience but don't come around here
you arrogant mannerless prick and spout your holier than thou bullshit
because you're nothing but a pseudoscientific fraud and that's prabably
all you'll ever be.
CC.
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CF0D0DD...@ozemail.com.au...
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > "Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:3CEE1101...@ozemail.com.au...
> >> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> -------
> -------
> >>> So the conclusion is that the difference between the clocks
> >>> will increase proportionally to the square of the radius of
> >>> the circle.
> >>>
> >>> But why would you have the difference to disappear?
> >>> The effects of gravity is the same for both clocks and
> >>> does not contribute. But as the diameter of the circle
> >>> increases, the speed will increase (v=w*r) and the duration
> >>> of the journey will increase (supposing that u is constant.)
> >>>
> >>> In this specific scenario the only influence of the Earth
> >>> is that it's the centre of the circle.
>
> >> The t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) part of the GR solution applies for
> >> any H&K type test at any radius from the center of the circle,
> >> regardless of whether the earth is present or not. And that scenario
> >> can be taken to infinity using the same equation. **This I reject.**
>
> > So you insist that SR is wrong as well as GR.
>
> No. The time differences between the high and the low altitude
> clocks can only test the SR component. This does however rely on
> the rest of the GR solution being correct, as you have pointed out.
If you "removed the Earth", the prediction of SR for the time
difference between the two clocks moving as above would be:
T2'-T1' = 4*pi*v*r/c^2
This you reject.
So you insist that SR is wrong as well as GR.
> >> Relativity **is** falsifiable by these two H&K type tests. If
> >> T2-T1 at one test altitude happens to provide a clock difference
> >> which aligns with t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2) , the result of T2-T1
> >> at the other altitude must also provide a result according to that
> >> same formula. My claim is that the high altitude and low altitude
> >> test will never both exactly comply with **any** specific formula
> >> of this kind.
>
> > I have got that. You insist that GR and SR are both wrong.
> > But the "speed part" of the Swharzschild solution is tested
> > in a number of experiments at very different altitude:
> > The H&K at low altitude, Alley at a domewhat higher altidude,
> > Vessot at a still higher altitude, and the GPS at a much higher
> > altitude than all the others.
> > In all cases it has been correct.
> >
> > So your assertions that it is wrong are not convincing.
>
> All clocks in the GPS system have the same velocity relative to the
> ECI frame so they are not comparable. The Vessot experiment to which
> I assume you are referring is not really comparable either. And the
> Alley experiment that you described previously will only complete
> one half of the experiment. The proper clock comparisons can only
> be made using two sets of data from a H&K type setup, recorded at
> two different altitudes.
You ignored my point.
If you are right, the speed dependent part of the Schwarzschild
solution must be wrong. You insist that it depend on the altitude
in a different way than said solution predicts.
But how can it be wrong when it is confirmed at a number of
different altitudes in the experiments mentioned above?
And you didn't answer my question:
Max Keon
>
> "Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CF0D0DD...@ozemail.com.au...
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>> "Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message > news:3CEE1101...@ozemail.com.au...
But those experiments don't really confirm GR or SR at all.
According to the actual GPS clock time increase per sidereal day of
+38700ns relative to its ground based origin fixed with the ECI
frame, if the time increase per altitude is calculated with a
formula which results in (e.g.) 1.01 times faster clock times
attributable to altitude, the altitude contribution will then be
1.01 times the existing +45900ns per GR (= +46359ns)
:: 46359 - 38700 = 7659ns per day attributable to velocity.
Or alternately the altitude component could be .99 of the established
altitude solution, (45900 * .99 = 45441) :: 45441 - 38700 = 6741ns.
It depends entirely on what the time slowing component is subtracted
from in order to arrive at the answer dictated by experiment.
Experiments conducted in space are all in freefall around the earth,
and none of them test the altitude component of GR at all. That end
of the experiment can be tweaked about to achieve almost anything
one desires. The only way to prove relativity is to include an ECI
frame fixed clock stationed at the test altitude. Without such a
check, the experiment is open ended, and is thus useless as a test
of relativity.
The results from the clock at the ECI frame fixed checkpoint can't
be corrupted in any way by assuming that the clock is constantly
accelerating in order to maintain its constant altitude while the
freefalling GPS clocks are not. The speed of the gravity force is
expected to be very fast, the speed of light in fact. The action
of gravity at that altitude (g) reduces at the rate of
g' = g * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2). v in this case is only .283 m/sec.
The effect of gravity hasn't diminished at all.
How can one possibly accept otherwise?
Anyway, the GR solution as it stands cannot scuttle the H&K dual
altitude test. The clock differences will tell all.
--
Max Keon
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3CF565AC...@ozemail.com.au...
Please don't dispute facts.
It is a fact that GR correctly predicts the outcome
these experiments.
It is a fact that these experiments confirm GR.
> According to the actual GPS clock time increase per sidereal day of
> +38700ns relative to its ground based origin fixed with the ECI
> frame, if the time increase per altitude is calculated with a
> formula which results in (e.g.) 1.01 times faster clock times
> attributable to altitude, the altitude contribution will then be
> 1.01 times the existing +45900ns per GR (= +46359ns)
> :: 46359 - 38700 = 7659ns per day attributable to velocity.
> Or alternately the altitude component could be .99 of the established
> altitude solution, (45900 * .99 = 45441) :: 45441 - 38700 = 6741ns.
> It depends entirely on what the time slowing component is subtracted
> from in order to arrive at the answer dictated by experiment.
Of bloody course you can devise an infinite number of different
equations with different dependency on speed and altitude which
yields the correct answer **for one particular speed and one
particular altitude**.
So what?
GR - with NO tunable parametres - still give the correct prediction
and is therefore confirmed by the GPS.
> Experiments conducted in space are all in freefall around the earth,
> and none of them test the altitude component of GR at all. That end
> of the experiment can be tweaked about to achieve almost anything
> one desires.
Every experiment give concrete numeric results which
cannot be "tweked" in any way.
