Re: GR ?


"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42e21676$0$18642$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:L3kEe.59411$oJ.36184@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1122061613.84099.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:ImDDe.1901$fx4.1574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > | Significant Zero wrote:
> > > | > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > | > news:lOYCe.673$lX2.670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > | > [...]
> > > | > This seems to be saying that length contraction and time dilation
are
> > > just
> > > | > observational distortions in the same way that railway lines get
> > > apparenly
> > > | > nearer as they extend to the horizon.
> > > |
> > > | Sort of -- both are effects of perspective, but different effects.
> > > |
> > > |
> > > | > Is this the way you explain to
> > > | > yourself the experimental variation in muon decay and contraction
in
> > the
> > > | > direction of motion ?
> > > |
> > > | It is the way SR explains them. Just like rotations in 3D -- what
> > > | "explanation" do you use for the fact that a 10-foot-long ladder
will
> > > | fit through a 3-foot-wide door in one orientation but not in
another?
> > >
> > > Nice example but neither the doorway or the ladder change in physical
> > > reality only the relationship between the ladder and door.
> >
> > And the same in SR - neither the coordinate system or the clock change
in
> > physical reality only the relationship between them.
> >
> > > The pov can
> > > change as much as it likes it still will not enable the ladder to fit
> > > through the door in the inappropriate orientation.
> >
> > The same with SR - clocks will not measure time dilated unless they have
the
> > appropriate 'orientation's wrt the coordinate system.
> >
> > > The physical fact of the
> > > ladder and door are not changed by observation or measurement
> >
> > The same with SR - the proper time is not changed either.
> >
> > > and any
> > > measurement that fails to correct for factors it is aware are imbedded
in
> > > its methodology needs a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
> >
> > And so does SR - which is why proper time is the only invariant time.
> >
> > Bill
>
> So... why don't you ever take Uncle Al to task when he post that
> crap about the H&K experiment. The theory says the flying clocks
> should keep proper time.

That is not what is said. Familiarize yourself with the clock postulate
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html.

As usual your pasts consist of irrelevant misdirection.

