Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never want you to know.

On Jul 14, 12:37 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
PD wrote:
No, you're right. A straight beampipe starts at one elevation and goes
to a different one. But you missed what I just said. Particles going
through the same beampipe at *different* speeds get *different* time
dilations, even though they are going through the *same* variation in
the gravitational field.

The variation in the differential changes would of course make
different changes in any clock doing such speeds.

Please understand cause and effect. If you
have two objects that exhibit DIFFERENT effects and they are subject
to the SAME influence, then the influence cannot possibly be the cause
of the effect.

Different speeds, is not the "same influence" PD.

Yes, but you don't think that different speeds are what's responsible.
You think g-forces are responsible for time dilation.
Here you have different particles with different speeds but the *same*
variation in g-forces, and they have *different* time dilations. The g-
forces, which you say are the cause of time dilation, cannot possibly
be the cause, because you have *different* effects for the *same*
claimed cause.

Please put the beer down and try to think coherently.


Then you'll have to explain why traveling through the SAME beampipe,
through the SAME variation in gravitational field, can produce
DIFFERENT time dilations.

Different speeds are not the "same variation change"
And even relativity gets that right most of the time.
Usually refered to as "relative" mass.

Are you *sure* that's what it's called? Try again.

A 1 kg mass moving at 20 meters per second has a different
relative mass than a 1 kg mass moving at any different speed
than 20 meters per second.

Yes, that's right.

Therefore, you do not have the "same" relative mass at all
when you have different speeds at all.

Right, but you don't think relativistic mass (an SR prediction) is
what's responsible. You think g-forces are. You are dismissing what SR
says is the reason and you say it is malfunctioning due to g-forces
and differences in acceleration. Now you don't seem to be so sure
about g-forces and are starting to bring in stuff from special
relativity, like "relative mass".

C,mon PD, that is relativity 101.
(some of the actually correct stuff in relativity)
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never want you to know.
    ... The variation in the differential changes would of course make ... Different speeds, is not the "same influence" PD. ... And even relativity gets that right most of the time. ... Usually refered to as "relative" mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... >> But if we measure the velocity of light in that particle beam and find ... nearly the speed of light (what Einstein called relativistic speeds). ... The local frame is the normal frame, ... *relative*, hence the tag "Relativity". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: relativity vs velocity addition
    ... GR(General Relativity) is also set up by claiming the velocity ... the two far sides of the train there is a clock and a light source. ... where v1 and v2 are the outbound and inbound relative speeds and B ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Going through time travel (distributed, not relativistic, 5 dimensions?)
    ... at much slower speeds than what the theory of relativity would predict ... I see dark matter as a speed deterrent force of gravity, ... Dynamic scale distribution. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... I don't need to there would be massive headlines saying "relativity ... light from a source *stationary w.r.t the observer* is always constant ... relative to the ether would be c-v in the direction of travel. ... >> source at a different speeds for A and B. ...
    (sci.physics)