GR - with NO tunable parameters - correctly predicts
these numeric results in every case.
So what the hell are you babbling about?
What can be "tweeked" to what one desires?
> The only way to prove relativity is to include an ECI
> frame fixed clock stationed at the test altitude. Without such a
> check, the experiment is open ended, and is thus useless as a test
> of relativity.
This is nonsense.
What is "open ended"?
The GR prediction for the proper time of a clock depend on
the space-time path. (Which includes acceleration, speed and altitude.)
In each experiment, the clock has travelled a concrete, measured
spacetime path. That space-time path has been very different in
these different experiments (different altitudes, different speeds,
free-falling, not free-falling).
When this space-time path is entered into GR
(the Swharzchild solution), the predicted numeric values
has been correct in every case.
Don't you understand that GR thus is very well confirmed?
> The results from the clock at the ECI frame fixed checkpoint can't
> be corrupted in any way by assuming that the clock is constantly
> accelerating in order to maintain its constant altitude while the
> freefalling GPS clocks are not. The speed of the gravity force is
> expected to be very fast, the speed of light in fact. The action
> of gravity at that altitude (g) reduces at the rate of
> g' = g * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2). v in this case is only .283 m/sec.
> The effect of gravity hasn't diminished at all.
> How can one possibly accept otherwise?
>
> Anyway, the GR solution as it stands cannot scuttle the H&K dual
> altitude test. The clock differences will tell all.
Paul
Max Keon
Confirmed if you expect the speed related result to be in
accordance with t' = t * SQR(1 - v^2/c^2). But it's completely
wrong if you expect a result to suit some other requirement. And a
one off adjustment to the formula is all that's needed to reset the
parameters to accommodate this new requirement, for every altitude.
That is of course assuming that there is no proper check on a clock
rate for (ECI) zero velocity at each, or at least some, altitudes.
Adjust something in the formula that's carried by r^2 and you will
find the right balance in there somewhere.
The Planck formula for black body radiator curves contains household
names in physics too, but that doesn't automatically dictate that
they had anything to do with the end result. Planck was honest
enough to admit that his formula was the result of a number juggling
exercise. And it's hard to justify the c^3 inclusion, other than as
a medium to introduce a cube function into the formula. That formula
can be fiddled with to achieve just about anything one desires,
**as can the Schwarzchild solution**.
Why the enormously complicated list to arrive at a very simple
conclusion? The effect of altitude on the clocks is obviously only
related to distance from the earth. All orbit velocities per orbit
radius are exactly proportional to distance from the earth, and a
clock rate is exactly proportional to an orbit radius.
There are difficulties in calculating the rate of change between a
clock rising from the earth's surface and the earth's mass, but
that's all that needs to be done. **That is all that's relevant.**
4
3
2
____1____
I Earth I
I I
I Earth I
_________
A clock that's shifting from altitude 1 through to 4 will not change
its relationship with the entire mass of the earth in a uniform
manner. The clock's relationship with earth's mass adjacent to its
direction of altitude change obviously cannot alter at the same rate
as the relationship with the mass in the direction of motion. And
this is all to do with very simple geometry, nothing else.
The Schwarzchild solution has perhaps captured the correct balance,
but only through a number juggling exercise. And in this case some
of the numbers are not even valid. If the earth is considered as a
point mass, the theory behind some of the components is necessarily
very seriously flawed.
The 2D image of every piece of earth's matter diminishes at the rate
of 1/r^2, reducing the slowing effects of earth's mass on a clock
accordingly. It's as simple as that.
--
Max Keon
Bilge
Re: H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity. to usenet:
>The Planck formula for black body radiator curves contains household
>names in physics too, but that doesn't automatically dictate that
>they had anything to do with the end result. Planck was honest
>enough to admit that his formula was the result of a number juggling
>exercise.
Your number juggling should be so good.
> And it's hard to justify the c^3 inclusion, other than as
Why is that hard to justify? At which point in the derivation
does this sleight-of-hand take place?
>a medium to introduce a cube function into the formula. That formula
>can be fiddled with to achieve just about anything one desires,
Non-sense. Which point in the derivation admits fiddling?
>**as can the Schwarzchild solution**.
The schwarzchild solution is exact. It has 1 (one) parameter,
the mass. How should this be juggled to obtain anything one
desires?
Max Keon
>
> Max Keon said some stuff about
> Re: H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity. to usenet:
>>
>> The Planck formula for black body radiator curves contains household
>> names in physics too, but that doesn't automatically dictate that
>> they had anything to do with the end result. Planck was honest
>> enough to admit that his formula was the result of a number juggling
>> exercise.
> Your number juggling should be so good.
(Qbasic compatible as written)
r=((6000/b)^2/((1+(1872000/(b*k)))+((6000/b)/(.0024*k))^3)^2)^2*.0002*k
Emissive power (r) per (b) wave length for a (k) temperature radiator.
The nearest inclusion of any apparent significance is the figure
that's slightly greater than ten times the speed of light in miles
per second. But it obviously doesn't mean a thing. The equation
simply plots the 3D geometry of the radiator environment, just as
the Schwarzchild Solution plots the 3D changes in the relationship
between a clock and every part of the earth's mass, per altitude.
If you take the trouble to plot a range of black body curves
according to the above equation, and also according to the Planck
formula, you will note that the graph plots for low temperature
radiators do not align with the true low temperature black body
curves (i.e. 2.73K). Mathematically plotted curves all fit neatly
into their respective places between two straight lines that diverge
to infinity from a point.
Peak emission
wavelengths -
- .
- .
- .
- 1.575mm
- . .
- .7875mm .
- .39375mm . .
*-------------------------------------------------------------
32 16 8 4 Blackbody temp K. 2
* = zero peak emission wave length at infinite temp.
The fact that the true 2.73 curve is not an "ideal radiator curve"
paints a very clear picture of the origin of our universe.
But that's another story.
>> And it's hard to justify the c^3 inclusion, other than as
> Why is that hard to justify? At which point in the derivation
> does this sleight-of-hand take place?