Bill

> The raw data says they were in fact
> keeping proper time but you consistantly support or fail to
> challenge an interpretation that says otherwise.
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> <<
> 2) Hafele-Keating Experiment
> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
> <http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
> http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
>
> 3) Idiot.
> <http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
> Nature 425 374 (2003) >>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3d743bf48d251b0f?hl=en&;
> >>
>
> If traveling clocks returned showing any but device dependant
> effects of accelerating forces then it *disproves* SR, whose
> postulates preserve the accuracy of the device with PoR and
> attribute for any obseved difference to the path delay.
>
> A.G. Kelly is the support for SR... not H&K.
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Hafele+kelly&btnG=Google+Search
>
> Sue...
>
> >
> > > BTW try a piano as they take no notice of observational distortion or
> > > perspective but are effected by gravity and velocity.{:-)
> > >
> > > | I say it is because the PROJECTION of the ladder's length onto the
axis
> > > of
> > > | the door's width depends on their relative orientations.
> > >
> > > Yes as a physical fact.
> > >
> > > | Similarly in
> > > | SR, the PROJECTION of a rod's length, and the PROJECTION of a
clock's
> > > | tick-interval, depend on their orientation relative to the measuring
> > > | apparatus. This is, of course, orientation in spaceTIME.
> > >
> > > This is not a physical fact its a observational or mathematically
> > engineered
> > > one and has no comparison or effect on the ladder or the doorway or
rod
> > and
> > > clock.
> > > You appear to be mixing physical facts with observational and or
> > > mathematical ones and then forgetting which is which.
> > >
> > > |
> > > | On a Euclidean plane, the x' axis of Cartesian coordinates
> > > | rotated relative to x-y coordinates has a nonzero dy/dx.
> > > | In 2-d spacetime the x' axis of Minkowskian coordinates
> > > | rotated relative to x-t coordinates has nonzero dx/dt --
> > > | that is clearly a relative velocity. The rotation is of
> > > | course hyperbolic, not circular as in the Euclidean case.
> > > |
> > > |
> > > | > | > i.e A cubic meter of the vacuum state between galaxies
> > > | > | > has different characteristics to a cubic meter just outside an
> > event
> > > | > | > horizon[...]
> > > | >
> > > | > This may be difficult to explain but perhaps you will agree that a
> > clock
> > > in
> > > | > the in the two vacuum cases above will tick at different rates,
> > > |
> > > | No, I don't agree to that highly-ambiguous statement.
> > >
> > > Well I did not think it was particularly ambiguous as if you don't
agree
> > to
> > > that then you must not agree that clocks generally run slower on earth
> > than
> > > in space and you must now have switched to the view that GR is invalid
?
> > >
> > > | Before you can say
> > > | anything about this you have to define how the rates of the two
clocks
> > > | are compared. Once you realize that, you will realize that you
cannot
> > > | possibly separate "difference in tick rate" from "effects on the
signals
> > > | used to compare them".
> > > |
> > > | In GR this is modeled as geometry in spacetime. To do that the
intrinsic
> > > | rate of a clock cannot depend on its environment.
> > >
> > > All the proof seems to contradict you as the intrinsic rate of clocks
> > > appears the be dependent on Gravityand and velocity.
> > >
> > > | For instance if you
> > > | define "comparison of tick rates" by placing a standard clock next
to
> > > | each clock to be compared and then comparing those clocks to the
> > > | standard clocks, you will immediately see that their tick rates are
the
> > > | same.
> > >
> > > Yes, because they are now in the same environment.
> > >
> > > |
> > > |
> > > | > so time
> > > | > according to the clocks is moving at a different rate ?
> > > |
> > > | The word "moving" does not apply to "time".
> > >
> > > I disagree, process is moving both in space and time.
> > >
> > > |
> > > | A simple way to avoid such nonsense is to remember that in physics
> > > | anything worth discussing must be MEASURABLE. How could one possibly
> > > | measure "motion of time"???
> > >
> > > With a clock.
> > >
> > > |
> > > |
> > > | > If so then if c is
> > > | > measured locally constant in these two environments but the clocks
are
> > > | > running at different rates then actual length must have changed to
> > > | > accommodate the actual but locally unobservable change in c ?
> > > |
> > > | See above. You confuse yourself by attempting to use incomplete
sound
> > > | bites to describe things instead of complete and detailed
descriptions.
> > > |
> > > | Most people, especially around here, do not realize how important
> > > | precision in thought and word is. Modern physics is quite subtle,
and
> > > | precision is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. My insistence on such precision
is
> > > | not "nit picking", but is ESSENTIAL to understanding the concepts.
> > >
> > > That's fine but I would like to nit pick some of your statements
> > definitions
> > > and contradictions starting with your apparent contradictions with
regard
> > to
> > > physical reality, observational reality, personal conceptual reality
and
> > > common conceptual reality.
> > >
> > > |
> > > |
> > > | > | Certainly the Lagrangian of a system does not, in general, by
itself
> > > | > | define energy. But if it is invariant over time translations
then it
> > > | > | does (via Noether's theorem). And if it is not so invariant,
energy
> > is
> > > | > | not so useful....
> > > | >
> > > | > That makes no sense to me as energy is a dynamic and the only
> > relatively
> > > | > static and invariant over time, form of energy that I can think of
at
> > > the
> > > | > moment is a partical. Which implies that Lagrangian are not
> > applicable
> > > to
> > > | > energy of fields.
> > > |
> > > | You clearly do not understand Lagrangians. Study them. Don't merely
> > > | fling words around without understanding.
> > > |
> > >
> > > I might if I was convinced they applied to fields.
> > >
> > >
> > > |
> > > | > | The metric _IS_ the geometry.
> > > | >
> > > | > I tend to think as the metric as being [...]
> > > |
> > > | You clearly do not understand differential geometry. Study it. Don't
> > > | merely fling words around without understanding.
> > >
> > > Thanks you can snip you own statments and views as well.
> > >
> > > |
> > > |
> > > | > | And in general it is not possible to
> > > | > | "refer" a curved Lorentzian manifold to a "flat Euclidean
geometry".
> > > | >
> > > | > I don't see the difficulty in overlaying one metric space with
another
> > > and
> > > | > translating between them other than the complexity.
> > > |
> > > | You clearly do not understand differential geometry. Study it. Don't
> > > | merely fling words around without understanding.
> > > |
> > > | Specifically: the topology of a curved manifold can be, and usually
is,
> > > | incompatible with the topology of a flat Euclidean manifold. So such
> > > | "referal" or "translating" is simply not possible.
> > > |
> > > | Why do you think that it is impossible to cover the surface
> > > | of a sphere with a single coordinate system? That is
> > > | directly related to the impossibility I discuss here.
> > > |
> > >
> > > Latitude and longitude seem a fairly good system.
> > >
> > > |
> > > | > In fact curvature is a
> > > | > Euclidean statement [...]
> > > |
> > > | Not true. You clearly do not understand differential geometry. Study
it.
> > > | Don't merely fling words around without understanding.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you are pompously flinging concepts and words around without
> > > understanding them.
> > > --
> > > Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field,
two
> > > unbound field effects
> > > http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
> > > Maybe updates. (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 = FTL
? -p<+p
> > or
> > > (m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
> > > .
> > > |
> > > |
> > > | Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is "Spacetime" a misnomer?
    ... And what clock's measure is proper time. ... If "time" is what clocks measure, and if clocks measure "proper time", ... When an object travels in a circle in 4-space, the past is no longer there. ... and time measurements, if for no other reason than to test the theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR ?
    ... |> yourself the experimental variation in muon decay and contraction in the ... Yes as a physical fact. ... that then you must not agree that clocks generally run slower on earth than ... but is ESSENTIAL to understanding the concepts. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Proper Time in General Relativity
    ... This is actually how proper time is derived ... > books on relativity in the past. ... clocks which are moving relative to us in an arbitrary manner. ... to the moving clocks, which with the clocks constitutes an inertial ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Three Relativistic Reasons That We cant go FTL
    ... three quoted reasons given against FTL travel and gave my reasons for ... That respondent never returned after I pointed out that x = 5 is not a ... That respondent never returned after I pointed out "proper time" is what ... clocks measure, by definition. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Universal Metasymmetry
    ... >> disatances as indicated by real appartus eg rulers and clocks. ... theory can not describe reality' or it is 'only a math contract so can not ... 'Place a particle at rest in an inertial frame. ... where's the input of that instrument and what signal ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading