Re: I Owe Einstein an Apology. Sorry Albert!

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 12/12/04 

Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 15:47:37 -0500

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:h9iu82-9k.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> In sci.physics.relativity, jahn
> <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote
> on Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:00:19 -0500
> <323fg3F3brbteU1@individual.net>:
> >
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message
news:e57u82-fav.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> >> In sci.physics.relativity, jahn
> >> <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au>
> >> wrote
> >> on Sun, 12 Dec 2004 07:02:58 -0500
> >> <322qf5F3i5btiU1@individual.net>:
> >> >
> >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message
> > news:knts82-nck.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> >> >> <kenseto@erinet.com>
> >> >> wrote
> >> >> on Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:20:17 GMT
> >> >> <BmDud.35504$CG4.4119@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> >> >> > message news:ooaq82-aci.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> >> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> >> >> >> <kenseto@erinet.com>
> >> >> >> wrote
> >> >> >> on Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:16:07 GMT
> >> >> >> <X4jud.59663$MG3.52172@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> >> >> >> > message news:vnen82-2a3.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> >> >> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> >> >> >> >> <kenseto@erinet.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote
> >> >> >> >> on Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:45:35 GMT
> >> >> >> >> <zq_td.58457$MG3.8871@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> >> > message news:nc4l82-7dl.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> >> >> >> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> >> >> >> >> >> <kenseto@erinet.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:53:31 GMT
> >> >> >> >> >> <fkGtd.33033$CG4.7746@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> >> >> > message news:vsgj82-22h.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> >> >> >> >> >> >> <kenseto@erinet.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> >> on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:54:42 GMT
> >> >> >> >> >> >> <CIDtd.56801$MG3.51146@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
> >> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > message news:gnfi82-g48.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, JP
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <jp@nospam.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:15:11 +0000
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <pan.2004.12.05.18.15.09.916871@nospam.com>:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:01:19 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <H@.>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 03:13:07 GMT
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <e2v4r0h49fjfb0fa1u0li7h2nn706j798f@4ax.com>:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:40:06 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
> >> >> >> >> >> > <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [crunch]
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Because the light is going *through* the apparatus, starting at A;
> >> >> >> >> A is not generating the light.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I still don't see the need for detector A to do a TWLS measurement.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The delta between A and B (as seen by C) can be construed as:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> pulse from A to C
> >> >> >> pulse from A to B to C
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If one assumes OWLS isotropy, the experiment is construable as:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> pulse from C to A
> >> >> >> pulse from A to B to C.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hence, TWLS.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes it is a TWLS but there is no need for detector A.
> >> >>
> >> >> C is not a detector. All B does is record a timestamp.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> One modification that came to mind after my original post
> >> >> >> is a simple one; use multiple light-paths with different
> >> >> >> refractive indices between AC and BC. For example,
> >> >> >> one pair of paths could be vacuum, another electrical,
> >> >> >> still another water-filled, still another flint glass.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The clock at C would keep track of all 8 wavefronts
> >> >> >> arriving thereto, and the researcher would (hopefully)
> >> >> >> have enough data to make various conclusions, such
> >> >> >> as whether TWLS is isotropic or not, and, more importantly,
> >> >> >> whether *OWLS* is isotropic or not (since light in non-vacuum
> >> >> >> slows down).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The control paths AC and CB must be equal in speed -- a problem if
> >> >> >> >> one doesn't assume OWLS isotropy
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > But OWLS is measured to be isotropic experimentally. Wormley gave
> >> >> >> > reference to that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's a measurement, not an assumption. Since it's a properly
> >> >> >> vetted experiment one can adjust the apparatus for subsequent
> >> >> >> work and essentially not have to worry about the issue.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> However, if OWLS is isotropic and TWLS is isotropic -- how do they relate?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > TWLS is isotropic and = c= 299,792,458m/second
> >> >> > OWLS is isotropic but not equal to c.
> >> >>
> >> >> If OWLS != c then OWLS cannot be isotropic. If one sees an OLWS
> >> >> of c+v, then one rotates the experiment 180 degrees and gets either
> >> >> c-v or c/(c+v) as a measured peed.
> >> >>
> >> >> > That's why the SRians refused to do an
> >> >> > OWLS experiment with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the clocks are moving then SR predicts they will not remain
> >> >> synchronized.
> >> >
> >> > SR predicts moving clocks can't keep good time?
> >> > I have two garden hoses an egg timer and a bag
> >> > of marbles that says they must be broken.
> >> > http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/time/commonviewgps.htm
> >>
> >> The SR correction is t' = (t-vx/c^2) * gamma .
> >
> >>
> >> The vx/c^2 is merely a reflection that the two clocks are
> >> communicating through speed-of-light (e.g., radio), but
> >> the gamma is the killer; gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> >>
> >> It's a very slow killer, of course; the typical speed
> >> of a spacecraft is on the order of 9 km/s = 3 * 10^-5 c, which
> >> results in a gamma of about 4.5 * 10^-10. The GPS delta is
> >> almost exactly this: 4.46 * 10^-10. However, this is at
> >> best a very very rough estimate, just to give one the feel.
> >> It's also the wrong sign. :-)
> >>
> >> An accurate clock left running for a year in a GPS orbit
> >> will gain about a hundredth of a second.
> >
> > How is it determined to be "accurate" ?
>
> An interesting question. At this point it's a hypothetical question;
> I assume a clock based on a physical process that has known
> parameters (e.g., the Cs133 clocks in use today are based on
> the vibration of an atom in freefall in a known quantum state).
>
> > The constellation just now has a few spare SVs so it is
> > hard to imagine a positioning system so diverted to
> > experimental purpose. I certainly can't dispute it.
>
> I'd figure NST-2 is probably the only experiment GPS satellites
> will be allowed to do at this point.
>
> >
> >
> >> (SR predicts loss
> >> of time, but then SR requires straight-line freespace
> >> travel. :-) ). Therefore, GPS clocks are "broken" by
> >> design, coding in this adjustment factor -- and even
> >> then, they have to be steered from the ground using
> >> synchronization signals from the TAI.
> >
> > Indeed:
> > << GPS TIME STEERING
> >=================
> > GPS time is automatically steered to UTC(USNO) on a daily basis to keep
> > system time within one microsecond of UTC(USNO), but during the last
> > several years has been within 50 nanoseconds. The rate of steer being
> > applied is +/-1.0E-19 seconds per second squared.
> > ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/gpstt.txt
> >
> > It must take a REAL good mathematician to get 7 microseconds
> > per day out of that. ;-)
>
> I get 38.53 microseconds per day out of the 4.46*10^-10 corrective factor.
> It's a simple enough multiplication:
>
> 4.46*10^-10 sec/sec * 86400 sec/day

