Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 25, 6:19 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:01 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 24, 11:25�am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 24, 1:19�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 24, 6:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:27 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Except that there is a definite circumfrence to the orbit of the
satellite.

No, that is incorrect. There is a circumference to the orbit of the
satellite that depends on whether that circumference is measured from
earth or whether it is measured from the satellite. Moreover, the
radius of that orbit depends on the reference frame. The radius of the
orbit of Mercury as measured by someone on the surface of Mercury will
differ from the radius as measured by someone on the surface of the
sun by about 2 parts in a billion. For the Moon and the Earth the
difference is about 5 parts per trillion.

Well, it is good to see a scientist make a decision. �So now my
question is, does an altimeter in the satellite read different in the
frame of reference of the satellite than it does in the frame of
reference of the earth?

That depends on how the altimeter works.

Now that is where we differ. �I say that the altimeter can only have
one reading. �It will either agree with the cesium clock in the
satellite, or it will agree with the cesium clock on earth, or it will
not agree with either.

Exactly. Which one it agrees with, if either, depends on how the
altimeter works.

It cannot agree with both clocks at the same
time. �Haven't scientists ever run any experiments concerning this?

Not to the precision required for a satellite orbiting the Earth, no.
It's useful to do the calculation to see how big the effect is before
deciding whether it should have been measured by now.

Basketballs have wavelengths and exhibit interference phenomena, too.
It's useful to calculate the wavelength of a basketball first, before
asking yourself why you've never noticed interference phenomena with
basketballs before.

I am not much into March madness.  I watch a basketball game once in a
while.  Well, what about Mercury?  Scientists used the orbit of
Mercury as proof that Einstein's theory was correct.  Now you said
that the mathematics of the theory shows that Mercury has a shorter
radius of orbit as measured from Mercury.  That is exactly what I get
following the logic of relativity.  I do not pretend to be able to
follow General Relativity.  The way I get it is the equations show the
velocity to be the same from either frame of reference, the moving
clock is slower, so the distance of an orbit has to be less measured
from Mercury.  That makes the radius of the orbit less as measured
from Mercury, which is the result you also obtained.  I am glad to
find someone who agrees with me.
     My question is, has science ever considered the orbit of Mercury
the way I do, with the distances the same from either frame of
reference, but with the clock on Mercury running slower?

BOTH are true. The distance is different as measured from Mercury, AND
the clock rate on Mercury is different.

You are having difficulty understanding what SR really says.

I know exactly what Special Relativity says. You are either having
difficulty understanding my question or are deliberately pretending
not to understand. But anyway, I now recall the answer. Einstein
thought he had resolved the distance contraction when he thought of
relativity of time. A few years later another scientist showed
Einstein that there was still a distance contraction in his
interpretation of the Lorentz equations. That is why my equations
more closely follow what Einstein said in his early descriptions than
the Lorentz equations do. I have the equations Einstein was looking
for.





 I think you
said that this would be too difficult to evaluate in terms of the
mathematics and physics involved.  For one thing, Mercury would have a
different velocity of orbit measured from Mercury than it would
measured from somewhere else.  But in terms of transitions of a cesium
isotope molecule, how meaningful is your definition of scientific time
in this instance, since, as I recall there were other conditions to
the measurement, such as it being made at sea level at standard
temperature and pressure, etc.  So how do scientists replicate the
same conditions for a cesium isotope molecule on Mercury?  It appears
to me that your interpretation of time is just as complex as mine if
not more so in terms of the local events you want to time by
transitions of the cesium isotope molecule.  How meaningful are these
speculations about transitions of cesium isotope molecules when the
temperature on Mercury is so much higher?
   It appears to me that scientists just have some equations that are
easy for them that give a fairly accurate answer

Not just fairly accurate, but as accurate as any test has been able to
detect.

That is wonderful, but there is always that distance contraction.
Distances do not really contract the way the Lorentz equations show.

as far as anything
scientists on this earth are ever going to do,

If you have a different theory and can calculate where your theory
predicts something measurable that is different than what relativity
says, and you can specify the size of the difference in a particular
circumstance, then put that forward and scientists will be eager to do
an experimental test to see if you're right. NB: You must show your
work.

I already showed my work.

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

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

So where are all the eager scientists? There were eager
scientists when I was making mistakes in my mathematics. Now that I
am not, they have all disappeared.

so they are going to
enforce their equations and make certain they are mever questioned
because the government gives them money to understand the equations.

No, that's not what the government gives them money to do. Geez.

Scientists are like lawyers. So why do you think there are lawyers?
To stop crime? If there was no crime, why would lawyers even exist?
Lawyers are there to increase crime so that more money can be made by
lawyers.

What would happen if people were to begin to understand that the
equations scientists use are not the all-explaining answers that
scientists represent them to be?
Robert B. Winn

They know that already. That's why folks are still doing research. If
we thought the work was done, everyone would find more lucrative jobs
than what they're doing now.

Folks are doing research because they get government grants to do
research. What are the more lucrative jobs you would get? You think
everyone can be corporate executives if the work gets done? Or maybe
you think everyone can work for the government, and there will be
enough money so that everyone can be paid lucrative amounts.

Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... satellite that depends on whether that circumference is measured from ... radius of that orbit depends on the reference frame. ... orbit of Mercury as measured by someone on the surface of Mercury will ... the measurement, such as it being made at sea level at standard ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... satellite that depends on whether that circumference is measured from ... radius of that orbit depends on the reference frame. ... orbit of Mercury as measured by someone on the surface of Mercury will ... the measurement, such as it being made at sea level at standard ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... Scientists used the orbit of ... Mercury as proof that Einstein's theory was correct. ... radius of orbit as measured from Mercury. ... follow General Relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Orthodoxys Opposition to Theories of Superluminality
    ... >> good scientists are good precisely because of these biases. ... But all knowledge is not equally useful in understanding the universe. ... measured in electromagnetism (in other words, a theory of measurement) ... Neither distance nor absolute luminosity can be measured directly, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: God forbid anyone should like anything!
    ... and nobel-prize-winning scientists like Ilya Prigogine) that whole classes of systems have intrinsically unpredictable behaviours precisely because of this issue. ... Sure, until someone comes up with a better form of measurement, ... realm of judgement separate from some magic 'subjective' realm, ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz)