Re: More Trouble for Relativity

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:49:48 GMT

"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" <valls@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:33d06fe2.0409170516.72549544@posting.google.com...
| H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message
news:<7l4kk05ak1gkf32094sb2lrbfa9l07etnd@4ax.com>...
| > On 15 Sep 2004 16:29:02 -0700, valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls
Hidalgo-Gato)
| > wrote:
| >
| > >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message
news:<p94vj0tco167te2mjgovs4bgm0m771pths@4ax.com>...
| > >> On 8 Sep 2004 14:34:27 -0700, valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls
Hidalgo-Gato)
| > >> wrote:
| > >>
| > >> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message
news:<gnqhj0pcik1j2g2q3qf5hlo36glnlgmhfk@4ax.com>...
| > >>
| > >> Andersen now eckons that clock A runs both slow and fast in B's frame
at
| > >> different parts of the orbit, so that on average it runs the same.
| > >>
| > >> He is becoming really desperate.
| > >>
| > >(I prefer to continue using your original denotations).
| > >According to SR, the cause of the time delay for a moving clock is its
| > >speed (an scalar) and not its velocity (a vector). In your ideal
| > >experiment the two OC are clearly with a constant speed in their
| > >orbits. For me have no sense at all to speak about a not constant time
| > >rate for those clocks, respect the GC or respect one to the other.
| > >With all respect, I think Andersen is wrong in this point. In the
| > >frame the GC is at rest the two OC are moving with constant speed.
| > >With this constant speed compute de constant time delay using the
| > >gamma factor and that's all. And this time delay can be measured and
| > >verified every time the three clocks meet. Your ideal experiment
| > >proves that does not exist a relative time delay but an absolute one
| > >(I know that your intention was another). The two OC have a relative
| > >velocity and not delay at all between them! They both show always the
| > >same reading. You interpret this saying that SR is false, but my
| > >conclusion is less drastic. I only claim that symmetric SR is flawed.
| > >The two OC are the moving ones and the GC is at rest. I vindicate
| > >Galileo! In the context of the Solar system modeled as a HIS, the
| > >Earth is moving and not the Sun! (considering Sun's mass infinite, of
| > >course). Each OC is NOT a valid inertial frame to refer the other OC
| > >velocity! But even considering one OC at rest (as the Earth was
| > >considered at rest long time ago), the other OC is moving respect the
| > >"rest" OC at a CONSTANT speed (the double of the value respect the
| > >GC).
| >
| > That is not correct.
| >
| > If the reference OC is not rotating, the other OC moves up and down
| > sinusoidally in a straight line, wrt it.
| >
| > If it is in 'tidal lock' with the ground (ie the same face always points
| > towards the orbit centre) the other OC moves in figure of eight path.
| >
| > Try plotting it.
| >
| (If the reference OC is not rotating respect to what?).

Relative to the frame of the universe. Rotation is absolute, as any
gyroscope
or pendulum will testify. Motion along a straight line is relative.

| From some time
| ago I am arguing that the relative movement between two moving
| entities (including light!) is frame dependent.

Well of course. Few would disagree with that. We can imagine that the
Sun orbits the Earth daily if we wish. For thousand of years that WAS the
adopted view.
It is called the subjective view. Science takes the objective view.

 Using two different
| frames you obtain two different trajectories for the "moving" OC
| respect the "rest"one. I am simply using another frame, the one where
| one OC is at rest respect himself (without any rotation, similar to
| the Earth in middle age epoch) and the planet is rotating at the same
| angular velocity the OC is doing respect it. As a result, the other
| moving OC is rotating with double angular velocity, following a
| circular trajectory with a constant double speed (try plotting it).

Why double?
Androcles

| All the frames we are talking about here are not inertial ones
| (Ptolomeo job was really a very complex one!).
| > >Andersen has no chance at all to justify a variable speed for one
| > >OC respect the other.
| >
| > Of course he hasn't. It doesn't happen.
| > He is so desperate he even claims that on clock appears to run faster in
| > certain parts of its orbit.
| >
| I think that the frame I choose resulting in a constant speed for the
| moving OC is the best one for putting clear that the moving OC does
| not change its time rate, but the strongest argument is the lecture of
| the 3 clocks when they meet, with the two OC clocks always showing the
| same lecture with a delay respect the GC one. In any way, in my
| approach I only accept one inertial frame in this ideal experiment,
| the one the planet is at rest not rotating.
|
| > HW.
| >
| www.users.bigpond.com
|
| Well, you did not consider the essential parts of my post. Maybe in
| other ocassion?
|
| RVHG

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ton of Bricks Paradox/Contradiction?
    ... they are not consistent within any one frame. ... Moving clocks are measured to undergo time dilation. ... Moving rods are measured to undergo length contraction. ... observers. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity and Clocks
    ... > unsynchronised (in frame 2) by exactly the time difference of the two ... > showing on the clocks and the different arrival times of the two ... physics at the start of the twentieth century. ... > the idea that every moving body in the universe is under the influence ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... logical contradictions in relativity. ... two directions or where the frame jumping took place. ... He thne conludes that the clocks are not synched. ... A simple one is that the rod is moving, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: More Trouble for Relativity
    ... >> Andersen now eckons that clock A runs both slow and fast in B's frame at ... the cause of the time delay for a moving clock is its ... >frame the GC is at rest the two OC are moving with constant speed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Androcles asks for Derivation of LT
    ... >> In sci.physics, Androcles ... In the moving frame. ... Not in the stationary frame. ... stationary relative to the clocks. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading