Re: GR ?


"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:l1BEe.60072$oJ.7917@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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.

That has nothing to do with SR. It makes no mention or accounting
of the optical path which is SR's basis for a clock to vary and it
makes no mention of the H&K experiment.

Perhaps you are misdirecting yourself with careless reading habits.

Sue...

>
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


.