A Physics forum. Physics Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Physics Banter forum » Physics Newsgroups » Particle Physics
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tags: , , , ,

"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 28th 05 posted to sci.physics.particle
Skrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default "The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"

"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"

A while ago a program was presented on NOVA in which a
physicist described an experiment. In this experiment he used two identical
atomic clocks and transported one of them around the world in a jet
aircraft. He
observed that the transported clock recorded less elapsed time than the
identical clock that remained in place. He concluded from this that time
slowed
down as a result of the aircraft's velocity. He asserted that "as far as he
was
concerned, time is what clocks measure". It is the purpose of this posting
to
examine the validity of his belief.

Suppose we consider an experiment in which we measure the
price of gasoline in two different locations (reference frame #1 and
reference
frame #2) using the units of measurement existing at those locations and
denoted
as dollars and gallons in both. In reference frame #1 we observe that
gasoline
costs $1/gallon and in reference frame #2 we also observe that gasoline
costs
$1/gallon. We can assert from this that the price of gasoline is "a
constant"
(1$/gallon) between those locations that, for this example, are only 10
miles
apart. Can we rigorously assert that the price of gasoline does not change
("is
constant"} between those locations? The answer is that we cannot without
further
information. Suppose one of the locations was in Windsor, Ontario, Canada
and
the other location is across the river in Detroit, Michigan, USA? At the
Canadian location, the price of gasoline would be measured in terms of
Canadian
dollars and Imperial Gallons while at the US location; the price of gasoline
would be measured in US gallons and US dollars. Since the Imperial Gallon is
25%
larger than the US gallon, the price of gasoline, while being "a constant"
(invariant) between those locations, would not be "constant" between them
except
for the case where the Canadian dollar was worth 1.25 US dollars. In this
experiment, in order to draw a legitimate conclusion it is necessary to take
in
consideration the relative sizes of the units of measurement for fluid and
money
at the two locations (reference frames) even though they have the same
names.

The same requirement is incumbent on an experimenter who is
making measurements between reference frames (elevation or velocity). Before
we
can draw any conclusion as to what is actually occurring between two
reference
frames which differ in elevation or velocity, we must first determine how
the
appropriate units of measurement are affected by the difference in reference
frame and correct the readings made locally appropriately. (This is no
different
than the technique used by land surveyors when they correct their
measurements
of distance for the effects of ambient temperature on their steel tapes. I
would
assert that the science of physics should be at least as rigorous as the
more
mundane field of land surveying.) The information needed to make the
corrections
for reference frames that differ in velocity were provided in 1903 by
Fitzgerald, Larmor, and Lorentz and are collectively known as the Lorentz
Transformations. The resultant theory was denoted as the Lorentz
Transformation-Aether Theory. Using these transformations, one finds that
the
effects of velocity are quite reasonable in terms of classical Newtonian
Physics, THERE IS NO MYSTERY. In 1905 Dr. Einstein derived Special
Relativity
using mathematics applied to accepted physical laws. If one examines both
theories one finds that they are actually the same theory since one may be
derived from the other, with the Aether Relativity Theory being a special
case
solution of STR in which one of the infinite number of solutions that STR
allows
between the limits of +/- C represents the Aether but we are prevented from
measuring that velocity with respect to it by the Lorentz Transformations
and
the velocity limit on communications imposed by the velocity of light.

When one examines the atomic clock experiment one must decide
between one of two interpretations. One must consider the possibility of
whether
that velocity of the trip caused the moving clock to speed up during one
part of
its trip around the world and to slow up on the part so that the total
elapsed
time was consistent with the observation. The other interpretation was that
the
velocity made the rate of passage of time itself change due to its movement
through space-time. In order to distinguish between the possibilities, it is
necessary only necessary to consider the effects of a change in reference
frame
occurring when the observations are made and these observations are made at
the
same location and at the same velocity reference and, as a result, we must
conclude that it was not time which slowed during the trip, it was the speed
of
the clock. (This conclusion may be made easier to accept when one recognizes
that the experiment could have been set up, in principle, in a form akin the
auto speed tests on the Bonneville Salt Flats in which the clock travels at
a
constant rate of speed and in a straight line in one direction and then is
stopped and reversed indirection and returns to its starting point along the
same straight line. All of the measurements would be made by identical
clocks
with the time required to turn the vehicle around subtracted from the time
difference. Spacetime is not involved in this analysis.) Since all of the
measurements of the actual experiment were made at the same location and
velocity reference frame, the actual elapsed time must have been the same
for
both clocks one must conclude that it was the moving clock that slowed its
speed
and not a reduction of the actual passage of time.

The physicists assertion that "time is what clocks measure" is
naive. "Time is what clocks measure after the assumed speed of the clock has
been corrected for the change in size of the units of measurement for time
resulting from velocity". (In other words, changing the velocity of the
clock
caused its scale factor to change. there are sound and easily understood
physical reason as why this occurs.) Larmor was intelligent enough to
provide
the necessary correction factor (the Lorentz Transformation for Time and Dr.
Einstein was considerate enough to derive it rigorously from basic
principles.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity"
{1997}). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH
EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL
OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT
ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF
WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.


Ads
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems" Skrow Physics - General Discussion 0 December 28th 05 08:56 PM
"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems" Yabe The Theory of Relativity 0 September 21st 05 03:19 PM
"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems" Tahc The Theory of Relativity 11 August 16th 05 02:03 PM
"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems" Tahc Physics - General Discussion 6 August 13th 05 03:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 Physics Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Loans - Credit Card - Online Advertising - Free Ringtones - Loans