Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 27, 5:51 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

Well, see, if you are telling the truth, I have learned something
about science. I do have a question. I looked up cesium clocks on
Wickepedia, and they mentioned that efforts were made to prevent side
effects resulting from changes in temperature. As I recall the
definition in the high school text I had, it said at sea level and
standard temperature and pressure. Maybe they were worried about
"side-effects" also.

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?

Well, get a buzz box, and do your own welding. They have them at Home
Depot.

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.

Well, most people seem to agree with you about that. I do not find
equations without a distance contraction to be as complicated as you
say they are. For instance, you say that a clock in a satellite is
slower than an identical clock on the ground, so there is a distance
contraction, and the radius of the orbit of the satellite is less as
measured from the satellite. Now, that seems complicated to me. It
seems easier to say that the astronaut in the satellite would get a
different result for his speed than an observer on earth, and leave
the circumfrence and radius of orbit the same. But, as you say, I am
not a scientist, so I do not know what you are doing. Whenever I ask
about it, scientists get all defensive, so I may never know what you
are doing.

 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.

Well, we are all waiting for you to tell us about the straightforward
measurement.


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.

Well, I don't know what you mean by the laws of physics sliding. I
would expect that it has something to do with the astronaut in the
satellite getting a faster speed for the satellite than an observer on
the ground. What you seem to be saying is that the mathematics would
be more difficult than what you are doing now, so you are not going to
do it. However, I would expect that someone will eventually do the
work required to understand this particular thing, even if there is no
one in science today who will do it. The value of pi was calculated
to be 3 for a long time before someone calculated it to be 3.14.
Scientists in Newton's time told him that he had left nothing to be
done for future scientists, then you modern scientists decided that he
was wrong about absolute time. So you have these equations with a
distance contraction instead of identical orbits, and someone will
probably eventually figure out that the orbits really are the same.
Then school children will be taught about how stupid scientists were
in 2008. Life goes on.

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.

OK. Well, why don't we do it with lightning bolts like Einstein did.
Two lightning bolts strike a moving train simultaneously as seen by an
observer sitting at the middle of the train. The lightning bolts
leave marks on the front and rear of the train. The observer on the
train takes his ruler, (this isn't hard), and measures the distance
between the two marks on the train. Sure enough, the marks are the
length of the train apart.
So an observer by the railroad track notices that the two bolts of
lightning left two marks on the railroad track. He takes his ruler
and measures the distance between the two marks on the track. As you
say, this isn't hard. So when scientists did this experiment, (they
did not have to use an actual train. They could have used something
that fit better into a laboratory), what result did they get?

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

OK, well, that was why I asked about the two marks left by lightning
on the railroad track. Einstein was the one who thought of this, not
me.
So since you say these measurements have been made, go ahead and
explain how it was done and what the results were.
Robert B. Winn







�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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages