Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:57:26 GMT

"Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:CdAod.23397$Rf1.2102@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:QzPnd.26626$5b1.21051@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Androcles wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:OxAmd.21230$Rf1.1924@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <Snip simple requests>
>
>>>>: Androcles wrote:
>>>>: > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>: > news:aNAld.8040$RO.4278@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>: > : Androcles wrote:
>>>>: > : > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>: > : > news:FPhld.19095$Rf1.2732@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>: > : > : Androcles wrote:
>>>>: > : > : > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>: > : > : > news:qJdld.19024$Rf1.1010@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>: > : > : > : Androcles wrote:
>>>>: > : > : > : > "Peter Kupfer" <pkupfer@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>: > : > : > : >
>>>>news:C1Tkd.28048$Qv5.3103@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>: > : > : > : > : Androcles wrote:
>>>>: > : > : No, I am a poor High School teacher.
>>
>>
>> I didn't write that. I've never been a poor high school teacher. In
>> fact, I've never been inside a poor High School.
>
> No one said you did. If you look at the markings you can tell that you
> didn't write it. That has been there for like the past 7 messages.

Not very good, snipping material and leaving the impression I did, is
it?

>
>>>>: > : > :
>>>>: > : > : However, I found a few who have.
>>>>: > : > :
>>>
>>><I have snipped my list of sources for experiments that support
>>>relativity to save space.>
>>
>>
>> Anyone can look up
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#5.%20Twin%20paradox
>> and find lists of experiments purporting to support relativity.
>> I've analyzed quite a few of them.
>> You are a great Haefele & Keating supporter, I believe.
>> Henri Wilson (who can think) suggested a plane went around the Earth
>> directly underneath a GPS satellite. Do you still think the clock it
>> carries
>> would disagree with the GPS clock? And don't give me any bull***
>> about it being possible, either. Concorde (scrapped after 30 years)
>> could have managed it. The period of the GPS constellation is 12
>> hours.
>> 25,000 miles around the Earth, 12 hours, 2083 mph. Mach 3... well,
>> almost manage it. Maybe we'd need a Blackbird.
>
> There are some problems with your set-up (and I am not doubting we
> could
> do it.)
>
> A GPS would have to move faster than an airplane than airplane because
> it would have to cover more distance because it further from the
> Earth.
> According to <<http://tinyurl.com/3jh2t>> GPS orbit at 12,000 miles
> above the Earth. So there distance would be 2*3.14*12000 = 75360
> miles.
> Speed would be 6280 mph. While this may seem fast, it is only 6 times
> faster than the equator and it is .000009378c. So, any relativistic
> effects if would feel would be minimal, but still more than the
> airplane. I would imagine though, the clocks are updated by the radio
> wave fairly often so it would be hard to get a read on them.
>
> In addition to all of this when the GPS system was first implemented
> Carol O. Alley pointed out that there would be relativistic affects on
> the satellites. He over calculated them but, to this day GPS
> satellites
> have to be corrected for the time dilation affects.
>
> In short, yes if the plane and the GPS satellite are at different
> speeds
> and the clocks are precise enough to measure the relativistic effects,
> then they would be different.
>
> Did Wilson disagree with that? What was the point of this question?

Above the GPS constellation at 22,300 miles are the communications
satellites. We aim dish antennae at them.
Would they have "relativistic effects" more than the plane too?
Let's think about that for a moment.
By definition, 360 degrees equates to 24 hours,
on earth as it does in heaven. Forgive us this day our daily
dilation, as we forgive those that dilate against us.
If the satellite advances eastward or retards westward, it also changes
its time, doesn't it? When a geosynchronous satellite is over Tokyo,
does it have the same time as a similar satellite over the East Coast
of the USA?
Let us take things to the extreme for the moment and imagine
the satellite is going so fast that its clock slows to half speed.
This happens to be 0.866c and it would disobey Newtonian law
by hurtling off into space, but you've not accepted those laws anyway.
For the purpose of this demonstration we'll assume gravity
is strong enough to keep the satellite in a circular orbit.
Let the radius of the orbit be r, and the distance be 2.pi.r.
On Earth we determine its speed as 2 t, and since speed is
distance / time we have v = 2.pi.r/2t = pi r./t distances per time.
The satellite computes the same distance = 2pi.r/t such that u = 2v,
does it not? Yet nowhere in relativity are this different velocities
taken into account.
What we do have is length contraction, however, and since
u = v, it follows that the R = r/2.
In other words, the satellite operates at a different altitude in its
FoR than it does in Earth's FoR.
Setting r at geosynchronous distance (we'll speed up the Earth's
rate of rotation to match) we send a radio signal to the satellite
which takes (say) 20 microseconds to reach it, and it then returns
the signal in 10 microseconds because it is only r/2 from the
Earth and the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference.

