Re: Syncronized atomic clocks

From: Jim Greenfield (greenfield_7_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/24/04 

Date: 23 Jun 2004 18:59:18 -0700

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<9u2oq1-gd4.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield
> <greenfield_7@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> on 22 Jun 2004 22:44:13 -0700
> <3c4afb26.0406222144.4ea290ab@posting.google.com>:
> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<1ak8q1-17q.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> >> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield
> >> <greenfield_7@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote
> >> on 17 Jun 2004 00:02:12 -0700
> >> <3c4afb26.0406162302.5c49ee27@posting.google.com>:
> >> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<qfu5q1-klo.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> >> >> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield
> >> >> <greenfield_7@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote
> >> >> on 16 Jun 2004 01:34:23 -0700
> >> >> <3c4afb26.0406160034.1f014295@posting.google.com>:
> >> >> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<5k82q1-2km.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> >> >> >> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield
> >> >> >> <greenfield_7@hotmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote
> >> >> >> on 14 Jun 2004 18:06:15 -0700
> >> >> >> <3c4afb26.0406141706.21e26deb@posting.google.com>:
> >> >> >> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<dsp0q1-v1m.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> >> >> >> >> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield
> >> >> >> >> <greenfield_7@hotmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote
> >> >> >> >> on 13 Jun 2004 18:02:36 -0700
> >> >> >> >> <3c4afb26.0406131702.12d09289@posting.google.com>:
> >> >> >> >> > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<jodup1-0jk.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> >> >> >> >> >> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield
> >> >> >> >> >> <greenfield_7@hotmail.com>

> >> >> >> >> >> > Perhaps see my comments to Boern F ref "frames". I maintain that
> >> >> >> >> >> > changing frames contravenes conservation of energy.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> It does not contravene it, but one does require energy to change frames.
> >
> > Might get onto this again elsewhere (double dipping at the moment). I
> > oppose the Relativistic velocity additions on the same
> > basis..."conjuring up energy"
> >> >
> >> > But Relativity says that nature's laws are the same in all
> >> > frames.....but here we have a different amount of energy in the ball,
> >> > depending on the frame.
> >>
> >> Laws != amount of energy.
> >
> > Didn't quite connct here........
> >
> > The "conclusion" to which I am referrring, is that an object "actually
> > shrinks" at high speed. I think that we are getting at x purposes, and
> > agree that it is just a mistaken conclusion by the observers, brought
> > about by their relationship to the motion of photons and their
> > sources.
> >>
> >> > I think that your comment below is coming to that point: one or both
> >> > observers of any given situation are likely to be mistaken, and
> >> > compile wrong data leading to false conclusions.
> >>
> >> The conclusion is consistent, but the data leading thereto does
> >> have some interesting anomalies.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>> >> >> > It cannot be
> >> >> >> >> >> > arbitrarily said that kinetic energy is in a cricket ball, or in the
> >> >> >> >> >> > batsman, depending on the chosen frame------because if the ball is
> >> >> >> >> >> > hot, can we also "shift" that heat to the batsman? Of course not!
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Car A or B:
> >> >> >> >> >> Initial energy of car A: 0 J
> >> >> >> >> >> Initial energy of car B: 3,364,000 J
> >> >> >> >> >> Final energy of wreckage: 1,682,000 J
> >> >> >> >> >> Dissipated energy (twisted metal, flying car parts, heat): 1,682,000 J
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Walker going 2 m/s southbound:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Mistake begins here! Just because the observer began to move,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No, this is a different observer.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > OK. So they "see" different things; that doesn't matter. What matters,
> >> >> >> > is _where is the energy?_
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Where I said it is: twisted metal, flying car parts, heat. Prior
> >> >> >> to the impact, the question is not all that relevant, unless
> >> >> >> of course the observer happens to be hit.
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No. I wish to take this out of the hypothetical, or "doesn't matter",
> >> >> > and show that the observers are suffering from errors of perception--
> >> >> > the KE is always the same for each car, no matter who makes the
> >> >> > (erroneous) measurement.
> >> >>
> >> >> So how would one determine the KE of an object? And relative to what?
> >> >
> >> > One wont, not because it is undefined, or can be arbitrarily cancelled
> >> > by calling on the opinion of an observer moving , or viewing from a
> >> > different position.....
> >> > Everything moves in three dimensions (call them x,y,z, axis). What's
> >> > mine?
> >> > I am walking northeast, and up-hill, so that is (say) +x, +y, +z. Now
> >> > the earth is in motion ref the sun, and adds/subtracts to these
> >> > velocities. But the sun is revolving around the galaxy, so we
> >> > add/subtract again! The galaxy maybe rotating about three axis, so we
> >> > have to factor that. Then the group to which our galaxy is attached
> >> > may be revolving/moving due to motion of the entire visible
> >> > universe..............which (maybe) moving relative to SOMETHING which
> >> > is FIXED.
> >> > So "somewhere" is "something" to which I have "absolute motion".
> >> > No way can it be determined, due to impossibility of both collecting
> >> > the data and crunching the numbers, but it doesn't provide
> >> > authenticity to frames of reference. They maybe be handy from a
> >> > limited human viewpoint, but reality?..forget it!
> >> >
> >> > .....oh yeh! and all the energy involved in the entire system stays
> >> > the same, so we have the cool situation where by jumping, I can change
> >> > the universe!
> >>
> >> So objects have no kinetic energy? Tell that to Hoover Dam... :-)
> >
> > They have it...we just can't determine it.
>
> Hoover Dam produces electricity. I'd say that determining the
> amount of energy in electricity is fairly easy.

