Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 24, 1:09 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 6:04 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:20 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 23, 10:53 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But the rotation of the sun is not the standard. The standard is
defined in terms of reproducible physical processes that can be
replicated locally.

Well, The Galilean transformation equations can be referenced to the
rotation of the sun, but not to reproducible physical processes
replicated locally.

By choosing some distant reference, one can *always* impose an
absolute time, sacrificing all locally consistent behavior. That,
however, is not an obviously superior position. It leaves you with the
situation that, in terms of rotations of the sun, an observer at rest
can measure radioactive half-lives, the growth of trees, the
population of bacteria, an AC-circuit resonance period; but as soon as
you go to a frame in which the sun is moving, then you need to *first*
redefine seconds to be in terms of that distant sun's rotation, and
then after doing so you note that all your local radioactive half-
lives, the growth of the trees, the population of bacteria, and the AC-
circuit resonance period have all changed in terms of the new second.
Seems rather stupid, just to preserve the rotation rate of the distant
sun and to preserve a Galilean transformation.

If you make this change just to preserve the Galilean transformation,
and as a result you find that all local physical phenomena now have
different rates, then this *normally* would be an indication that the
Galilean transformation is not a good one to insist on. And in fact,
the Galilean transformation was thought to have value when it was
believed that you would not *have to* do the goofy redefinition of the
second you propose. When it was found out that you'd have to, most
reasonable people began to look for a better transformation than the
Galilean one. You on the other hand, want to preserve the Galilean
transformation, even though it would mean that all local physical
processes would now have different rates. Why you think that's better
is beyond me.

I think that local physical processes having different rates is
reality,

But there is no evidence for it. Note that all the local physical
processes would have to have their local rates affected by *exactly*
the same amount, even though they are completely different processes..

Well, something you do not seem to have considered is that what you
are calling the speed of light is the rate at which the elements react
with each other at a certain place and time.

Uh, no. Many of the processes watched have nothing to do with
electromagnetism or light.

and if they are affected by velocity,

They are NOT affected by velocity. I already tried to address this
with you. The differential aging of the twins does NOT have to do with
the speed of one of the twins.

Well, you try to claim the twin is going through some kind of time
warp or something.

Not at all. I don't know what gave you that impression. Comic books?

I think the twins are the same age, whatever one
twin might have been put through by science

You mean like -- movement?

because they were born at
the same time.

And you assume that time is absolute since thatpoint. That's a
mistaken assumption.

There is nothing absolute about time that I can see.  There are just
different ways of measuring it.  If time is measured by a common
measurement such as the Galilean transformation equations show, then
there is no distance contraction.

You've just talked about absolute time. ("common measurement" "no
distance contraction")

 If time is measured according to
transitions of cesium isotope molecules, then local physical processes
remain the same.    It seems to me that you have to decide which you
are going to want to do.

Exactly. The decision has been made by consensus, as all standards are
done.


I believe that there
may be other factors which also affect local physical processes.  What
I cannot understand is the position of scientists.  Scientific time is
the only measurement of time allowed.  OK, so what about your twin
theory?  How do they ever get back together according to scientific
time?
If they do, then obviously, there is some measurement of time that
includes the separation of the twins and their reuniting, which could
be calculated in either frame of reference.

No, sir. There is only frame-dependent time. There is no single time
measurement that both both twins would agree on. (You also mention
"either frame of reference" as though there were two. There are not
two. There are at least three.

Right.  If you can't answer something, try to make it more
complicated.  Really there are at least 7,238.  You say there is only
frame-dependent time, but anyone can determine for themselves that the
same event can be observed from two different frames of reference and
used to measure time in both frames of reference, just as the Galilean
transformation equations show.

OK, so do the Lorentz transformations. The problem is that the
Galilean transformations predict that the time elapsed will be the
same for all frames. The Lorentz transformations say that the time
elapsed will be different for all frames. The Lorentz transformations
agree with measurement and the Galilean ones don't, with the exception
being low-speed cases where the measurement sensitivity isn't high
enough to detect the incorrectness of the Galilean ones.

Well, n' in my equations as calculated from Galilean transformation
equation distances shows that for every frame of reference, there will
be a different rate of transitions of cesium isotope molecules.  So
the elapsed time as measured by cesium clocks in all frames will be
different.

Well, interestingly enough, by your method, the physical phenomenon
will take the same number of oscillations of the radiation from the
transition of the cesium isotope, but it will take a different number
of seconds, because for you the number of seconds per oscillations of
the radiation from the transition of the cesium isotope has to depend
on the speed of the reference frame compared to the sun.

But it's not even as clean as that, because a laboratory that is
*accelerating* will have its speed relative to the sun changing
continually, and so by your prescription, the number of seconds per
cesium isotope transition radiation oscillation will also change
continually, and you'd have to track that change continually to even
measure how many seconds a chemical reaction takes or how long it
takes for a sample of americium to decay to half-activity or how long
it takes for hair to turn grey.

 The Lorentz equations agree with my equations to several
decimal places until very high velocities close to the speed of light
are reached, whereas, the Galilean transformation equations using
absolute time only agree to a couple of decimal places at 30 miles per
second, the velocity of the planet Mercury.



