Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 26, 9:57 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

You'll have to point to where in high school books mention anything
about the NIST standard for the SI second. I'm sure they mention STP
in there somewhere, but it doesn't have anything to do with the SI
second standard.

 So you are saying that the transitions of a cesium isotope
molecule do not change if you increase the temperature?

That's right.




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,

I think the same thing about welders. So where does that leave us?

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.

Not so. I'm telling you it is a *less* useful standard. You say "suck
it up and do it the hard way". At the same time you say "y'all spend
too much money". Those two statements are not exactly compatible. It
seems to me to be in YOUR best interest if we do things the most
expeditious way possible, in the way that produces the most reliable
results in the most efficient manner. To do things in a complicated
way, to suit your tastes, just so that something you find distasteful
can be avoided, seems to be irresponsibility of the highest order. I'm
glad you're not running things.

 You would rather pretend that there is a distance contraction.

But there is. It's *measured*. Only under some arcane and practically
useless artifice can you make it go away. I see no reason to slap all
that artifice on it, bogging things down and making progress
inefficient, when a most straightforward measurement shows that nature
really does work that way.


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.

Exactly. The difference is that for a clock in motion, you propose
that I have to key those increments to the motion relative to the sun,
and make it a *sliding* key in case the motion of the clock changes.
AND require that all the laws of physics slide IN ADDITION to the
sliding of the scale. Sounds like a waste of effort to me.






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?

The same way you measure it when it is standing still. With a ruler.
Marking both ends of the object at the same time. (This isn't hard.)
Result is shorter. Measured. Fact.

If you didn't know this was a measurable fact, then I'd say you have
some edjamacation to fetch.


�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: I Owe Einstein an Apology. Sorry Albert!
    ... >> The OWLS in this case is from a moving source. ... This is a TWLS measurement, but with an odd twist, as the light ... >>A clock is in the middle of the two detectors. ... go through detector A at +1.99 ticks and go through detector B ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The true crackpots
    ... >> So you agree that in SR length contraction is not physical.....right?? ... Length is the result of a measurement. ... This is not the same as that a moving rod ... >> causes the rate of a moving clock to run slower than a stationary stay at ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... A clock that is stationary relative to the sun has the same rate. ... is not moving relative to the sun. ... Measuring the length of something is a pretty ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... measurement will be. ... I agree that the travelling twin will see that the earth clock ... having experienced the force of acceleration, is *not* the moving ... A more personal view is that physics is all ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: TSC instead of ACPI: powerd doesnt work anymore (to be expected?)
    ... > struct timespec ts; ... the same clock retrieval interface is also used for things ... measurement and "how long to sleep for" time measurement. ... Moving to HZ ...
    (freebsd-current)