Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 26, 5:30�am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't know where you got that idea.

Why would they say standard temperature and pressure if it did not
matter?

For the second, they *don't* say. Where did you get the impression
they do?

Well, I remember that from the high school books I had when I was in
school. So you are saying that the transitions of a cesium isotope
molecule do not change if you increase the temperature?

My comment stands, regardless of which distant standard is used.

Well, my equation stands, t'=t. �There is no distance contraction.

Your equation relies on the redefinition of the second in such a way
that it no longer becomes a locally reproducible standard. It also
makes the laws of physics different in every reference frame. For a
reference frame that is accelerating, it makes the laws of physics
*continually* changing.

n'=t(1-v/c) So how is n' different from t, other than rate?

You find this still more satisfying somehow and don't see a problem
with it. That's fine, you just go on thinking that and using that
approach. I'm sure you'll get through life just fine using it. Don't
mind us while we take a different approach.

Well, yeah, but I think you are way too expensive for what you do,
which is tell people that a distance contraction exists. All you are
really saying about my equations is that you are too lazy to do the
math. You would rather pretend that there is a distance contraction.

A clock that is stationary relative to the sun has the same rate. It's
just divided in different increments.

By that definition, any clock has the same rate as the sun. It is
just divided into different increments.


to do that because
scientists say it has been determined by experiment that light travels
at a rate of c relative to a clock in the laboratory.

That's correct. But the rate of the clock is different than that of
the rotation of the sun, depending on the velocity of that clock
relative to the sun.

Yes, I calculate that rate to be n'=t(1-v/c), where t is a clock that
is not moving relative to the sun.

We just use the equation t'=t to keep distances straight. �A distance
in S' is the same as a distance in S.
We can calculate the time of a clock in the laboratory from the
information in the Galilean transformation equations.

Why calculate it when you have a local clock with which to *measure*
it? If you *calculate* it using the Galilean transforms, you find the
rate of the local clock doesn't agree, the rate of oscillations of the
transition of cesium isotopes doesn't agree, the rate of radioactive
decay doesn't agree, the rate of bacterial growth doesn't agree, the
rate of hair going gray doesn't agree. If you use the local clock,
these disagreements all disappear. The only thing that is different is
that the local clock doesn't agree with the sun's rotations when it
has a velocity relative to the sun.

Well, someone at the local clock might want to know how a second of
his time compared to a second as measured by t'=t, a clock not moving
relative to the sun. �Or someone at the t'=t clock might want to know
how fast the transitions of a cesium isotope molecule are in S'. �Of
course, scientists already know, but other people might be
interested.

Well, it does to me if I do not have to imagine a distance contraction
the way scientists require.

Why is that a problem?

Well, for one thing, no distance contraction exists.

Certainly it does. It's been measured. With rulers. It's not
complicated. Measuring the length of something is a pretty
straightforward procedure. When you measure something that's moving by
that simple procedure, you find you get a different answer. This also
has measurable effects in other simple measurements. For example,
density is mass divided by three distances and so you'd expect density
to change because of length contraction as well. There are simple ways
to measure density. When you measure the density of something that's
moving by those simple procedures, you find that the density is
different. There are other similar cases. It's a *measured* effect.>

Well, I do not believe what you are saying. How do you measure
something that is moving and get a shorter length?

�It is like going
into court and asking for trial by jury because the Constitution
guarantees the right to trial by jury in all criminal prosecutions,
and the judge and all lawyers say, You cannot have a trial by jury in
this criminal case.
So what does that mean, my criminal prosecution is not included in all
criminal prosecutions? �The more people have been to college, the more
untruthful they are.

Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... when a most straightforward measurement shows that nature ... any clock has the same rate as the sun.  It is ... The difference is that for a clock in motion, ... is not moving relative to the sun. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR cannot determine Contraction
    ... But observations for a moving clock shows that it is in fact really ... that the odometer in one car was measuring distance differently to the other ... ticking at a slower rate .. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Another rotating clock - please explain experiment
    ... On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:15:13 GMT, Tom Roberts ... WHO is measuring its rate, and HOW they are measuring it. ... C1 rotates in the same direction as clock C2. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
    ... >> physical length of a moving ruler is the same as that of the ... we observe that a clock records different elapsed time after a journey. ... >> different length in different frames. ... >> do physics will result different physical laws for different frames. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... I pointed out to him that Einstein began his ... mathematical physicist where the symbol alpha in the first equation on ... in which dx' is the distance between clock A and clock B as plotted by ... if the moving point A was at x = 0 and the moving point B ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)