 So, as the Galilean
transformation equations show, there is not a different number of
separatings and reunitings in one frame of reference as compared to
the other.

OK

And the twin does not leave and return in one frame of
reference and then wait until he finishes returning in the other.

OK

If
time is measured by separatings and reunitings in each frame of
reference,

But it's not.

OK, so you refuse to consider the separating and reuniting of the
twins.  That does not mean it does not happen.

 It's measured according to the number of seconds

elapsed, and the number of seconds elapsed is determined by a standard
second that is defined in terms of local physical standard, and
against which it is verified that all physical processes behave the
same in every inertial reference frame. (That is, trees grow in the
same way, thorium samples decay in the same way, bacteria multiply at
the same rate, hair grays at the same rate, etc.) And by those
standards, the interval of time between the separating and reuniting
of the twins is *different* between the two twins.

Well, if we are not allowed to count time any other way, I guess a lot
of people are going to be criminals by your standard.  There are still
people who count days by the rising and setting of the sun.

Which is of course a problem for space shuttle astronauts who see
sunrises every 90 minutes, or for that matter intercontinental air
travelers. You do what you want and what works for welding. However,
to use it as a universal standard leaves something to be desired.

Well, it could still be used as a standard.

Sure it could. Doesn't seem particularly useful though.

 The people traveling in
space shuttles and airplanes would have to do more mathematics than
people on the ground, which might seem unfair to them.



then t'=t, just as the Galilean transformation equations
show.  The difference in clock rates will not affect how many times
the twin leaves and returns.  But you would have to decide which clock
has the more meaningful time in describing what took place.

No, you don't. You don't have to say, "Well, we have to choose one to
be more correct and the other less correct." Likewise, when I tell you
that your speed right now is either zero or 850 mph, depending on
whether you are looking at a frame tied to the earth or one that isn't
rotating with the earth, there is no need to say one is more "right"
than the other. Your speed is simply a frame-dependent quantity, as is
your kinetic energy, as is your momentum, and is a whole host of other
completely useful and completely frame-dependent physical quantities..

I did not say one was more correct than the other, I said one was more
meaningful than the other.  If you want to measure everything by
transitions of a cesium atom, it seems to me that you are free to do
it.  Just don't try to tell me that you are more intelligent than
everyone else because that is what you decided to do.

It is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of what provides
the broadest consistent applicability. That is the purpose of
measurement standards and physical theory.

Well, OK, but the problem you seem to have is a distance
contraction.  

Why is that a problem?

That may not be too much of a difficulty for anything
you are measuring on earth, but my belief is that it really gives you
some wrong results when considering astronomical distances.

No evidence of anything wrong. Everything works. It's wrong if it
gives wrong predictions of what you should see. It doesn't. I don't
see what's wrong with it.

 Just my
opinion.  I get more and more sceptical about what scientists say
every time they come up with a new idea.  The latest ideas about what
will happen to the universe that I saw published seemed totally
idiotic to me.

Well, that's your perogative, of course. But then again, the point is
not to convince you of the sense of it.


If you want to opt for something with less broad, consistent
applicability, and you like it because you came up with it, then by
all means do so. It will be no slight on your intelligence to do so.

Well, I just take scientific explanation of time for what I believe it
is.   It may be useful to scientists, but it is not totally accurate,

Sure it is. No evidence it isn't correct.

and certainly is not a law that we all have to obey or else be
punished.

Punished? Who says that there's a punishment involved if you don't
subscribe?
It's simple, really. Scientists use standards that work most reliably
and reproducibly. They use deduced natural laws that seem to have the
broadest applicability with the most precision and which seem to have
the highest success rate of predicting measurable phenomena.
If you don't want to use those laws or those standards, and the ones
you would rather use work just fine for you, then go right ahead.
There are lots to choose from and you can make up your own. You can
choose to do so just because you don't trust scientists, if you like.
No harm in that.
If you want to argue that others should adopt the same standards and
laws that you use, THEN you have a bit more to demonstrate.

 You say that what I believe is too difficult for scientists
to use.

No, not too difficult. Just not as useful.

 That may be entirely true, but it works for me, so I intend
to keep distances in the Galilean transformation equations and
transitions of cesium isotope molecules in equations that agree with
the Michelson-Morley experiment, since I agree with Einstein about
that unless someone proves him wrong.  It may be that the concept I am
using is too difficult for anyone else.  All I can say, it is easy for
me.    I think that scientists are way ahead of themselves with regard
to a good many things.
Robert B. Winn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... defined in terms of reproducible physical processes that can be ... Galilean transformation is not a good one to insist on. ... the only measurement of time allowed. ... be calculated in either frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Train gedanken pitfall
    ... relativity in the same way that Wheeler did. ... only one frame and must be different in other frames. ...  The Galilean Transformation says that one ... measurement in both frames. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... Jeckyl wrote: ... somthing relative to your own frame is real. ... 'this measurement of c is not.' ... In SR it is just said that the velocity of light ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... willingly accept measurement data for anything. ... My views are based upon facts. ... all different in every frame. ... Even in the twin paradox, twin A, with ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... Pmb wrote: ... by Einstein was to use it to say that a measurement of the ... your own frame, will be c. ... then an observer in the inertial frame S2 will measure ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)