Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 19, 11:10 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:32 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 18, 10:24 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 17, 11:39 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Special relativity does not and can not describe a satellite's orbit,
regardless of your uneducated suggestion. You want to use GR, which
you also do not understand.

Sorry, Eric, go try to snow someone else.  All you are doing is trying
to tell me that because you went to school and took some classes, you
are better than me.  This is a legal argument used by Europeans.  Here
in the United States people have equal rights.  As far as mathematics
is concerned, there is no obligation for anyone to follow your
dictates.  If special relativity can be applied to motion in a
straight line, it can also be applied to motion in a curved line.
That is one of the applications of calculus.  I can remember that
much.

And there is the boundary between math and physics. For while a
straight line and a curved line can have some of the same applications
mathematically, physically they are quite distinct. An object in
straight line motion can be accelerationless and inertial. An object
in a curved line cannot possibly be inertial. Newton understood this
point enough to distinguish the first and second laws of motion.

Well, all right, but there is still experiment.  Scientists claim they
orbited a clock in a satellite and when they recovered it, it had run
slower than an identical clock on earth.  So there is some correlation
between Special Relativity and a curved orbit.

Some, but it's not as tight as you think. Oh, and there is that
General Relativity business, too.

 According to
scientists, a moving clock is slower than a stationary clock whether
it is orbiting or moving in a straight line.

Well, no, that's not quite what it says, though I'm sure it's put that
way in comic-book versions of SR.
What it does say is that a non-straight path through spacetime has the
shorter proper time than a straight path through spacetime. This is
precisely also why the traveling twin comes back younger. It doesn't
have anything to do with whether one is moving and the other is not.
That is precisely the misconception that the twin puzzle is aimed to
correct. The neophyte looks at the traveling twin and says, "But
motion is relative, and I can take the traveling twin to be still and
the earth twin to be moving, and then the rule that the moving twin's
clock runs slower doesn't work." And the moral of that little story
is: that's right, and that's because which one shows lower elapsed
time has NOTHING TO DO with which one is moving, so erase that from
your wee little mind.

 So why nit-pick about it
unless it is just for the purpose of nit-picking.  My question was,
How does the circumfrence of an orbit relate to its altitude if there
is a distance contraction.

Well, that depends on which observer is measuring the circumference,
doesn't it?

 For instance, the clock ticks fewer times
during an orbit than an identical clock on earth.  Supposedly, the
velocity is the same as seen from either frame of reference in
Einstein's equations.

Only for inertial reference frames, and this isn't the case here.
Again, you are taking a claim that works in a *particular* application
of SR and assuming that it should apply in all cases where SR is
invoked. That's a mistake you make a bunch.

 So there must be a distance contraction,
right?  What does that do to the altitude of the satellite?



You don't have a grasp of SR's domain of application despite arguing
about the theory on usenet for the past decade.

Well, scientists limit their use of Special Relativity to specific
areas which they agree are easier than the ones they cannot explain.
Anything they cannot explain, they ignore, the way you are doing right
now.

Do not presume to tell me about my field of study.

I do not presume to tell you about anything.  It cannot be done.  You
think you know everything.

SR is only valid in limited regimes, which is WELL EXPLAINED in every
SR and GR textbook I have seen.

Well, if a textbook said it, it must be true, right?

Well, certainly a theory should not be used someplace where the
*originator* of the theory says it should not be applied. It is fine
to propose *another*, different theory that claims different things
about reality than SR does. It is quite another to claim that
relativity says different things than it really does. So what are you
claiming? Are you claiming that reality is different than what SR
says, or are you claiming that SR says different things than what
physicists think it says?

Well, I can describe reality with my equations.

                  x'=x-vt
                  y'=y
                  z'=z
                  t'=t

Sorry, that only describes reality in *approximation*. It works pretty
well for small v, but it even fails there if you measure very
precisely. At larger v, the measurement doesn't have to be very
precise at all to see that it's wrong.


