Re: The Single Experiment that Destroys Einstein.

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:14:56 GMT
<lka5k29ftd8227oht0100um0fiodhgagbk@xxxxxxx>:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:15:27 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote

| Since the OO counts N ticks from the GC, while his own clock ticks
| N(1+4.4647*10-10) ticks, the _average_ (NOT instant) frequency of
| the ticks from the GC is red shifted by 1/(1+4.4647*10-10) = (1-4.4647*10-10)
| which is to say the OO observe the GC to run slow by (1-4.4647*10-10).

If you insist on using a different definition of 'observed rate',
you will obviously come to a different conclusion.
So what?

Nobody but you use your definition of 'observed rate',
so your conclusion is of no interest.

Let me spell this out in very simple terms.

You claim that the GC appears to run slow to the OO.

Since the OO *has* no clock, the GC cannot assert such. Were the OO to
have his own clock he could verify this statement.

Both the OO and GO use the same common clock, OO's orbit. It TICKS once every
12 hours.

Incorrect. On the ground it ticks once every 12h0m0s. In orbit it will
tick once every 11h59m59.9999807125 seconds, give or take.


Yet you agree that both OO and GO measure the ground clock's rate to be the
same N ticks/orbit.

That is correct.

Well obviously the OO DOES NOT see the GC running slow. He sees it going at the
same rate the GO sees.

He can't *see* the rate since he has no clock of his own. Were he to
use his own clock he'd see it running slow, but there's only one clock;
therefore all time references are to that clock. Unless we somehow
allow humans to perceive errors of a few hundred parts per trillion,
of course.




How the hell can anyone misinterpret this to mean the OO sees it running slow
when in fact he sees it running at exactly the same rate as the GO does...its
true rate....

While the OO would in fact agree on the number of ticks
of the GC per orbit, the OO, were he to have his own clock
(OC), would see the GC as running slow relative to the OC.
For his part the GO, during his phase of the measurements,
would see OC ticking faster than his own clock.

Both observers 'SEE' the clock running at N ticks/orbit before launch and N+n
after launch.

BOTH observers see the GC running slow compared with the OC....and by the same
amount...
There is no voodoo physics or black Einsteinian magic.
The orbiting clock IS running faster than the ground clock.

The orbiting clock does not exist. There is only one clock. You're
shifting experiments.

But never mind; you're correct in that the OC will run fast relative to
the GC.



Or, one can simply count the number of ticks per orbit
when the clock is ground-based, and again when the clock
is orbit-based. Counting them with sufficient precision is
an interesting exercise, since the error is about 4.1 ticks
per second (where a Cs-133 tick is 1/9192631770 of a second).
In 12 hours one would get 19.3 microseconds of delta.

Forget the practical details Ghost.

Why?



Two clocks makes this a *lot* easier to see, methinks, but
absent that one might use a reference-star if the orbit
doesn't precess.

Stick to my experiment Ghoist. It has all we need.

Your experiment is far more easily conducted with two clocks, but with
one clock one can show the effect if one allows a guide-star. The
occultation of the guide-star is in effect a second clock, and can be
observed both by the GO (by carefully watching the satellite) and the OO
(by watching Earth as it occludes the guide star).



So we have established that the OO does NOT see the GC running slow at all.
We have therefore also established that GR is a load of old cobblers from start
to finish.

The antecedent doesn't follow, as the GC is in effect
half of a single absolute coordinate-system (the other
half being a ground-based ruler, of course). GR, however,
relates two *different* coordinate systems. You have
not defined a second coordinate system.

Laod of crap..

Then there's only one coordinate system? Fine. No slowdown or speedup
will ever be observed in that case.



This 'rate' thing is but a discussion of the definition of 'rate',
and you are using an unconventional definition.

Naturally if you accept a definition or an assumption of GR as being correct
you can use it to 'prove' GR is correct.
...but that is called circular logic.

That is correct as far as it goes.


A discussions over definitions is just that.
You cannot prove GR wrong by showing that the rates
predicted by GR are wrong according to a different
definition of rate than the definition used in GR.

My argument doesn't rely on circular definitions and logic.

That is as idiotic as proving Ohm's law wrong by
using a different definition of R than the one used by Ohm.

THIS IS AN IDIOTIC QUARREL WITH NO REAL CONTENT!

Why Paul? Because I have shown GR to be hopelessly wrong?


What's much worse - and what makes you to the crank you
are - is that you keep denying facts.

I have had it.

Paul, when the clock is launched to join the OO, you claim it appears to run
fast to the GO even though it retains its 'proper rate'.
If that were true, then for one thing, the OO would see its rate remain at N
ticks/orbit.
In addition, your claim is obvously not true because both the OO and GO see its
new rate as the same N+n ticks/orbit. ....proof that the GO sees it going at
its true rate.

As spaceman use to say..."the clock goofed". Its rate physically changes when
placed into orbit, due to a number of unknown factors.

The clock indeed goofed, as it was placed into orbit in a less-curved
space. Not a lot that can be done about it, actually; it's the nature
of the Universe.

Space is not curved Ghost. If your theory was correct, the OO would not see the
orbiting clock running at N+n ....but at N.

The clock simply experienced a physical change when placed in free fall.

Were space uncurved you'd be in free fall.



Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

(another world-shattering announcement coming soon)


--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Single Experiment that Destroys Einstein.
    ... If time runs faster in orbit, the OO would see the clock running at N ... OO sees the same ticks GO does from GC. ... the two observers would never ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray
    ... > observers which are not truly inertial. ... > sun just as the observer at the equator is rotating about the pole. ... >>Acceleration of a clock is not supposed to affect the rate of that clock. ... > mass against the pull of gravity you get gravitational potential energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • time coordinates in general relativity and cosmology (was: Re: Constraints on spatial flatness.)
    ... You then only need one clock, the observer's, to describe the dynamism ... of the observable universe, relative to that observer. ... | clocks we have to start with are at the center of the earth, ... observers A, B, and C, all in different places in a curved spacetime. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: The Single Experiment that Destroys Einstein.
    ... the two observers and the clock are together on the ground. ... Both the OO and the ground observer count the number of ticks the ... GC emits PER ORBIT OF THE OO. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Seriously, What Can We Do About It?
    ... Time dilation ... well before anyone knew what kind of clock would be used in the test. ... of all observers therefore remain as a universal common ... of and without any consideration of concepts like 'co-existence' ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)