Re: McCullough asks for help

From: Dr. Photon (brendan.roycroft_at_nmrc.ie)
Date: 02/19/05 

Date: 19 Feb 2005 13:11:34 -0800

"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:<N7tRd.149612$K7.74211@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
[snip]
> > The SR transform may or may not apply to the universe as we know it,
> > and is measurable as such. Mathematically it is possible to come up
> > with any transform you like, but from a physics point of view the one
> > that describes measurements is the one you go for.
>
>
> Uh huh, sure. The Galilean agrees with the PoR. SR does not.
>

But do they both describe relevant experiments equally well? There is
no time dilation in Galilean transform, but there is in SR, and it has
been observed.

>
> >
> > SR being measurably correct is the validation of it.
> > Of course, it could be wrong, in which case it would be measurably
> > wrong, and so
> > would have to be dropped/modified.
>
> How? What error bound would you use on your apparatus and what is the
> pass/fail threshhold?
>

Something which is out by a full significant digit. Do you have any
example where a prediction of SR/GR is out by such an amount?

> > As SR is a subset of GR, then
> > confirmation of GR also implies confirmation of SR. And as Uncle Al
> > has been saying, there is a lot of confirmation of both systems.
>
> What Uncle Sch-wart-zit flatly refuses to listen to is the alternative
> explanation of the same empirical data. He is totally blind to anything
> that confirms any alternate. [snip]
>

Maybe he thinks the alternative explanation doesn't explain it. What
of the Hafele-Keating result? I didn't see anything on your website.
 
> >
> > The example with mosquitoes would be fine if mosquitoes were the
> > fastest carriers of information in the universe. It is easy to fall
> > into the trap of describing the example from a "God's-eye-view" where
> > everything is known instantaneously. But if things are not known
> > instantaneously, then you have to wait for messages to arrive and you
> > have to come up with procedures of how to measure lengths and times.
> > Einstein's ones seem reasonable. Do you have a better way?
>
> Yes.
> Return to the principles Galileo established. Reason is one of them.
> There is no magic. Einstein had no mechanism to cause his light to be
> constant in some vague "empty space", always c. That is his say-so,
> no reason. Measure it if you must, as you must. Shoot the moon with a
> laser from the ISS and look at the reflection with HST. Get rid of
> atmosphere by going above it. Add velocity. It doesn't matter how
> "reasonable" Einstein seemed, I think he was a charlatan. Another
> Ptolemy. The only thing I've heard from Schwartz that makes any sense at
> all is
> "Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count."
> All the rest of his spewing psychotic crap has no vote.
> Will anybody do it? Eventually.
> Would Schwartz support it?
> This is his reaction:
> "[snip crap]
> Idiot."
>
> You want to uphold a bigot as an example of a scientist?
>

I don't really refer to Al, but rather the references he posts. I have
read loads of articles on the testing of relativity, and they have all
said that it has agreed to every decimal place measured. That is the
whole point of having finer tests in orbit, to try and get more
decimal places to see if there is a disagreement somewhere. Nobody has
found one yet.

>
> > As for your question: when they change reference frames,
>
> What change of reference frames?
>

If they are initially "standing still", and then start running, you
can describe the situation from the old "stationary" frame, or the new
"moving" frame. The new one requires resynchronization.

>
> they either
> > have to recalibrate their clocks so that the time of flight from S to
> > J is the same as J to S (they appear to be at rest wrt themselves), or
> > they keep their old system. If they are going to reset their clocks,
>
> Why reset?
>

They have the choice of t0. If they synchronize in the "stationary"
frame, and then start moving, the time will be different for the
mosquito to travel from S to J than from J to S. So they can (if they
so wish) agree that J changes the number on his clock to make that
time look the same. If they decide to keep their original
synchronization, they can do this also. But what if they had never
been "stationary"? They would want to know how to set their clocks to
be synchronized, and would do so by the equal time method. This would
result in one of them changing the number on his clock so that it is
now "synchronized".

What they don't have control over is the rate at which their clocks
run at. This is where SR becomes a measurable theory, and it has to be
confirmed from experiment whether a moving clock runs slow or not.
This was done by the Hafele-Keating experiment (among others, such as
by particle decay times, of which I'm sure you are familiar, and know
you disagree with). If clocks were found not to have run slower, then
SR would have to be dropped, and it would be back to Galileo. So how
do you explain time dilation again? Do you say it does not happen?

