Re: TIME, you old gipsy man
From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: Geo Incog: "Re: Threats -- Who is this jerk?"
- Previous message: Raymond Yohros: "Re: Einstein's attraction to science?"
- In reply to: Van: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Next in thread: Jesse Mazer: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Feb 2005 09:25:16 -0800
Van wrote:
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Van wrote:
> > >
> > > Well I tried to post a simple question regarding time dilation in
> SR,
> > > but may be was not clear enough on my enquiry. I will try to
> reframe it
> > > here.
> >
> > Your intractible stupidity is not our problem.
> >
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > > First let us refer to the Hafele and Keating Experiment
> > > (thanks to Uncle Al for the link he provided in my first post
> > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)
> > > [During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown
on
> > > regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world
twice,
> once
> > > eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of
relativity
> > > with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each
trip,
> the
> > > theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference
> clocks
> > > at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23
nanoseconds
> > > during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21
> nanoseconds
> > > during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of
> the
> > > U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10
nanoseconds
> > > during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the
> > > westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard
> > > deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical
> resolution
> > > of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks." ]
> >
> > You got it.
> >
> > > Now let us imagine we have: 1) three perfectly synchronised
clocks
> > > ClockL ClockV and ClockB, 2) two spaceships S1 and S2 and 3)
three
> > > astronauts namely Ludwig Van and Beethoven. Let us also imagine
> that
> > > each spaceship has perfect arrangements through cameras and
> displays
> > > such that the other two clocks are always visible. Similarly let
> the
> > > earthbound station have similar arrangements so that the other
two
> > > clocks are made constantly visible. Now let Ludwig and Beethoven
> move
> > > away with constant velocity from the earthbound Van in opposite
> > > directions with velocity .2c. Now my question is what will Van
see?
> > > Will the clock with him (ClockV) still tick in the same way as
the
> two
> > > other clocks(ClockL and ClockB) displayed on his screen? If not
> then
> > > how will they change? Does the length of the ticks change? Does
the
> > > "definition" of the seconds change? What is exactly meant by
saying
> > > "time changes" "nanoseconds gained" or "nanoseconds lost". If the
> > > answer to my question "Whether Van will see ClockV ClockL and
> ClockB
> > > moving in the same way?" yes then how can we justify the claims
of
> SR
> > > or the "Hafele and Keating Experiment" which concluded that
> > > "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory,
> the
> > > flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip
and
> > > gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip" My question
is
> if
> > > it is an experimental fact that clocks actually gained or lost
> > > nanoseconds then how exactly it happens?
> >
> > The clock that travels furthest through space travels least through
> > time. ds^2 is constant. The relative rates depend on the inertial
> > observers when the clocks are locally compared. You can't "look"
at
> a
> > distant clock and get a meaningful answer. You cannot even
determine
> > distance: A relativistic universe has four distinct distances:
> > luminosity (inverse square), angular diameter, parallax, and proper
> > motion. No two of them need agree to maintain consistency. Clocks
> > can only be synchronized by being local.
> >
>
> Is there any way to ascertain that the * time gain/loss *
> "actually" happens or is just a flaw of "observation".
> Please do not answer if you think the question is stupid.
> My intractible stupidity is not your problem.
It is not a FLAW of observation. There is no independent reality to the
time gain/loss outside the observation.
>
> Thanks anyway.
> Van.
> PS: Have a good weekend.
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
- Next message: Geo Incog: "Re: Threats -- Who is this jerk?"
- Previous message: Raymond Yohros: "Re: Einstein's attraction to science?"
- In reply to: Van: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Next in thread: Jesse Mazer: "Re: TIME, you old gipsy man"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
