Re: Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) and GPS function.
From: Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato (valls_at_icmf.inf.cu)
Date: 03/15/05
- Next message: David Cross: "Re: The obvious. Re: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Previous message: TomGee: "Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??"
- In reply to: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) and GPS function."
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) and GPS function."
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) and GPS function."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Mar 2005 16:02:59 -0800
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<GQDYd.22324$Mo4.14798@blueberry.telenet-ops.be>...
> "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" <valls@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message news:33d06fe2.0503111129.66b66bcf@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<75%Xd.1428$rq3.1285@news.cpqcorp.net>...
>
>
> I just noticed your reply on the binaries news server of my ISP.
> Your post was much too large for the text based news server.
> I will snip heavily.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > In our example exercise of yesterday with A, B and C moving all
> > > > > inertially along one line, where C was "in the middle" and therefore
> > > > > the perfect candidate for the center of mass of A and B, but also for
> > > > > the center of mass of A, B and C itself, we had
> > > > > Va = (1-sqrt(1-u^2)) / u
> > > > > Vb = (-1+sqrt(1-u^2)) / u
> > > > > and therefore
> > > > > Fab = sqrt(1-Va^2) / sqrt(1-Vb^2) = 1
> > > > > How do you get to sqrt(1-u^2) with the Fab factor with value 1?
> > > > >
> > > > You are right! I have a big error. What I obtain with my proposed
> > > > place for C is an equal to sqrt(1-u^2) time dilation factor for both,
> > > > A and B, as viewed in the frame C. But the relative time dilation
> > > > factor Fab of A respect B, as viewed in the frame C, is equal to 1 as
> > > > you found correctly.
> > >
> > > Yes, and so it is of course in the case of the equilateral
> > > triangle. Symmetry dictates that Fab = 1 as well in that
> > > case. Problem!
> > >
> > Which problem are you referring?
>
> Just like above where you said
> "You are right! I have a big error.".
> In the setup with the equilateral triangle between A, B and C,
> your Fab = 1 as well, but there *is* time dilation between A
> and B, so your scheme does not work either in that case.
You put me an exercise (that involves an inertial frame between A and
B, in the line joining them) and I resolved it, even having I no idea
about which is your goal putting it (I yet have no idea). Later you
comment about the non-existence of a place for the frame C out of that
line, such that Fab has the same value as when C is put in A or B.
Then I make the big error, supposing (erroneously) that putting C in a
vertex of an equilateral triangle (with A and B in the other two, and
A, B and C having symmetrical velocities respect a fourth inertial
frame in the center of the triangle) we obtain the same value for Fab
as when putting C in A or B. But now you seem claiming that this error
implies a problem with my HIS approach. You write "here *is* time
dilation between A and B, so your scheme does not work either in that
case".
First of all, you cannot apply my scheme if you do not specify a mass
associated to every inertial frame considered. Only after doing that
you can say something about my scheme. As we have not any mass
associated with A, B and C, it is impossible to derive any result
against my HIS approach in that condition. All we can say is that Tab,
the relative time dilation of clock A respect the clock B, has
different values when you choose for C different places (C is the
frame where you refer clocks A and B velocities Va and Vb
respectively). I say in this case that Fab is a non-invariant. When we
put C in B, we obtain for Tab the value Ta=sqrt(1-u^2) (I put ‘u'
instead of ‘Vm' thinking it is your preference). It takes me a lot of
effort to convince you that Ta is NOT an invariant, but the value of
the non-invariant Tab in the specific frame C put in B.
Without specifying the masses for A, B and C, the relative time
dilation Tab is undetermined. Specify all the masses for the involved
bodies, and you will obtain a unique determined value for Tab, the one
corresponding for C put in the center of mass. This is what my HIS
approach states. What do you mean writing "here *is* time dilation
between A and B, so your scheme does not work either in that case"?
The Fab=1 is only one of the possible values, being Ta just another
one. Put a predominant mass in C and the time dilation *is* 1. Put a
predominant mass in B and the time dilation *is* Ta.
I know that this is not the common way to apply SR, and precisely for
that reason I talk about a "HIS approach", a different approach, but
not an approach that states that "SR is wrong" (see the neighbor
talking with Harry, where I defend SR with all my force).
What occur with SR can be explained as a simple "integration constant"
determination. The theory offers to you infinite possibilities. The
real world application chooses for you a single one of them.
> And furthermore, when you put C on one of the points of the
> triangle, C is *not* at the center of mass of A and B to
> begin with.
>
How do you know that if we have not yet any mass assigned to A, B and
C?
In my approach, the relative time dilation between A and B measured
experimentally depends on ALL the bodies involved, not only on A and
B.
> So your scheme does not work for inertial A and B
> in the follwing cases:
> (1) When A and B move along their common connecting
> line. You have aknowledged this.
> (2) When A and B move in a plane. You can reduce this
> to the triangle case by picking the right C (analogous to
> the first case but with the "angle equation" for velocity
> composition). You have not understood this yet. But I
> will not insist.
> (3) When A and B move in arbitrary directions. I already
> gave a hint, but I won't bother to try convince you.
>
Do not forget that my approach is supported by real GPS function. It
is not only a theoretical construction.
> [snip]
>
> > You seem making a list of problems. Can you specify to what theory are
> > you charging them? We are yet in an orthodox SR environment (by your
> > decision since already many posts ago). Are you suggesting that those
> > are SR problems?
>
> No, they are not problems with SR. They are problems with
> your entire approach. It doesn't work.
> I made 100% sure that we have sufficient common ground
> of SR, and it took me quite some work to convince you that
> you have a "big error" in the first case already.
>
My error has no relation with the HIS approach, it only put more clear
the Fab non-invariant character. I was wrong thinking that Fab could
have the same Fa value for other choice for C different from A and B.
> [major snip]
>
> > > These are all rather serious problems with your approach...
> > >
> > You have not convinced me yet about it, but I appreciate a lot your
> > decision to address my HIS approach. Make a search with (HIS) -with
> > the ( ) included- in this group and you will see how many attempts I
> > had done to share it with others.
>
> I have tried to help you understand where your approach fails.
> I also have shown you that it actually fails everywhere, but
> taking into account the amount of energy you have invested
> in it, I understand that you have great difficulty opening your
> mind for that. So I will not address the remarks you made
> to my previous message. I don't have the energy for that.
>
Let me try to guess what do you have in mind when thinking that my
approach fails. You maybe continue thinking that Ta=sqrt(1-u^2) (the
time dilation of clock A as viewed in the frame clock B is at rest) is
a sort of invariant that can be computed and measured from any place
(after all it is a completely determined value). Then, when I talk
about an approach that includes a Tab related with some center of mass
frame, you checked that the obtained Tab value is different from Ta.
You interpret that as a failure of the approach. In your mind you only
accept a value for the relative time dilation between A and B, the Ta
one. If the center of mass value is different from Ta, then the center
of mass approach is in failure.
Generally is not a good choice to support a theoretical view not in
agreement with experimental measurements. What all GPS experimental
measurements show is that all measured relative time dilation between
any pair of clocks always correspond to the Tab referred to the center
of mass, when those measurements are done from any place.
I do not know which will be the future of our talking, but in any case
I remain open to continue it as you want. It is the best one on the
HIS topic in all my time in this group.
> Dirk Vdm
RVHG
- Next message: David Cross: "Re: The obvious. Re: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals"
- Previous message: TomGee: "Re: re:Can Light Propagate without Space??"
- In reply to: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) and GPS function."
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) and GPS function."
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) and GPS function."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