>> a medium to introduce a cube function into the formula. That formula
>> can be fiddled with to achieve just about anything one desires,
> Non-sense. Which point in the derivation admits fiddling?
Planck himself alluded to the fact that the formula was the result
of a number juggling exercise, that it **originated** from fiddling.
Nobody was trying to hide anything.
>> **as can the Schwarzchild solution**.
> The schwarzchild solution is exact. It has 1 (one) parameter,
> the mass.
Yes, but take a look at the list of fiddle factors incorporated
in the solution that can vary how a clock will behave within the
influence of that constant mass.
> How should this be juggled to obtain anything one
> desires?
The Schwarzchild Solution manages to correctly predict the time
change rate in a freefalling spacebourne clock after the velocity
related part has been accounted for. Since the orbit velocity is
determined **only** by the clock's relationship with the earth's
mass, the time shortfall in the freefalling clock was necessarily
subtracted from a clock rate which was also exactly proportional
to the distance from all matter of the earth, but not necessarily
correctly proportional. That all depends on the formula used to
determine the velocity related time shortfall. With a little
(one off) number juggling, and if the result isn't testable at the
ECI frame end, the Schwarzchild Solution can accommodate just about
any variation you want.
--
Max Keon
Bilge
Re: H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity. to usenet:
>Bilge wrote:
>>
>> Max Keon said some stuff about
>> Re: H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity. to usenet:
>>>
>>> The Planck formula for black body radiator curves contains household
>>> names in physics too, but that doesn't automatically dictate that
>>> they had anything to do with the end result. Planck was honest
>>> enough to admit that his formula was the result of a number juggling
>>> exercise.
>
>> Your number juggling should be so good.
>
>(Qbasic compatible as written)
>r=((6000/b)^2/((1+(1872000/(b*k)))+((6000/b)/(.0024*k))^3)^2)^2*.0002*k
>Emissive power (r) per (b) wave length for a (k) temperature radiator.
>
>The nearest inclusion of any apparent significance is the figure
>that's slightly greater than ten times the speed of light in miles
[...]
>>> And it's hard to justify the c^3 inclusion, other than as
>
>> Why is that hard to justify? At which point in the derivation
>> does this sleight-of-hand take place?
>
>>> a medium to introduce a cube function into the formula. That formula
>>> can be fiddled with to achieve just about anything one desires,
>
>> Non-sense. Which point in the derivation admits fiddling?
>
>Planck himself alluded to the fact that the formula was the result
>of a number juggling exercise, that it **originated** from fiddling.
>Nobody was trying to hide anything.
At which point in the derivation does this sleight-of-hand take
place? Show me exactly where the juggling takes place with the
mathematics.
>>> **as can the Schwarzchild solution**.
>
>> The schwarzchild solution is exact. It has 1 (one) parameter,
>> the mass.
>
>Yes, but take a look at the list of fiddle factors incorporated
>in the solution that can vary how a clock will behave within the
>influence of that constant mass.
Which are? List them.
>> How should this be juggled to obtain anything one
>> desires?
>
>The Schwarzchild Solution manages to correctly predict the time change
>rate in a freefalling spacebourne clock after the velocity related part
>has been accounted for. Since the orbit velocity is determined **only** by
Show me exactly how I can juggle the solution.
[...]
>little (one off) number juggling, and if the result isn't testable at the
>ECI frame end, the Schwarzchild Solution can accommodate just about any
>variation you want.
Show me this mathematically.
Stephen Speicher
> Max Keon said some stuff about
> >
> >(Qbasic compatible as written)
> >r=((6000/b)^2/((1+(1872000/(b*k)))+((6000/b)/(.0024*k))^3)^2)^2*.0002*k
> >Emissive power (r) per (b) wave length for a (k) temperature radiator.
> >
> >The nearest inclusion of any apparent significance is the figure
> >that's slightly greater than ten times the speed of light in miles
>
> What's the point here?
>
Keon _never_ has a point beyond his utter confusion as to what
general relativity is, and what it predicts.
> >
> >Planck himself alluded to the fact that the formula was the result
> >of a number juggling exercise, that it **originated** from fiddling.
> >Nobody was trying to hide anything.
>
> At which point in the derivation does this sleight-of-hand take
> place? Show me exactly where the juggling takes place with the
> mathematics.
>
> >
> >Yes, but take a look at the list of fiddle factors incorporated
> >in the solution that can vary how a clock will behave within the
> >influence of that constant mass.
>
> Which are? List them.
>
> >The Schwarzchild Solution manages to correctly predict the time change
> >rate in a freefalling spacebourne clock after the velocity related part
> >has been accounted for. Since the orbit velocity is determined **only** by
>
> Show me exactly how I can juggle the solution.
>
> [...]
> >little (one off) number juggling, and if the result isn't testable at the
> >ECI frame end, the Schwarzchild Solution can accommodate just about any
> >variation you want.
>
> Show me this mathematically.
>
Lots of luck on all of these requests. Though unlikely, perhaps,
just perhaps, you might get some answers if you continued this
into the next century.
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3D07132C...@ozemail.com.au...
> Bilge wrote:
> >
> > Max Keon said some stuff about
> > Re: H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity. to usenet:
> >>
> >> The Planck formula for black body radiator curves contains household
> >> names in physics too, but that doesn't automatically dictate that
> >> they had anything to do with the end result. Planck was honest
> >> enough to admit that his formula was the result of a number juggling
> >> exercise.
>
> > Your number juggling should be so good.
>
> (Qbasic compatible as written)
> r=((6000/b)^2/((1+(1872000/(b*k)))+((6000/b)/(.0024*k))^3)^2)^2*.0002*k
> Emissive power (r) per (b) wave length for a (k) temperature radiator.
So what's this?
It obviously isn't Planck's formula which is:
r = ((2*pi*c^2*h)/b^5)/(exp(h*c/(b*k*T))-1)
where h is Plank's constant, b is wavelength as in your formula,
but k is the Bolzmann constant and T is the temperature.