You are only recovering a fraction of the potential energy of that
mass of water. What if the abruptly ceased its rotation? or stopped on
its orbit?.the water would want to keep going.

> >> >> >> >> > DOESN"T
> >> >> >> >> > alter the energy of each car under consideration- he is making a
> >> >> >> >> > judgemental error due to his motion, which he should realise when all
> >> >> >> >> > the scenarios give the same end result.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Of course they give the same result...the question is, can the
> >> >> >> >> math *explain* this result?
>
> >> >> >> >> But is the energy in car A, or in car B? A good question.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Stick a thermometer up each exhaust. I maintain that those
> >> >> >> > thermometers will read the same, no matter who reads them! (ie
> >> >> >> > whatever the "chosen" frame of reference)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course they will. The liberated energy is the same -- assuming
> >> >> >> the thermometer doesn't become part of the flying debris. :-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> (Assuming one can read a thermometer as one flies by at 195 mph.
> >> >> >> in a Ferrari. :-) The walker at least might be able to peek at it.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So the observers were wrong, if they gave a differing value to the KE
> >> >> > of each car, depending on THEIR motion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regardless of the KE the observers give to each car, the amount
> >> >> of energy liberated in their collision turns out to be the same.
> >> >> That's probably the more important value.
> >> >
> >> > Admission/agreement that the observers are mistaken? Now go and have a
> >> > look at the "observers" "seeing" a train shrink! They make the SAME
> >> > MISTAKE (or very similar)
> >>
> >> Then you are correct in observing that the shrinkage is an
> >> observation effect. Nothing is really happening.
> >
> > You little ripper!!!!!!! can I quote you on this? It is the exact
> > point that I have been trying to "prove" ever since I began my
> > campagne against SR.
>
> The observers are not mistaken; they see the train shrink.
> However, the train is not shrinking in its own frame of
> reference -- so in a sense nothing is really happening.

Yes. In "reality" NOTHING happens- the train DOES NOT shrink.
You may like to pass this item of info on to Sam W, Al S, Franz H,
Paul C, M Varney, Boerjn F and co
>
> I can't be certain but the usual formation of the Lorentz
> is along the lines of
>
> x' = (x - vt)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> but the problem is that in order to observe x' one has to bounce
> a photon off it -- and photons don't travel at infinite speed.
> Therefore, x' may be mismeasured.
>
> The effect is vaguely reminiscent of the image apparently in a mirror.
> One sees the image, but it's not really there -- it's merely because
> we interpret the rays bouncing off the mirror as a mirror image.

