Re: TIME, you old gipsy man
From: Uncle Al (UncleAl0_at_hate.spam.net)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: SARFATTI IN "MAKES SENSE" SHOCKER!!!!"
- Previous message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The formal mathematical disproof of relativity."
- In reply to: Van: "TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Next in thread: Van: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Reply: Van: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Reply: Jesse Mazer: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:20:45 -0800
Van wrote:
>
> Well I tried to post a simple question regarding time dilation in SR,
> but may be was not clear enough on my enquiry. I will try to reframe it
> here.
Your intractible stupidity is not our problem.
> First let us refer to the Hafele and Keating Experiment
> (thanks to Uncle Al for the link he provided in my first post
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)
> [During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on
> regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once
> eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity
> with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the
> theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks
> at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds
> during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds
> during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the
> U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds
> during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the
> westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard
> deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution
> of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks." ]
You got it.
> Now let us imagine we have: 1) three perfectly synchronised clocks
> ClockL ClockV and ClockB, 2) two spaceships S1 and S2 and 3) three
> astronauts namely Ludwig Van and Beethoven. Let us also imagine that
> each spaceship has perfect arrangements through cameras and displays
> such that the other two clocks are always visible. Similarly let the
> earthbound station have similar arrangements so that the other two
> clocks are made constantly visible. Now let Ludwig and Beethoven move
> away with constant velocity from the earthbound Van in opposite
> directions with velocity .2c. Now my question is what will Van see?
> Will the clock with him (ClockV) still tick in the same way as the two
> other clocks(ClockL and ClockB) displayed on his screen? If not then
> how will they change? Does the length of the ticks change? Does the
> "definition" of the seconds change? What is exactly meant by saying
> "time changes" "nanoseconds gained" or "nanoseconds lost". If the
> answer to my question "Whether Van will see ClockV ClockL and ClockB
> moving in the same way?" yes then how can we justify the claims of SR
> or the "Hafele and Keating Experiment" which concluded that
> "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the
> flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and
> gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip" My question is if
> it is an experimental fact that clocks actually gained or lost
> nanoseconds then how exactly it happens?
The clock that travels furthest through space travels least through
time. ds^2 is constant. The relative rates depend on the inertial
observers when the clocks are locally compared. You can't "look" at a
distant clock and get a meaningful answer. You cannot even determine
distance: A relativistic universe has four distinct distances:
luminosity (inverse square), angular diameter, parallax, and proper
motion. No two of them need agree to maintain consistency. Clocks
can only be synchronized by being local.
-- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: SARFATTI IN "MAKES SENSE" SHOCKER!!!!"
- Previous message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: The formal mathematical disproof of relativity."
- In reply to: Van: "TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Next in thread: Van: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Reply: Van: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Reply: Jesse Mazer: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|