    What these equations mean is that there must be a common
measurement of time in both frames of reference.  To describe what
this means, suppose that S is a set of coordinates at rest relative to
the sun.  S' is a set of coordinates moving with a velocity of v
toward the sun.  A time of t elapses in S.  During time t, the sun
rotates a certain number of degrees on its axis.  As seen from S', the
sun rotates the same number of degrees as observed in S.  As measured
by degrees of rotation of the sun, t'=t.  So using this measurement of
time, there is no distance contraction.  A second in S' measured by
the amount of rotation of the sun is exactly the same as a second in
S'.  A mile in S' is exactly the same as a mile in S.  This is all
reality.

No, it's not reality. It's an operational set of rules that works fine
for moderate precision at low speeds.

   But experimentation shows that a clock in S' is running slower than
a clock in S.  The speed of light in either frame of reference will be
c.  Einstein showed this by two little equations he said he extracted
from the Lorentz equations.
                      x=ct
                      x'=ct'

    But we have already defined t' to be t.  Degrees of rotation of
the sun are the same seen from either frame of reference.  That is
reality.So we modify Einstein's second equation to have a variable
other than t'.

                       x=ct
                       x'=cn'

     n' will give scientific time, the number of transitions of a
cesium isotope molecule converted into seconds in S'.
     t gives scientific time for S.

                  x'=x-vt
                  cn'=ct-vt
                   n'=t(1-v/c)

   The way this relates to the Lorentz equations is

       x'/n'= (x-vt)/(t-vt/c)=(x-vt)/(t-vct)/c^2)= (x'/t') from the
Lorentz equations.
       So the Lorentz equations will do the same thing my equations
do, show a constant speed for light, but to do it, there has to be a
distance contraction, which my equations do not have.
In order to avoid the distance contraction, the Galillean
transformation equations have to be used with a common reference for
time.  To get scientific time in S', we just use the results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment and another variable besides t' for
scientific time in S'.  Actually, it is a little more complicated than
this because these equations are actually using velocity of light
instead of speed of light, but I have used speed of light in this
special case.
     At the speed of the planet Mercury, which was used as proof that
Einstein's theory was correct, my equations will give n' the same as
t' from the Lorentz equations to several decimal places.
    What I amn using is reality, what scientists are using may be true
in electromagnetism, but it is not true for a train, as Einstein tried
to use it.  My equations show reality.  The Lorentz equations show a
close approximation based on equations from electromagnetism which
require a distance contraction that does not exist.> >  Aristotle wrote
some textbooks.  That means that if you drop two lead weights, one
heavy and one light, the heavy one will strike the ground first.
Aristotle wrote this in a textbook.

That's correct. And how it was proven wrong was through
experimentation. It was NOT the case that a welder came through later
and told folks their understanding of Aristotelean physics was wrong
and in fact Aristotle meant something other than what he said. Now, if
you have *experimental evidence* that shows that relativity is wrong,
then you are critiquing it from the right angle.

Well, scientists claim they are observing a distance contraction.  I
think they are just mis-interpreting experimental results.  My
equations indicate that no distance contraction exists.

But your equations disagree with reality by a measurable amount.




�Einstein
noticed the problem.

I dare you to produce the quotation that supports what you say.

You dare me?  I don't have that book any more, but since you say that
the theory of Special Relativity produces a constant value of 3.14 for
pi, just go ahead and give your explanation of it.

SR is not Euclidean geometry. Your particular definition for pi will
not hold in non-Euclidean geometries, as SR is functionally equivalent
to hyperbolic geometry.

Well, there you have it.  What you should have done is just show how
SR being functionally equivalent to hyperbolic geometry proves that
the value of pi changes to something other than 3.14 instead of
repeating over and over how much school you took.  I posted in this
newsgroup for twenty years, and no one ever mentioned this before.
They were posting equations that were supposed to show that there was
a distance contraction, which they were never able to convince me
existed.  Then sometimes we would talk about trains and bolts of
lightning.  No one ever mentioned that you could actually prove that
the value of pi changes to something else in hyperbolic geometry.  So
based on what scientists have done, who am I supposed to believe?
    Maybe hyperbolic geometry is as screwball as Special Relativity.

This is a problem for nobody but you.

You say there is no problem. �Who should I
believe? �Well, let's see, I think I will believe Einstein.
� � As far as what I posted in this group up until about last year,
there was a mistake in what I posted that scientists did not even
notice until a guy who calls himself Jeckyl saw it about a year ago.
I could see that something did not fit the entire time, but could not
figure out what to do about it. �So what was being posted back when I
first started posting does not even pertain to the equations I posted
here. �I was using Einstein's two little equations back then, x=ct,
x'=ct', which are not correct.