The altitude effect isn't cumulative. That is, you can move
from Honolulu to Tibet and make one adjustment to the
length of a pendulum. You don't have to do it every day.

The 7 ns per day is for transverse doppler effect (less
frequently called the SR correction ) It was included in
the preset because it does save the receiver some calculating
(there may have been some political reason to have all
the "relativistic" effects in one synthezer too [shrug] )
Anyway the 7ns error would accumulate if it represented
a clock rather than a propagtaion effect.

I think you can tell at a glance that +/-1.0E-19 steering
and +/- 50 ns / daily won't on the worst day add up to
the 7ns necessary to atrribute to an SR clock anomaly.

It's all public information.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/systime.html
>
> (This is of course given an uncorrected, unsteered clock.)
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Presumably the spacecraft time can be kept accurate by
> >> common-view GPS time transfer techniques as detailed
> >> in the above article. I for one can't say.
> >
> > The point is, the experiment is not bound to motion sensitive
> > clocks for synchronization, so insistance of their use for
> > synchronization is either deception or stupiditiy.
> > Sue...
>
> I'm not sure what a moving OWLS experiment will accomplish, but I
> do know that the clocks will not stay synchronized;

So synchronize with equal length fiber optic cable. Then you
can test your clocks too.

> therefore, any
> results that assume they are staying synchronized will of course
> be erroneous.

Sue...

>
> >
> >>
> >> [rest snipped]
> >>
> >> --
> >> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
> >> It's still legal to go .sigless.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
> It's still legal to go .sigless.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Roberts destroys SR
    ... >> about clock synchronization because it is simply physically ... and is therefore not a scientific theory. ... it is a mere definition of clock synchronization; ... When the two observers briefly meet, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whereis NTP (client) config file in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.
    ... > If you right click on the clock applet on the GNOME panel, ... But reading about NTP, it suggests using three to five NTP servers, ... # Permit time synchronization with our time source, ... # permit the source to query or modify the service on this system. ...
    (linux.redhat.misc)
  • Re: Any theory that yields a twin paradox must be dubbed bullshit
    ... anisotropy is INDEPENDENT of the clock synchronization scheme. ... B says that light has different speeds in different directions, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Roberts destroys SR
    ... and is therefore not a scientific theory. ... it is a mere definition of clock synchronization; ... > When the two observers briefly meet, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the problem with this ?
    ... The synchronization is done by delay matching at the critical ... Sometimes a transparent latch can eliminate a full clock of pipeline ...
    (sci.electronics.design)