"snapdragon31" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 4:55 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"snapdragon31" wrote in message

...
On Jan 29, 10:40 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:





"snapdragon31" wrote in message

...

On Jan 29, 8:54 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jan 29, 8:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

According to relativists, GPS clocks GAIN 38us per day on the
ground
clock.
That is due to two components, 45us for gravity and -7us for
relative
speed.

Accordingly, an observer (OO) in GPS orbit would see the GC LOSING
52us
per
day.

After one year, the OO would calculate that the OC was about 19ms
ahead
of the
GC.
However, the GO would calculate that his GC was only 13ms behind.

What happens when the clocks are reunited?
Who is right?

Two people drive different routes from city A to
city B. When they are reunited, one odometer reads
220 km and the other reads 230 km. Which one is
right?
According to relativity, both odometer readings are wrong. They do
not represent the true distance of the routes travelled because of the
length contraction effect.

It was an anlogy only .. derr .. to illustrate that taking different
paths
in space gives you different elapsed distances .. and that similarly
different paths in space time can give you different elapsed times. And
there is no such thing as 'true distance' in any case.

According to Newton's law, both odometer readings are right.

Just as in SR, both clocks are right in the so-called twins paradox.
They
are simply measuring different quantities.

The GPS clock paradox is a variation of the twin paradox, so no valid
solution.

Why not .. the so-called twins paradox is well explained by relativity
by
a
number of methods (all giving the same results) .. why do you think
there
is
no 'solution'? Why do you even think there is something there that needs
solving?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Yes, there are tons of solutions to the twin paradox

There is nothing to solve

but none of them is a valid solution.

They all predict the same result. Why do you think they are all invalid ..
is it because they all give the same reults which is different to what
you'd
like it to be?

Let me show you why it is a logical problem that has no solution.

It isn't a problem .. its a statement of what would happen.

Assuming that Lorentz transformation can predict the time and distance
of the other frame.
Let v = velocity of the moving twin M
x = distance measured by stationary twin S
t = time measured by twin S

x' = distance measured by twin M
t' = time measured by twin M

What distances and times are you measuring?

The information we have is:
1. v - velocity of moving twin.
2. x = v * t

3. x' = v * t'

OK .. so we area assuming here that x and t are the distance and duration
the stationary twin S sees the moving twin M travel on the first leg of
the
journey, and that corresponds to a distance of x' and t' that the moving
twin M seems the stationary twin S travel.

4. x' = x * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
5. t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Lets just double check that .. LT tells us that (assuming we have that at
t=t'=0 x=x'=0, the corresponding event for (x,t) for S is (x',t') for M,
where
x' = gamma(x - vt)
t' = gamma(t - xv/c^2)
where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
So when M (as seen from S) has gone a distance x = vt, M will be at
(x1',t1') in its own frame of reference
x1' = gamma(vt - vt)
x1' = 0 (as expected .. M has not moved relative to itself)
t1' = gamma(t - vtv/c^2)
t1' = gamma(t(1 - v^2/c^2))
t1' = gamma(t(1 - v^2/c^2))
t1' = t/gamma
and at that time, M will see S as being at (x2',t2')
x2' = -vt1'
x2' = -vt/gamma
x2' = -x/gamma
So that's all fine (other than getting the sign correct there)

I hate equations.

I wonder why?

Let me convert them into numbers.
Let v = 0.995c and x = 10c both v and x can be measured accurately
1/gamma = sqrt(1 - 0.995^2) = 0.1

close enough .. and gamma = 10.013

From the point of view of twin S.
Eq 2. t = x / v = 10c / 0.995c = 10.05 years
Eq 4. x' = x * sqrt(1 - 0.995^2) = x * 0.1 = c
Eq 5. t' = t * 0.1 = 1.005 years (Calculated)
x' = c and
v * t' = 0.995c * 10.05 = c
Eq 3. x' = v * t' = c

Sounds fine so far

Using Lorentz transformation the calculated time twin M used is 1.005
years.
So far so good if the time measured by twin M is 1.005 years for the
whole journey.