>
> <Snip my ignored reasoning.>

A good idea. You really should try reasoning.

>>>>: > : People went on an airplane and did this and you still don't
>>>>: > : believe it. What do you want?
>>>>: >
>>>>: > Proof.
>>>>:
>>>>: Please define proof. This happened. If you want to say that every
>>>>: experiment is a lie, I guess you can, but then I don't know what
>>>>you
>>>>: will ever believe, unless you have the means to recreate every
>>>>: experiment ever performed.
>>>>:
>>>>: Let me be specific. In the experiment performed by Haefele and
>>>>Keating,
>>>>: (Haefele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (Proposal);
>>>>Science Vol.
>>>>: 177 pg 166--170 (1972)) in which two clocks were flown in
>>>>opposites
>>>>: directions with a control clock on ground and the two clock came
>>>>back to
>>>>: the Earth with different times that were within the predictions of
>>>>: relativity, what was wrong with that experiment? Why isn't that
>>>>proof?
>>>>
>>>>It is a statement. Where is your data?
>>>>It is not a proof without data, and did you subject the clocks to
>>>>the same
>>>>buffeting of turbulence and acceleration inherent with a commercial
>>>>flight, the changing magnetic field of the Earth, log the altitude
>>>>and duration at that altitude throughout the experiment? Without a
>>>>control clock on the ground being subjected to the same environment,
>>>>all you have is a couple of clocks that do not record the time
>>>>correctly when tossed around.
>>>
>>>Yes, in the experiment those factors are taken into account.
>>
>>
>> Show me where it says the movement through the Earth's magnetic field
>> was taken into account, I can't find it.
>
> I repeat, <<http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/time.html>>

Show me where the Earth's magnetic field was taken into account on that
page, because I repeat, I can't find it. Either cut and paste it here,
or admit
you have not got that taken into account.
>
> <Snip the data from the H&K experiment.>
>
>>>(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#5.%20Twin%20paradox)
>>
>> Ever considered the uncertainties might be more that 25 ns?
>> No, of course not. You take it on faith.
>
> No, I have not. Why would they be?
>
> Regardless the second clock gained 273 ns, which far exceeds the
> uncertainty.

So the uncertainly is greater that 273 ns, but you've taken the lying 25
ns on faith!
Time dilation is impossible, it also changes the speed and speed changes
are
not accounted for in relativity. If the clock took longer at the same
speed
it must have travelled further. Where did the extra distance come from?

>
>> How about reading this:
>> 8. Experiments Which Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR
>> It is clear that most if not all of these experiments have
>> difficulties which are unrelated to SR. In some cases the
>> inconsistent experiment has been carefully repeated and been shown to
>> be in error.
>
> Which experiment from that list are you claiming is a good example of
> relativity not being true?
>
>> Did anyone ever bother to repeat Haefele and Keating to see if it was
>> in error?
>>
>> Well? Did they?
>
> Please give me a chance to answer before you ask twice. :)
>
> I have no idea.

Fine. So you took it on faith.

But there are several similar experiments that have
> been
> done, and since we have the situation with the GPS satellites as
> living
> proof of the issue, there is no need to repeat the experiment now.

Ok, so a GPS satellite travels a greater distance in it own FoR
than it does in the ground FoR. Prove it.
>
> I don't not have the original documents because most of these studies
> were done before I was born, and I don't have access to them, but that
> site lists several over studies that have been done along the same
> lines
> several of which have the same result.
>
> Additionally there is the NTS-2 Satellite that was launch in 1977
> which
> after 20 days in orbit had a change in frequency of "+442.5 parts in
> 10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity
> predicted +446.5 parts in10^12. The difference was well within the
> accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock."
> <<http://tinyurl.com/6pdrv>>

Where did the extra distance come from if it has the same v?
If is does NOT have the same v, show me where in SR/GR the speeds
are different.

>
> At <<http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf>> this project includes
> many facts and figures regarding the time dilation that occurs in real
> objects.
>
> Your position and claims remind me a lot of a theory I heard about a
> few
> years ago called _The Vortex Theory_. They make a lot of claims with
> no
> experimental basis. See it at <<http://www.thevortextheory.com/>>.