Your formula is probably an approximation.
What are the conditions for the validity of this approximation?
I think I know. It is probably based on a Taylor expansion
of the exponential function:
exp(x) = 1 + x + x^2/2 + .. + x^n/n! +..
When you use a limited number of terms, the approximation
will fail when x=h*c/(b*k*T) is not much less than one, e.g at
low temperatures and/or short wavelengths.
> The nearest inclusion of any apparent significance is the figure
> that's slightly greater than ten times the speed of light in miles
> per second. But it obviously doesn't mean a thing. The equation
> simply plots the 3D geometry of the radiator environment, just as
> the Schwarzchild Solution plots the 3D changes in the relationship
> between a clock and every part of the earth's mass, per altitude.
>
> If you take the trouble to plot a range of black body curves
> according to the above equation, and also according to the Planck
> formula, you will note that the graph plots for low temperature
> radiators do not align with the true low temperature black body
> curves (i.e. 2.73K).
What are you trying to say?
That your approximated formula fails at low temperatures?
Not surprising.
So what?
> Mathematically plotted curves all fit neatly
> into their respective places between two straight lines that diverge
> to infinity from a point.
>
> Peak emission
> wavelengths -
> - .
> - .
> - .
> - 1.575mm
> - . .
> - .7875mm .
> - .39375mm . .
> *-------------------------------------------------------------
> 32 16 8 4 Blackbody temp K. 2
>
> * = zero peak emission wave length at infinite temp.
>
> The fact that the true 2.73 curve is not an "ideal radiator curve"
> paints a very clear picture of the origin of our universe.
> But that's another story.
What do you mean by this?
Which "true 2.73K curve" is not an "ideal radiator curve"?
The predictions of Planck's "ideal radiator curve" are
certainly very well confirmed for true black body radiation
even at T = 2.73K.
So what the hell are you talking about?
>
> >> And it's hard to justify the c^3 inclusion, other than as
> >> a medium to introduce a cube function into the formula.
Which c^3 inclusion?
> >> That formula
> >> can be fiddled with to achieve just about anything one desires,
>
> > Non-sense. Which point in the derivation admits fiddling?
>
> Planck himself alluded to the fact that the formula was the result
> of a number juggling exercise, that it **originated** from fiddling.
> Nobody was trying to hide anything.
This is ridiculous babble.
Planck's sole assumption (in addition to the classical model)
was that the energy of the oscillators were quantized: E = nhf
When that's done, Planck's formula inevitably follows - no
juggling is possible.
What you probably are referring to, is that this basic idea
was quite unheard of at the time; Planck devised it with the sole
purpose of explaining the black body radiation. And the value
of h was of course adjusted to make the curve fit.
This basic assumption and the value of h did indeed seem
arbitrary at the time - a mathematical juggling - which Planck
didn't try to hide.
But with a century of hindsight, I think even you know
that the quantization of energy levels and the value of h
are extremely well verified - there is nothing arbitrary
about it at all. It's just the way nature is.
And with that knowledge, Planck's formula follows.
It can definitely not be fiddled to show anything else
than what it shows.
> >> **as can the Schwarzchild solution**.
>
> > The schwarzchild solution is exact. It has 1 (one) parameter,
> > the mass.
>
> Yes, but take a look at the list of fiddle factors incorporated
> in the solution that can vary how a clock will behave within the
> influence of that constant mass.
Be specific. Point out such a "fiddle factor".
> > How should this be juggled to obtain anything one
> > desires?
>
> The Schwarzchild Solution manages to correctly predict the time
> change rate in a freefalling spacebourne clock after the velocity
> related part has been accounted for. Since the orbit velocity is
> determined **only** by the clock's relationship with the earth's
> mass, the time shortfall in the freefalling clock was necessarily
> subtracted from a clock rate which was also exactly proportional
> to the distance from all matter of the earth, but not necessarily
> correctly proportional. That all depends on the formula used to
> determine the velocity related time shortfall. With a little
> (one off) number juggling, and if the result isn't testable at the
> ECI frame end, the Schwarzchild Solution can accommodate just about
> any variation you want.
What are you babbling about?
The Schwarzchild solution give the proper time of a clock when
its path is known.
In every case:
- Pound Rebka
- Alley
- Hafele&Keating
- Vessot
- GPS
The paths of the involved clocks were precisely known.
Can you please state specifically without incomprehensible double talk
what can be juggled with in the Schwarzchild solution when the proper
times of the clocks are calculated?
If you seriously believe that the Schwarzchild solution
can give but one specific prediction for the proper time
of any of the clocks in said experiments, you are indeed
very confused.
Paul
Max Keon
It may be an approximation for Planck's formula, but it doesn't fail.
Forgive me for again resorting to using the Qbasic communication
tool, but I have no other choice. The following program displays a
result according to both, the Planck formula, and the "xxxxxx"
equation below which has been slightly modified to better align with
the Planck peak emission wave lengths. The calculated emission peak
is always identical for each, **for every radiator temperature**.
According to both formulas, the peak of the emission curve for a
2.73K radiator is around 1062300nm. But the true 2.73 radiator curve
peaks at close to 1900000nm. And on top of all that, the curve shape
is nothing like any mathematically plotted curve.
pi = 3.1416: c = 3E+08
h = 6.626E-34 'Planck's constant
k = 1.38E-23 'Boltzmann's constant
ab: CLS
PRINT " Note: Peak emission wave length for radiators"
PRINT " 2.73K = 1062300nm, 1600K = 1813nm, 2000K = 1451"
PRINT " 3000K = 967, 4000K = 725, 6000K = 484, 12000K = 242nm"
'Both formulas peak at identical wave lengths for any temp.
INPUT " Radiator temp."; T
aa: INPUT " Wave length in nm. (or enter)"; b
IF b = 0 THEN GOTO ab
r=((6000/b)^2/((1+(1440000/(b*T)))+((6000/b)/(.002606*T))^3)^2)^2*.00012*T
PRINT " xxxxxx value ="; r
b = b / 1E+09
x = ((2 * pi * c ^ 2 * h) / b ^ 5) / (EXP(h * c / (b * k * T)) - 1)
PRINT " Planck value ="; x * 1.06E-11
' The 1.06E-11 multiplier sets the mode of measurement. It has no
' influence on either the curve peak or its shape.