The first leg of it .. ie the trip away from S .. yes

So I assume now you are going to look at it all in reverse

1'. v - velocity of moving twin (S).
2'. x' = v * t'
3'. x = v * t
4'. x = x' * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
5'. t = t' * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Assuming that the measured time is the same as the calculated time =
1.005 year.

What is the difference between 'measured' and 'caclulated' as you see it?

From twin M's point of view:
v = 0.995c Velocity of twin S and it can be measured by accurately
t' = 1.005 years (measured)
Eq 2'. x' = 0.995c * 1.005 = c
Eq 4'. x = x' * 0.1 = c * 0.1 = 0.1c (Calculated)
Eq 5'. t = t1 * 0.1 = 0.1005 year
x = 0.1c and v * t = 0.995c * 0.1005 = 0.1c
Eq 3'. x = v * t = 0.1c

So far there is still no problem as long as the calculated x and the
measured x are the same. Unfortunately, the calculated x = 0.1c and
the measured x = 10c.
As a conclusion, Lorentz transformation is not valid at least in one
situation.

As explained to you before .. you have used the same name x here for two
different values. You are confusing yourself as a result.

In the first case x is how far M travels in time t
In the second case x is how far M travels in time t/gamma

How could you expect them to be equal?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Both case refer to the same journey - the first leg of the journey of
M from Earth to a star 10c away.

The first one does refer to the whole journey .. the second one does not

[snip same thinkg repeated for no good reason]

At the very beginning, we know that the value of x measured by S is
10c

Yes .. it is.

And that is a different thinkg to the x you calculated in the second set of
equations. Which is why it has a different value. Just calling two thing x
does not mean they are the same thing.

so the predicted value of 0.1c must be wrong.

No .. it is a prediction of a different thing .. it is NOT a measurement of
the distance between the S and point 10c away.

Lorentz transformation does not work in this case.

Yes .. it does .. perfectly. You just don't understand how to apply it.

[snip more misunderstanding]

I suggest you look at the pole and barn paradox. That is where you have
(say) a pole 10m long and a barn 5m long with doors at each end .. but if
the pole is moving faster enough, length contraction means that according to
an observer in the bar, the pole is less than 5m long .. which means if the
observer in the barn times it right, when the pole enters one end of the
barn, he can close the front and rear doors at the same time temporarily
trapping the 10m pole in the 5m barn, and then open the doors a fraction of
a second later to let the pole out the other end. YET, as the barn is
moving relative to the pole with the same relative speed, the barn must be
less than 2.5m long according to the pole .. so how can the pole be trapped
wholly within a barn that is more than 4 times shorter than the barn?

When you understand how that can work, that may help you see why you are
having problems understanding your scenario.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:08:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe


Not true, the reflected beam will be doppler shifted.

Yes, both wavelength and frequency experience a doppler shift.

Only in SR (though both have been observed). In Newtonian
math the frequency changes as per the Doppler, but theany waves
wavelength is unaltered.

It depends on who is moving relative to the medium (assuming we are talking
about doppler shifting of waves in a medium) .. the source or the observer.

In ballistic theory, there aren't really any waves in a medium (so how
*does* ballistic theory account for the wave-like behaviour of light?)

Hey, idiot, in SR there aren't really any waves in a medium.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"snapdragon31" wrote in message
...

| The equation "Distance = Speed * Time" was taught in grade school. I
| don't expect that you do not know that. Distance is a scaler
| quantity. Distance is always positive. Please don't add a negative
| sign to make it negative.

AB is a vector, BA = -(AB)

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Jan 29, 5:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

According to relativists, GPS clocks GAIN 38us per day on the
ground clock. That is due to two components, 45us for gravity
and -7us for relative speed.

Accordingly, an observer (OO) in GPS orbit would see the GC
LOSING 52us per day.

