Re: The Spin Proviso to Relativity

From: Ben Bean (kavs_delethis__at_sysmatrix.net)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:39:09 -0400

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in message
news:cl899p$25n$1@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> "Ben Bean" <kavs_delethis_@sysmatrix.net> skrev i melding
news:ktKdnS2bLsm8GurcRVn-rg@sysmatrix.net...
> >
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in message
> > news:cl6d07$8jb$1@dolly.uninett.no...
> > >
> > > "Ben Bean" <kavs_delethis_@sysmatrix.net> skrev i melding
> > news:B8SdncZcW_z2v-ncRVn-oA@sysmatrix.net...
> > > > I am eager to hear wisdoms in answer to the quandary below stated.
> > > >
> > > > SCENARIO: You stand on a planet just like Earth, but there's no
> > atmosphere.
> > > > You stand on the equator and hold your hands up to the air so that
they
> > are
> > > > a meter apart. [Relax, this is NOT a study in relative simultaneity
like
> > the
> > > > Barn/Pole thing.] As you stand there a huge spacecraft coasts by
just
> > > > overhead, just beyond your reach. The ship seems motionless to you,
> > > > hovering, because it is going eastward at a speed to exactly match
the
> > > > planet's tangential rotational speed. As you reach up, your
outstretched
> > > > fingertips are just about touching the 842-meter mark and the
843-meter
> > mark
> > > > on the rule graduated on the enormous ship's straight exterior.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the quandary: the spaceship occupants can EMPHATICALLY assert
> > that an
> > > > all-way light beacon pulse emitted midway between their ship's 842 &
> > > > 843-meter marks will hit the two nearby meter marks simultaneously,
> > > > according to their native frame's clocks and such. Yet the guy on
the
> > planet
> > > > cannot make the same claim?? When does an arbitrary local span
become
> > > > tantamount to an SR scenario. In spite of Sagnac, there must surely
be
> > some
> > > > carry-over; I mean you're just about TOUCHING that other frame,
> > comoving.
> > > >
> > > > -Ben
> > >
> > > Of course the guy on the planet will agree that the light will hit the
two
> > metre
> > > marks simultaneously. That is, if he had one clock at each side of
> > himself,
> > > and he E-synched those clocks, they would show the same when hit
> > > by the light.
> > > However, if the two clocks were showing UTC, they would NOT
> > > show the same when hit by the light.
> > > Clocks on the surface of the Earth showing UTC are NOT synchronous
> > > in the Earth fixed frame. They are synchronous in the non rotating
> > ECI-frame.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > Great answer! Uh, but, whereas I know what ECI stands for, I am at a
loss as
> > to what UTC stands for.
>
> UTC means "Coordinated Universal Time", and to say it simple,
> it is the same as local mean time.
> See also my response to "sal".
>
> > But I think it matters not. You say that Earth's
> > surface clocks can all be synched to the non-rotating ECI, which
suffices.
>
> Yes, and I say that this IS how we synchronize clocks on the Earth.
>
> > I
> > don't necessarily buy your dismissal of Sagnac (of course I am
> > misinterpreting perhaps), but your answer suggests that a light signal
takes
> > the same time to go from NY to LA as the reverse, as long as you use the
> > non-rotating ECI clocks as your basis.
>
> UTC clocks on the Earth ARE "rotating" along with the Earth.
> I said they are synchronised (simultaneously showing the same)
> in the ECI-frame, NOT that they are stationary in the ECI-frame.
> And if you measure the time light takes to go from NY to LA with
> these UTC clocks, you will find that it is different from the time
> it takes to go in the reverse direction.
> This IS the "Sagnac effect".
>
> > I guess that makes sense alright, but
> > it's insufficient. The guy reaching up and touching the inertially
moving
> > space ship -- he has a wrist watch on each arm and he claims they are
> > synchronized. His clocks belong to a frame that IS rotating. I'm just
not
> > sure. Again, what is UTC, Universal Time something?
>
> If this guy claims his writs watches to be synchronized, he will
> probably mean that they simultaneously show the same in
> his instantly inertial rest frame. (The inertial frame in which he
> instantly is at rest.)
> And his clocks will stay in synch.
> If he measure the speed of light with these clocks, he will find
> that it will use the same time in both directions.
>
> But if he compare them to two adjacent UTC clocks, he will
> see that they are different, because his watches are NOT
> synchronous in the ECI-frame.
>
> > The central question is, "How does light behave in the frame of the man
> > standing with his arms outstretched (over his head), and ONLY according
to
> > that man's native clocks & measures"? Can the man say that a light
signal
> > emitted midway between his hands arrives at each hand at precisely the
same
> > time? Probably not.
>
> Yes, he can.
> He will use his local frame.
>
> > But light would clearly not move relative to a
> > theoretical aether fixed at the planet's center either. So there must be
> > some give. Light must take less time to go westward than eastward (on
the
> > spinning planet), which would be in line with the Sagnac findings, but
not
> > so much less time as would be predicted by imagining the light
travelling
> > through some fixed aether frame anchored at the planet's center.
> >
> > It's confusing alright.
>
> Yes, it IS confusing. :-)
> But remember this:
> According to SR, the speed of light is c _in an inertial frame_.
> As long as you remember this, it is quite obvious that if you
> emit light in both directions from some point on the equator,
> and guide the light (mirrors) around the Earth, the two light beams
> will meat each other at the same point _in the ECI frame_
> as they were emitted from. But then the point on the Earth
> has moved, so one of the light beams has already passed
> this point, while the other one has not yet reached it.
> So _because_ the speed of light is c in the ECI-frame,
> the two beams will NOT simultaneously reach the point
> on the Earth from where they were emitted.
> A clock at that point will thus measure the light to use
> different times around the Earth in opposite directions.
>
> Paul
>
>
>

**********************************
I REALLY REALLY GOT TO HAND IT TO YOU, PAUL B. ANDERSON...
That's some mighty fine STRAIGHT SHOOTING and you sure as dang heck got me
to understand PERFECTLY!

The guy can invent an inertial frame in which his two wristwatches are
synched (but NOT E-synched, which is WRT the non-rotating ECI frame), so
long as the times and distances are minute enough. I garner this from your

> > ..Can the man say that a light signal emitted midway between
> > his hands arrives at each hand at precisely the same
> > time? Probably not.
> Yes, he can.
> He will use his local frame.
>

It must get messy if you try to concoct an inertial frame (too large) to
encompass eg. the span NY to LA for the duration it takes light to transit.

Yeah but nevermind -- I get it -- MANY MANY THANKS!

-BB

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... the one moving with the earth would stay 'still' ... see we need to make it explicit) what do you claim about the clocks ... appropriate speed would keep it in sync. ... frame would then be inertial. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
    ... frame any time they need to. ... It is the actual time it takes the Earth ... clocks in sync with the axial cycle are lovely and easy to understand ... Huygens showing how clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... the one moving with the earth would stay 'still' ... I thought the whole purpose of this exercise was to get clocks in sync ... frame would then be inertial. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... the one moving with the earth would stay 'still' ... I thought the whole purpose of this exercise was to get clocks in sync ... frame would then be inertial. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: There is a name for what is wrong with Relativists.
    ... an inertial frame of reference, not to "the universe", which is not ... Earth, but is now at rest wrt the universe. ... clocks measure the lengths of the worldlines ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)