You want to claim a lot of theory without reasoning, too. The simple
answer is that the clock is not keeping the accuracy claimed.
No, I can't be bothered to read anything that you claim is ridiculous.
You are not making a point with it.

>> No, of course not. It's whoopee! We get the result we like. Anyone
>> else performs an experiment
>>
>> that disproves Einstein and it HAS to be in error. Yeah, right.
>
> Why don't you perform it, and when it doesn't work, write it up,
> publish
> it and convince everyone. Despite your claims, you can disprove the
> theory.

Listen up, poor teacher. Don't tell me what to do. You listen to me,
and start reasoning before you continue filling your own head and
the heads of your pupils with nonsense. I'm telling you, got that?

>>>For analysis on your other concerns one place I found was
>>>http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/time.html.
>>
>> That's a neat web page with the animation. Shows time dilation
>> nicely. Here's my version.
>
> I'm glad you like it. :)
>
>> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/gardner.htm
>>
>> It shows time compression just be changing the angle of the beam.
>
> This can be explained by simple trigonometry. The speed of light is c
> in
> the direction is is "shot" at. Let's say for simplicities sake the
> angle
> between the light source and the ceiling of the ship is 45 degrees.
> That
> would result in the following triangle.
>
> |\
> | \
> | \
> | \
> .71 c| \ c
> | \
> | \
> | \
> |________\
> .71 c
>
> The height of the ship would have to be 1/2 the length of the ship in
> order for this to work since the x & y velocities are equal (If the
> angles weren't 45 this would be different). I am going to say that the
> height of the ship is 500m and the length is 1000m. Let's assume the
> ships have a speed of .8c since they are near the speed of light.
> There are several reasons this experiment is flawed.
>
Yes, you are totally flawed. How the hell do you claim the ship
has a speed of 0.8c with a diagram showing 0.71c ?
You really are poor teacher if you think you can get that past a
teenager,
let alone me. Go and learn basic trigonometry.

> 1) The speed of the light in the y-direction is irrelevant in so far
> as
> measuring the time as long the height/length ration is 1:2.

No, poor teacher, the speed of light is (supposed to be) c in all frames
of
reference.
Not only that, but the y distance is very much relevant.
Distance is speed * time. The length of the hypotenuse is ct and the
y-distance is ct, so the x-distance is zero. vt = 0, hence v =0.
I'd show you that using Einstein's math, but it is beyond your poor
teacher's understanding.

So now,
> you
> have the person in the other ship measure the time of light moving at
> a
> rate of .71c. You can't treat the velocities combined like you want
> to.

That's right, you can't.

> When you shoot at an angle you have to resolve into components. The
> astronaut on the other ship will only be able to measure how long it
> takes the x-component of the light's speed to cover the 1000m. This
> works out to be 4.72e-6 sec. (Which will be the same for the light to
> move vertically also.)
>
> 2) Now we run into problem #2, which time is the astronaut who shot
> the
> light going to measure. Is he going to measure the amount of time for
> the light to move vertically, horizontally, or on an angle. Truth be
> told, it won't matter. Since we have done the vertical and horizontal
> measurements already, let's look at the angle. While this is highly
> unorthodox, I think that if we find the hypotenuse of the length
> triangle
> it should work out. This is our triangle:
>
> |\
> | \
> | \
> | \
> 500 m| \ d = 707 m (1/2 way)
> | \
> | \
> | \
> |________\
> 500 m
> So the total distance the light will travel at angle is 1414 m. If we
> find the time for light to travel that far it is 4.71e-6 s which is
> within rounding errors. (I can do the calculation with more precision
> if
> you like.)
>
> So, you conclusion is wrong. In you set-up (which I think is flawed,
> see below) the astronauts would measure the same time, not a faster or
> slower time. I still think this conclusion is wrong/irrelevant because
> the experiment is set up poorly.

Oh? Really? Got it! If it doesn't produce the result you want, it was
done
poorly. You really ARE a VERY poor teacher.
If I don't aim the beam at a perfect right-angle to get the result you
want,
I don't pass my exams, right? By aiming the beam at an angle of
arctan(v/c) away from the direction of motion, totally destroying your
crackpottery, I've done a poor experiment. Get thee behind me, Satan.

I'm not reading the rest of your rant, you fucking hypocrite.
Androcles.

Quantcast