PRINT : GOTO aa
I'm sure you will understand why the expanded curve of the CMBR
should not be anything like a close fit with the true 2.73K curve.
The curve generated by an expanding universe can only align with the
mathematically plotted curve. It **must** fall into place between
the two diverging lines shown in the diagram from my previous post,
which is, for a 2.73 expanded curve, 4000 / 2.73 * 725 = 1062271nm
wave length at peak emissive power. 725 (nm) is the peak emissive
power wave length applicable to the 4000K radiator at the time when
the universe first became transparent. The mathematically determined
curve that aligns with 1900000nm peak power wave length is for a
1.53K radiator, and that also plots a curve which is nothing like
the CMBR curve.
The complete story, with graphs, can be found at
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmbrbb.html
I've noticed that, on another subject, you've linked GR with an
inflation model for the universe. Since all inflation based theories
have been soundly demolished by the CMBR's non compliance with an
appropriate black body curve, and by the necessarily enormous
magnitude of that background radiation, what are the implications
for GR? I'm genuinely curious.
>>>> And it's hard to justify the c^3 inclusion, other than as
>>>> a medium to introduce a cube function into the formula.
> Which c^3 inclusion?
Well, how then is a c^2 inclusion better justified? And the "b^5",
where is the logic behind that? There also seems to be something
odd about the use of the "EXP" function. Then of course there's the
Planck constant which links the whole assembly together, whether
the components are valid or not. But I must confess that the "c^3
inclusion" has been stuck in my mind for some time. I think I
plucked it out of a "spectral energy density" formula a long time
ago.
------
------
>> The Schwarzchild Solution manages to correctly predict the time
>> change rate in a freefalling spacebourne clock after the velocity
>> related part has been accounted for. Since the orbit velocity is
>> determined **only** by the clock's relationship with the earth's
>> mass, the time shortfall in the freefalling clock was necessarily
>> subtracted from a clock rate which was also exactly proportional
>> to the distance from all matter of the earth, but not necessarily
>> correctly proportional. That all depends on the formula used to
>> determine the velocity related time shortfall. With a little
>> (one off) number juggling, and if the result isn't testable at the
>> ECI frame end, the Schwarzchild Solution can accommodate just about
>> any variation you want.
> What are you babbling about?
> The Schwarzchild solution give the proper time of a clock when
> its path is known.
> In every case:
> - Pound Rebka
> - Alley
> - Hafele&Keating
> - Vessot
> - GPS
The Pound and Rebka experiment and the Vessot rocket clock
experiment, which is probably not the "Vessot" experiment you are
referring to, both test the altitude part of GR while in motion
relative to the ECI frame. Tangential velocity must still be
accounted for. These are not a direct test of the time rate for an
ECI frame fixed clock.
> The paths of the involved clocks were precisely known.
> Can you please state specifically without incomprehensible double talk
> what can be juggled with in the Schwarzchild solution when the proper
> times of the clocks are calculated?
Put aside your guiding light for a second.
I'll have another try at explaining my point. Perhaps if I reverse
the picture and take the viewpoint from a GPS clock.
The tangential velocity of a GPS clock in orbit around the earth
is determined **only** by the relationship between it and the mass
of the earth. There is no doubt about this at all. If the
anticipated velocity related time shortfall is added to that clock
(set to run faster) the clock should then show exactly the same time
as a clock that is fixed at the same radius from the earth, but is
motionless relative to the earth's inertial frame. That is exactly
the point at which the Schwarzchild Solution has arrived. It has
managed to successfully calculate the 3D rate of change between
the earth's mass and any point in the space around it. But that's
all it has done. And still there is no test in the ECI frame to
determine the validity of the Schwarzchild Solution for the fixed
clock. The velocity related time shortfall could very well be not
quite as predicted by SR.
The time rate increase in a balloon-borne clock rising from the
earth's surface at one of the poles would set the records straight
on how an ECI frame fixed clock will behave at different altitudes.
The changing time rate per altitude would plot a curve which should
align exactly with a similarly generated curve plotted according
to the Schwarzchild solution for different altitudes.
If not, why not?
--
Max Keon
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3D0DD9BF...@ozemail.com.au...
Of course it does.
There is no way you can substitute a polynomial for an exponential
function and make it work for all values of the exponent.
Close enough.
The Planck equation for the intensity per wavelength spectrum:
dI/db = ((2*pi*c^2*h)/b^5)/(exp(h*c/(b*k*T))-1) (b is wavelength)
peaks at the wavelength (in cm) b_m = 0.2897/T
So at 2.73K the peak is at 0.10612 cm.
> But the true 2.73 radiator curve
> peaks at close to 1900000nm. And on top of all that, the curve shape
> is nothing like any mathematically plotted curve.
I know why you think so.
You are obviously referring to the CMBR spectrum measured by COBE
as it usually is published. If you look at it carefully, and note
the units on the axes, you will see that it shows:
intensity per frequency unit versus frequency.
This is a different form of the Planck formula:
dI/df = 2*pi*f^3/(c^2*(exp(h*f/(k*T))-1)), f is frequency
since f = c/b and thus df/db = - c/b^2
we have:
dI/db = (dI/df)*(df/db) = (c/b^2)*dI/df
I leave to you to see that this give the form written above.
But the important point is:
dI/df and dI/db peak at different frequencies/wavelengths!
And of course dI/df has not the same shape as dI/db!
The CMBR spectrum matches the Planck formula for 2.73K exactly.
It peaks where it should, and has the shape it should.
If you don't believe that, plot it with a QBASIC program
using the dI/df equation above.
>
> The complete story, with graphs, can be found at
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmbrbb.html
But all this is based on a rather silly confusion.
Learn the difference between dI/df and dI/db, and all
your arguments are gone.