Who cares what Einstein did? Special relativity's existence is
independent of Einstein, which you would know if you would actually
study instead of whine.

OK, Special Relativity's existence is independent of Einstein.  In
what way is Special Relativity independent of Einstein?

Learn about Minkowski's geometric reformulation. From an actual
textbook - I'm not going to teach it to you.

I have studied it a little, but I do not believe it.  I think you boys
have been led astray.

It's fine for you not to believe it. It is not obligated to convince
you of anything. It will be used successfully completely without your
endorsement. The point of a theory is not to convince people by force
of logical argument. The point of a theory is to make accurate
predictions of what will happen in nature if certain conditions exist.
If a theory doesn't make accurate predictions for the set of
conditions it purports to work in, then it is no good and is dispensed
with. If it does make accurate predictions, then it has value and use,
even if doubters aren't convinced by its logic. It is really no more
complicated than that, in science in general.

Well, the accurate prediction that I make is that no distance
contraction exists, and my equations show that to be true.

Sorry, equations show nothing. They are simply expressing in shorthand
version what your prediction is. What shows something is comparison to
experiment. If the numbers that come *from* the equations match what
is *measured*, then the *measurements* are doing the showing, not the
equations. And in your case, the measurements do NOT match the numbers
that come from your equations, and so the *measurements* show (not the
equations) that your equations are wrong.

 At the
same time, my equations show that a clock in S' runs slower than a
clock in S, just as scientists say they have proven.

� � �At any rate your arguments come from the legal profession, not
from mathematics. �There is nothing to argue about in mathematics. �If
an equation is wrong, it is not mathematics. �So if you do not want to
discuss relativity, no one is going to force you to do it. �Do what
you want to do.
� � However, it does not impress me much when someone claims to be
knowledgeable about something and then refuses to discuss it.

What would be the point in going into a detailed argument with someone
who has invested years and years of his life into a viewpoint that has
been laughed at since day one which has no merit whatsoever?

Laughed at?  Scientists have an odd sense of humor.  Well, here are
some more things that they might find funny.  1+1=2, pi=3..14..., etc.
I am always gratified to be able to bring some joy into the lives of
others.  Let's not forget these:

                    x'=x-vt
                    y'=y
                    z'=z
                    t'=t

                    x=wt
                     x'=wn'
                     n'=t(1-v/w)

    So why aren't there any of these scientists who are willing to
share what they find so hilarious about these equations?  I guess they
must be laughing too hard to answer.

What could I tell you that hasn't been told to you in the last ELEVEN
YEARS?

Well, let's see, the first guy I talked to in this newsgroup was named
David Byrden, and he tried to tell me that he was God.  Then I talked
to some university professors who were very concerned because I said
there was no distance contraction.

But there is. It's been measured and documented. The fact that you
don't believe it exists has as much value as you not believing that
there is a mammal that lays eggs. No one is required to set an echidna
in your lap and force it to lay eggs for the fact to remain.

Well, I would have to see proof of it.  My equations indicate that
there is no distance contraction.  I think that you boys have
misinterpreted something.

Now, the other mistake you're about to make is to say, "Well, if the
equations are wrong, what mistake did I make in the math? Where is the
logical error." A theory does not have to have a logical flaw or a
mistake in the arithmetic for it to be wrong. There are many perfectly
logically self-consistent theories that have no math errors in their
derivations whatsoever, done by completely competent physicists, that
are also DEAD WRONG. They are found wrong by the fact that they do not
match experiment. Period. It is simply not the case that there is one
and only one logically consistent and mathematically correct theory of
the universe that can be derived from the ground up and that will
describe reality. If that were true, then we could dispense with
experiment and simply do math. But that isn't the case. Theories, even
theories that are logically well-formed and mathematically sound, get
tested by their ability to match observed experimental results. No
exceptions. If they do match, then they're possibly good. If they
don't match, then they're no good, regardless of the error-free nature
of the derivation. Period. That's how science is done, Mr. Welder.

Robert B. Winn

.

Relevant Pages
Loading