> > the most reasonable way seems to be by the method Einstein described.
> > If they don't do this, they can keep the original coordinate system,
> > and everything continues to be described by those coordinates and they
> > get the laws of physics according to that system. In this case it does
> > look like it takes longer for light to go from S to J than J to S.
>
> According to Einstein:
> It takes light 16 seconds for light to go from S to J when thay are 32 *
> 60,000 km apart and comoving at 0.6c, as measure in the "stationary"
> frame.
> That's 80 * 60,000 km, 16 seconds.
> to save repeating 60,000 km, it's 80 q, and SoL is 5 q/sec.
> It would take 4 seconds to return, a distance of 20q
> Einstein DEFINES the time to be the same each way.
> Jumping ahead, with hindsight,
> tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
>
> tau = (16 - 3 * 80/25) / 0.8
> = 8
> so:
> the function tau(t) is therefore:
>
> tau(16) = 8
> tau(4) = 8
> tau(16 + 4) = 16.
>
> That is NOT a linear function.
> Einstein claims it is.
>
>
> > Einstein's point (IMO) is that it is always possible to recalibrate
> > your clock/ruler so that you get all the same laws as previously, so
> > there is no way to say which set of coordinates is "correct". You can
> > validly say the ladder is 32 ft or 40 ft, who is correct?
>
> Not the point. Logic doesn't care about opinions, and neither does
> Nature.
> Not your opinion, not my opinion, not Einstein's opinion, not anyone's
> opinion.

That is my point, glad we agree.

> The function tau(t) is not linear.

That is not my point, and about which at the moment I have no point. I
might get back to you on this.

>
> > It is just
> > "according to me" or "according to you".
>
> Those are opinions. I don't care about opinions either.
>

Same here, that's the point. If in one valid measuring system it has
one value, in another valid measuring system it has a different value,
then which value is correct??? Take your pick. It is only the
"opinion" of each valid measuring system.

[snip]
> > The ladder doesn't stretch, so there is no difference in acceleration.
> > It is 40 ft when they are at rest in the first coordinate system, and
> > is also 40 ft in the second coordsys when they are running.
>
> Actually, there are 3 clocks and 3 pairs to synchronize.
> One is at the origin, and S and J each have one.
> O-J sync. (16 + 16)/2 =16
> S-J sync. (8 + 8)/2 = 8
> S-O sync. (8 + 8)/2 = 8
> it is 40 q from O to S.
>
> Time at O = 0
> Time at S = 8
> Time at J = 16.
>
> S and J are same frame, different time.
>

sorry, but I'm not sure what you refer to here. How does this relate
to original problem? If "S" refers to "mosquito at S event", then does
the above refer to the recalibrated "moving" SJ frame rather than the
"stationary" frame? Then why do you say they start walking in the next
paragraph, and why/how is S beginning at 0q when t=8?

>
> J begins at 40q and walks to 80q
> S begins at 0q and walks to 40q
>
> J ....(80-40)/16 = 2.5 q/s
>
> Something isn't right.

You're right there. I'd like to comment on the above, but can't
reconstruct what you're doing. Is this a new problem?

> 3 q/s was given.
>
> Galilean:
>
> J begins at 32q and walks to 80q
> S begins at 0q and walks to 48q
> J.... (80 - 32)/16 = 3 q/s
> S... 48/16 = 3 q/s
>
> Double the speed if you like, you won't
> change the length of the ladder.
>
> J.... (80 - 32)/8 = 6 q/s
> S... 48/8 = 6 q/s
>
> It DOES matter that the ladder stretched. It changed the speed.
> Now we have to enter into recursion, because going slower will reduce
> the stretch.
>
[snip seemingly irrelevant bit on ellipses. Was this part of the
epicycle analogy?]
> SR as it stands is not logical. That crashes GR as well. Too bad.
>
> Androcles

I suspect you have a synchronization error from the way you mixed the
coordinate systems, but I'm not sure what you are doing. Please
describe the above example again.

Is it like the following: Sam and Joe are "stationary", holding a 40ft
ladder. Then they agree that "at time t on our synchronized clocks,
lets run to the right at 3ft/s". So they each count on their own
clocks "1, 2, 3, ... t GO!". They then simultaneously run for 40 ft at
3 ft/s, noting down the coordinates of the stationary frame as they
go, and then stop again. When they look back at all the coordinate
labels in the stationary frame they passed at what time, they always
find a 40 ft ladder, even though it should be measured as a 32 ft
ladder because it was moving through the stationary frame.

If so, I'll get back to you on this also.

BR.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR length contraction - the train example reworked.
    ... this distance comes up with the speed of light. ... running slower than in the embankment rest frame. ... measuring rods and clocks in the other frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... So now we have the problem of measuring duration, ... called simultaneity or, to use another Latin word, synchrony ... synchronous in frame A are not synchronous in frame B, ... we had, for example, a whole series of clocks scattered throughout -- ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... So now we have the problem of measuring duration, ... called simultaneity or, to use another Latin word, synchrony ... synchronous in frame A are not synchronous in frame B, ... we had, for example, a whole series of clocks scattered throughout -- ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: K&N Air Filters - Anyone have any comments on these?
    ... the chance of you having identical compression on all 4 at that mileage is slim to zero. ... There are 33,500 miles on my car and it was due for an air filter, so I wanted to go with one of the best. ... they're fine for racers as they don't expect long engine life anyway, but it's unlikely you'll see much difference in performance compared with a clean factory filter unless you do extensive engine work. ... I usually use a fuel injector cleaner, but this is a little new to me. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.honda)
  • Re: Latest AUE Boink!
    ... are taking over the aslylum. ... What's happening, in some threads at least, is that the vast majority ... of us have been so repulsed by one poster that we're keeping away. ... which show AR to be a fellow nit-wit. ...
    (alt.usage.english)