> I've noticed that, on another subject, you've linked GR with an
> inflation model for the universe. Since all inflation based theories
> have been soundly demolished by the CMBR's non compliance with an
> appropriate black body curve, and by the necessarily enormous
> magnitude of that background radiation, what are the implications
> for GR? I'm genuinely curious.
I think I now have demolished your arguments for the non compliency. :-)
But I must admit that your lack of self criticism amazes me.
How is it possible to believe that the scientists hadn't noticed
that the CMBR peaked at a wavelength which was wrong by a factor
of almost two? Didn't it occur to you that you must have got
something wrong?
> >>>> And it's hard to justify the c^3 inclusion, other than as
> >>>> a medium to introduce a cube function into the formula.
>
> > Which c^3 inclusion?
>
> Well, how then is a c^2 inclusion better justified? And the "b^5",
> where is the logic behind that? There also seems to be something
> odd about the use of the "EXP" function.
> Then of course there's the
> Planck constant which links the whole assembly together, whether
> the components are valid or not. But I must confess that the "c^3
> inclusion" has been stuck in my mind for some time. I think I
> plucked it out of a "spectral energy density" formula a long time
> ago.
In other words - you do not understand how the Planck formula
is derived.
So?
So?
You mean that you can "juggle" with the Schwarzchild solution
(dependency of speed - altitude) and still make it predict the correct
value for this particular experiment?
What do you think your "juggled with" formula would predict
for all the other experiments?
> > The paths of the involved clocks were precisely known.
> > Can you please state specifically without incomprehensible double talk
> > what can be juggled with in the Schwarzchild solution when the proper
> > times of the clocks are calculated?
>
> Put aside your guiding light for a second.
>
> I'll have another try at explaining my point. Perhaps if I reverse
> the picture and take the viewpoint from a GPS clock.
>
> The tangential velocity of a GPS clock in orbit around the earth
> is determined **only** by the relationship between it and the mass
> of the earth. There is no doubt about this at all. If the
> anticipated velocity related time shortfall is added to that clock
> (set to run faster) the clock should then show exactly the same time
> as a clock that is fixed at the same radius from the earth, but is
> motionless relative to the earth's inertial frame. That is exactly
> the point at which the Schwarzchild Solution has arrived. It has
> managed to successfully calculate the 3D rate of change between
> the earth's mass and any point in the space around it. But that's
> all it has done. And still there is no test in the ECI frame to
> determine the validity of the Schwarzchild Solution for the fixed
> clock. The velocity related time shortfall could very well be not
> quite as predicted by SR.
The Schwarzchild solution depend on both the gravitational potential
and the speed. It is tested for a number of different paths with
different combinations of altitudes and speed.
It would be a hell of a coincidence if it was wrong, and still
"happened" to predict exactly the correct value for all
these combinations.
Do you really seriously believe you can "juggle" with the
Schwarzchild solution and still make it predict the correct
value for ALL the experiments done?
> The time rate increase in a balloon-borne clock rising from the
> earth's surface at one of the poles would set the records straight
> on how an ECI frame fixed clock will behave at different altitudes.
> The changing time rate per altitude would plot a curve which should
> align exactly with a similarly generated curve plotted according
> to the Schwarzchild solution for different altitudes.
> If not, why not?
So unless YOUR proposed experiment is done, GR is not confirmed.
Where have I seen this argument before?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:aeoeub$8ae$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> This is a different form of the Planck formula:
> dI/df = 2*pi*f^3/(c^2*(exp(h*f/(k*T))-1)), f is frequency
Ooops. Make that:
dI/df = 2*pi*h*f^3/(c^2*(exp(h*f/(k*T))-1)), f is frequency
^
BTW, I have made a simple little program comparing the spectra
from dI/df and dI/db.
It's written in standard ANSI-C, and should run on any platform.
Here is the source:
----------------------------------
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
const double h = 6.626E-34, k = 1.38E-23, pi = 3.1415, c = 2.998E8;
double Planck_l(double T, double lambda){
double a,b;
a = 2*pi*h*c*c/(lambda*lambda*lambda*lambda*lambda);
b = h*c/(lambda*k*T);
return a/(exp(b)-1);
}
double Planck_f(double T, double f){
double a,b;
a = 2*pi*h*f*f*f/(c*c);
b = h*f/(k*T);
return a/(exp(b)-1);
}
main(){
double f, lambda, nu, T = 2.73;
int i;
FILE * output;
output = fopen("spectrum.txt","w");
if (output == NULL){
printf("\n open output file failed!");
return 0;
}
fprintf(output,
" nu lambda f dI/df dI/dl");
fprintf(output,
"\n[waves/cm] [mm] [GHz] [10^-17 J/m^2] [10^-3 W/m^3]\n");
for (i = 1; i <= 350; i++){
nu = (double)i/10.0;
lambda = 1./(100.*nu);
f = c/lambda;
fprintf(output,
"\n %4.1f %8.4f %7.2f %7.4f %7.4f",
nu,1E3*lambda,1E-9*f,Planck_f(T,f)*1E17,Planck_l(T,lambda)*1E3);
}
fprintf(output,"\n\n");
fclose(output);
return 0;
}
-------------------------------
It prints the result in a file "spectrum.txt".
An excerpt from the printout:
nu lambda f dI/df dI/dl
[waves/cm] [mm] [GHz] [10^-17 J/m^2] [10^-3 W/m^3]
4.0 2.5000 119.92 1.1031 0.5292
4.1 2.4390 122.92 1.1190 0.5639
4.2 2.3810 125.92 1.1335 0.5995
4.3 2.3256 128.91 1.1468 0.6357
4.4 2.2727 131.91 1.1587 0.6725
4.5 2.2222 134.91 1.1693 0.7099
4.6 2.1739 137.91 1.1786 0.7477
4.7 2.1277 140.91 1.1866 0.7859
4.8 2.0833 143.90 1.1935 0.8244
4.9 2.0408 146.90 1.1991 0.8631
5.0 2.0000 149.90 1.2035 0.9021
5.1 1.9608 152.90 1.2068 0.9411
5.2 1.9231 155.90 1.2090 0.9801
5.3 1.8868 158.89 1.2101 1.0190
5.4 1.8519 161.89 1.2101 1.0579
5.5 1.8182 164.89 1.2091 1.0965
5.6 1.7857 167.89 1.2070 1.1348
5.7 1.7544 170.89 1.2041 1.1728
5.8 1.7241 173.88 1.2002 1.2104
5.9 1.6949 176.88 1.1955 1.2476
6.0 1.6667 179.88 1.1898 1.2842
. .