Just as the "observers" "see" a shortened version of the train. They
are victims of an illusion brought about by the finite speed of light.
>
> >>
> >> This is correct, in a sense -- but it does illustrate that
> >> one has to be careful where one sites the observer.
> >> For instance, I'm not entirely sure how to approach
> >> the relativistic rocket, as the rocket, exhausting its
> >> gas, is not an inertial reference frame; it's accelerating.

Not in my universe. Space is the background against which I would
measure and compare, but unfortunately I have no way of putting
"markers" on it, by which to compare motions (of photons, or anything
else) :-(
> >
> > Bugger the "observer"! Why should someone watching, cause a change to
> > the length of something?? (or how fast time passes)
>
> It doesn't. It's just that two different observers see two different things.

Why is it that observers of relatavistic events are so thick? If you
looked in a mirror, and saw that you were only two feet tall, you
would say, "this mirror is curved". But when an observer "sees" a
train with the guards van squashed up against the engine, where is the
"look, that train must be going very fast!"??
>
> >>
> >> (I might be able to work around that, though, by firing
> >> off a single "masslet" dM and using two reference frames.
> >> As it is, others have already done it, so it's mostly
> >> a matter of finding it. :-) )
> >>
> >> A fast-moving decaying muon, of course, cannot be observed
> >> in its own reference frame. All we have is the standard
> >> one: a slightly-distorted one sitting on Earth.
> >
> > It isn't "hide the thimble"......why does everything have to be
> > shifted into a different "reference frame", just because we can't work
> > out what is what?
>
> If two different observers see two different things, we can't simply
> ignore the problem, now, can we?

No. Sensible people would not declare (with a foot-stamp), "that train
HAS shrunk!" They would put their heads together, and try to arrive at
a correct conclusion. If the information is problematical to collect
and analyse (as for KE), they might just have to remain in a very
frustrated state of not knowing. Making up bull*** is certainly not
the way to go.
>
> Stationary muons decay with a certain time. Moving muons
> decay (from our vantage point) with a longer time.
> Why is that? As far as I know they're the same type of
> muon, except that the one's moving.

As far as I know, no allowance is made for the possibility that a
photon ever travels at anything other than "c", and it is on that
basis that the data is collected and analysed (probably with
pre-programmed allowances for relativistic corrections). And this hard
in the face of photons in laboratories measured at speeds of mere
meters per second.
>
>> >>
> >> >> The problem is: most particle-particle interactions will require
> >> >> at least a simplified version of QM.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks anyway Ghost, but a lot of it would be wasted on me. I spat the
> >> > dummy around about the page where I discoverd that clocks which were
> >> > designed with built in Relativity considerations, were used to collect
> >> > the data, which in turn was used to "prove" Relativity!!
> >>
> >> And why is this a problem? The first GPS satellites had switchable
> >> correctors. With the corrector switched out, the anomaly was
> >> readily visible; with it switched in, it was not.
> >
> > The "anomaly" being, that the "swithchers" should allow for c+v ref
> > motion of satellites and their EM output
>
> The switchers are no longer needed. The first one proved SR/GR
> anomaly effects; subsequent satellites were built a little more
> simply.
>
> >>
> >> Would you prefer using, say, a grandfather clock? :-)
> >
> > Gramps clock might only do 50 seconds per minute down a well, Ghost!
>
> Not horribly likely unless the well is 640 km deep. (IIRC, the period
> is inversely proportional to the weight of the pendulum -- and I *do*
> mean *weight*.)

Wells can cause trouble! I ken the time my grandpop wanted to pay a
well digger by his watch kept at the bottom, while the digger wanted
payment per surface time (it might have been the other way around).
Anyway, as usual, the only winners were the lawyers, as the judge
ruled that there was no basis for time being different above ground or
below

Catchya Ghost
Jim G

Loading