8.0 1.2500 239.84 0.9550 1.8324
8.1 1.2346 242.84 0.9396 1.8482
8.2 1.2195 245.84 0.9241 1.8629
8.3 1.2048 248.83 0.9085 1.8763
8.4 1.1905 251.83 0.8928 1.8886
8.5 1.1765 254.83 0.8770 1.8996
8.6 1.1628 257.83 0.8611 1.9094
8.7 1.1494 260.83 0.8453 1.9181
8.8 1.1364 263.82 0.8294 1.9256
8.9 1.1236 266.82 0.8135 1.9319
9.0 1.1111 269.82 0.7977 1.9370
9.1 1.0989 272.82 0.7818 1.9410
9.2 1.0870 275.82 0.7661 1.9439
9.3 1.0753 278.81 0.7504 1.9457
9.4 1.0638 281.81 0.7348 1.9464
9.5 1.0526 284.81 0.7192 1.9461
9.6 1.0417 287.81 0.7038 1.9447
9.7 1.0309 290.81 0.6885 1.9423
9.8 1.0204 293.80 0.6734 1.9389
9.9 1.0101 296.80 0.6584 1.9345
10.0 1.0000 299.80 0.6435 1.9292
Note that dI/df peaks at the wavelength 1.85 mm or 5.3 waves per cm
while dI/dl peaks at ca. 1.064 mm.
Compare that to the measured CMBR spectrum:
http://space.gsfc.nasa.gov/astro/cobe/firas_spectrum.jpg
Paul
Max Keon
>
> "Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3D0DD9BF...@ozemail.com.au...
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>> According to both formulas, the peak of the emission curve for a
>> 2.73K radiator is around 1062300nm.
> Close enough.
> The Planck equation for the intensity per wavelength spectrum:
> dI/db = ((2*pi*c^2*h)/b^5)/(exp(h*c/(b*k*T))-1) (b is wavelength)
> peaks at the wavelength (in cm) b_m = 0.2897/T
> So at 2.73K the peak is at 0.10612 cm.
>> But the true 2.73 radiator curve
>> peaks at close to 1900000nm. And on top of all that, the curve shape
>> is nothing like any mathematically plotted curve.
> I know why you think so.
> You are obviously referring to the CMBR spectrum measured by COBE
> as it usually is published. If you look at it carefully, and note
> the units on the axes, you will see that it shows:
> intensity per frequency unit versus frequency.
>
> This is a different form of the Planck formula:
> dI/df = 2*pi*h*f^3/(c^2*(exp(h*f/(k*T))-1)), f is frequency
>> I've noticed that, on another subject, you've linked GR with an
>> inflation model for the universe. Since all inflation based theories
>> have been soundly demolished by the CMBR's non compliance with an
>> appropriate black body curve, and by the necessarily enormous
>> magnitude of that background radiation, what are the implications
>> for GR? I'm genuinely curious.
> I think I now have demolished your arguments for the non compliency. :-)
>
> But I must admit that your lack of self criticism amazes me.
> How is it possible to believe that the scientists hadn't noticed
> that the CMBR peaked at a wavelength which was wrong by a factor
> of almost two? Didn't it occur to you that you must have got
> something wrong?
I had assumed that the CMBR curve was the actual result from a true
2.73K black body radiator, and that low temperature radiators didn't
adhere to the mathematically plotted linear path to zero. Hence my
earlier reference to the "ideal black body radiator".
I am gratefully enlightened by your reply, as perhaps are others who
are following this thread. This is how I learn what goes on in your
world.
It seems that I am once again in your debt.
-----
-----
This is my belated response to all assertions that the contents
of the Planck equation cannot be fiddled with.
pi = 3.14159: c = 3E+08
h = 6.6262E-34 'Planck constant
ha = 1.9879E-25 'Planck variation (a)
hb = 2.2087D-42 'Planck variation (b)
k = 1.3807E-23 'Boltzmann constant
ab: CLS
PRINT " Peak emission wave length for radiators"
PRINT " 2.73k = 1061200nm, 1600k = 1811nm, 2000k = 1449"
PRINT " 3000k = 966, 4000k = 724, 6000k = 483, 12000k = 241nm"
INPUT " Radiator temp."; T
aa: INPUT " Wave length in nm. (or enter)"; b
IF b = 0 THEN x = 0: GOTO ab
b = b / 1E+09
PRINT
hc = ((2 * pi * c ^ 2 * h) / b ^ 5) / (EXP(h * c / (b * k * T)) - 1)
PRINT " Emission per Planck constant"; h; " ="; hc * 1.06E-11
PRINT " A photon of this red light is"; h * 4.687E+14; "j"
PRINT
va = ((2 * pi * c * ha) / b ^ 5) / (EXP(ha / (b * k * T)) - 1)
PRINT " Emission per Planck variation"; ha; " ="; va * 1.06E-11
PRINT " A photon of this red light is"; ha * 4.687E+14; "j"
PRINT
vb = ((2 * pi * c ^ 3 * hb) / b ^ 5) / (EXP(hb * c ^ 2 / (b * k *T))-1)
PRINT " Emission per Planck variation"; hb; "="; vb * 1.06E-11
PRINT " A photon of this red light is"; hb * 4.687E+14; "j"
PRINT
IF x = 0 THEN GOSUB ac
cv = (c / cx) * ((2 * pi * cx ^ 2 * hx) / b ^ 5)/(EXP(hx*cx/(b*k*T))-1)
'----(c / cx) is unity for the previous group.----
PRINT " Emission per chosen value for h ="; hx; " = "; cv * 1.06E-11
PRINT " A photon of this red light is"; hx * 4.687E+14; "j"
PRINT : GOTO aa
ac: PRINT " Choose any variation for h. Range >1E-44 to <4E+11 approx."
INPUT x: cx = c * x
IF x = 0 THEN GOTO ab
hx = h / x: RETURN
With a quick browse through the program you will probably notice
that the whole fiddling exercise takes place between the "c" and
the "h" values. This is exactly as it should.
One can specify any surface area as the base unit on which to
measure the emissive power of light. You can take your pick from
any one you like.
I would really like to know what you folk have been doing for the
last hundred years.
But there is definitely no place for a particle transmission of
light in the **real** universe.
-----
-----
>> The tangential velocity of a GPS clock in orbit around the earth
>> is determined **only** by the relationship between it and the mass
>> of the earth. There is no doubt about this at all. If the
>> anticipated velocity related time shortfall is added to that clock
>> (set to run faster) the clock should then show exactly the same time
>> as a clock that is fixed at the same radius from the earth, but is
>> motionless relative to the earth's inertial frame. That is exactly
>> the point at which the Schwarzchild Solution has arrived. It has
>> managed to successfully calculate the 3D rate of change between
>> the earth's mass and any point in the space around it. But that's
>> all it has done. And still there is no test in the ECI frame to
>> determine the validity of the Schwarzchild Solution for the fixed
>> clock. The velocity related time shortfall could very well be not
>> quite as predicted by SR.
> The Schwarzchild solution depend on both the gravitational potential
> and the speed. It is tested for a number of different paths with
> different combinations of altitudes and speed.
> It would be a hell of a coincidence if it was wrong, and still
> "happened" to predict exactly the correct value for all
> these combinations.
>
> Do you really seriously believe you can "juggle" with the
> Schwarzchild solution and still make it predict the correct
> value for ALL the experiments done?
This is most certainly the case for experiments conducted in natural
orbits around the earth, for any altitude. Either of these graphs
can be accommodated with a little, once off, number juggling.
ECI clocks
. .
Solution (1) . <--------> . Velocity related
. . time change rate
. . per distance from
. <-----------> . the earth (variable)
. .
---------------------------
Earth
Presumed ECI clocks
. .
Solution (2) . <-------> .
(Schwarzchild ?) . .
. .
. <-------> .
. .
---------------------------
Earth
If t' = t * (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5 is what you require for all altitudes,
then that's exactly what you can have. But just one near zero
altitude H&K experiment would indicate this flaw if it exists. A
second test at a higher altitude would confirm it.
>> The time rate increase in a balloon-borne clock rising from the
>> earth's surface at one of the poles would set the records straight
>> on how an ECI frame fixed clock will behave at different altitudes.
>> The changing time rate per altitude would plot a curve which should
>> align exactly with a similarly generated curve plotted according
>> to the Schwarzchild solution for different altitudes.
>> If not, why not?
> So unless YOUR proposed experiment is done, GR is not confirmed.
> Where have I seen this argument before?
It greatly surprises me that the experiment wasn't carried out by
the Boomerang crew. The inclusion would have cost next to nothing
in time and dollars. And it would have been an excellent substitute
for a dual H&K experiment. It would have certainly set the records
straight.
--
Max Keon
Bilge
Re: H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity. to usenet:
>This is my belated response to all assertions that the contents
>of the Planck equation cannot be fiddled with.
[...]
>With a quick browse through the program you will probably notice
Just write the math. Presumably, you had to do that in order
to write the program. If all you are going to tell me is that
\hbar c == 197 MeV-fm, for any values of \hbar and c that multiply
to 197 MeV-fm, don't bother. I can figure that out without writing
a program.
>that the whole fiddling exercise takes place between the "c" and
>the "h" values. This is exactly as it should.
So what's the problem.
>One can specify any surface area as the base unit on which to
>measure the emissive power of light. You can take your pick from
>any one you like.
Sure. Provided what you use for the power is correct angular
distribution integrated over your surface:
Power through surface = P(\Omega)
= \integral (dP/d\Omega) d\Omega
d\Omega == solid angle subtended by the surface
>I would really like to know what you folk have been doing for the
>last hundred years.
For most of that time I was waiting to arrive.
>But there is definitely no place for a particle transmission of
>light in the **real** universe.
How do you explain the e+ + e- anihilation into two gamma rays
which alwas add to the same center of momentum energy? If the
1.022 MeV spread out over 4pi, then the energy in each detector
of a detectors array located a distance r from the anihilation
would be:
E_i = (1.022 MeV/4\pi r^2) x Area of detector
----
Max Keon said some stuff about:
Re: H&K Experiment Falsifies Relativity. to usenet:
>Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Do you really seriously believe you can "juggle" with the
>> Schwarzchild solution and still make it predict the correct
>> value for ALL the experiments done?
>This is most certainly the case for experiments conducted in natural
>orbits around the earth, for any altitude. Either of these graphs
>can be accommodated with a little, once off, number juggling.
Please provide the solutions which show this. Writing Solution (1)
and Solution (2) is not the same thing as showing you can actually
juggle the solutions to meet the requisite juggling you suggest
is possible.
[...]
>It greatly surprises me that the experiment wasn't carried out by
>the Boomerang crew. The inclusion would have cost next to nothing
>in time and dollars. And it would have been an excellent substitute
>for a dual H&K experiment. It would have certainly set the records
>straight.
How much would it have cost to obtain the improvement in the data that
you require to be satisfied? Please include the calculation that justifies
"next to nothing in time and dollars". My guess is that at even at
$5.00/hr it would take many thousands of dollars for you to calculate this
"next to nothing" cost vs improvement, which leads me to believe that I
won't see such a calculation forthcoming. In lieu of that, you could
explain how you know the cost would be "next to nothing" for the
improvements you think were necessary.