After one year, the OO would calculate that the OC was about 19ms
ahead of the GC. However, the GO would calculate that his GC was
only 13ms behind.

What happens when the clocks are reunited?
Who is right?

It does not have to use the GPS to point out the absolute stupidity in
the Lorentz transform as it manifests the twin's paradox through the
very combination of the time dilation and the principle of relativity.

Say two piles of identical radio-active materials each with a half-
life of 500uSec orbit each other at 300m/Sec of orbiting speed. After
1 billion years according to each pile, the time dilation as observed
by any observer comoving with each pile of this toxic material becomes
500uSec. All of a sudden, each pile goes through the same but low
acceleration and brings each other to rest. How much of the original
radio-active material is left according to each pile?

The same. Why?

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
| On Jan 30, 7:29 pm, "Ockham" wrote:
| Your way:- change both wavelength and frequency
| Transmit: wavelength = 1 foot, frequency 10 Hz for one second,
| speed relative to source = 10 fps.
| Receive: wavelength = 2 foot, frequency 5 Hz for one second,
| speed relative to receiver = 10 fps, 5 cycles received.
|
| In 1 second.

So the wide receiver catches the ball at 100 fps as he runs
away from it and the quarterback threw the ball at 100 fps
while standing still.
That you do not understand Galilean relativity is your problem.

"snapdragon31" wrote in message ...

[snip]

Hi Dirk Vdm,

Do you know relativity? I am not interested in discussing relativity
with someone who does not even know what the length contraction and
time dilation equations are.
The formula of the length contraction can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
The equation for the time dilation can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Yes, I put them in that format.
Look again.
You wrote:
x' = x * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) Length contraction
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) Time dilation,

Now *carefully* compare with the Wiki-entries.
And read the *meanings* of the variables and the text.

For length contraction it says:
"Also note that for the observer in relative movement, the length of
the object is measured by subtracting the simultaneously measured
distances of both ends of the object".
"Simultaneously measured" is modeled in *your* equation by t' = 0.
In the wiki it would be Delta(t') = 0

For time dilation you have multiplied here. The wiki divides, so you
have swapped primed with unprimed.
For time dilation it says:
"time interval between two colocal events (i.e. happening at the
same place)".
"At the same place" is modeled in *your* equation by x' = 0.
In the wiki (but with primed and unprimed swapped) it would
be Delta(x) = 0

Now look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special..._contra ction
Where L and L' are written as Delta(x) and Delta(x')
Don't forget that you have swapped primed with unprimed
in the case of time dilation.

Of course you hate equations.
You understand nothing about these equations.
Before you write an equation, you should understand what
the variables mean.
So next time, READ THE WORDS.
Physics is not an exercise in algebra.
As I told you before, *that* is your problem.

Dirk Vdm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
I think the problem lies in the fact that students are taught Einstein's
relativity by someone they respect and trust and feel naturally obliged to
accept it.

No .. unlike you, we understand it.

Now another sacred relativist cow has been slaughtered....the fictitious
GPS
'GR correction'.

Gees .. you just don't accept facts do you .. the correction is real .. it
is an observed and tested fact.

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:08:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe


Not true, the reflected beam will be doppler shifted.

Yes, both wavelength and frequency experience a doppler shift.

Only in SR (though both have been observed). In Newtonian
math the frequency changes as per the Doppler, but theany waves
wavelength is unaltered.

It depends on who is moving relative to the medium (assuming we are
talking
about doppler shifting of waves in a medium) .. the source or the
observer.

In ballistic theory, there aren't really any waves in a medium (so how
*does* ballistic theory account for the wave-like behaviour of light?)

Hey, idiot, in SR there aren't really any waves in a medium.

SR says nothing about how light propagates other than its speed. It could
be waves in a medium .. it could be particles .. it doesn't matter to SR as
long as it travels at speed c, as SR is not a theory about how light
propagates.

So .. what does BaTH say light is and how it travels?

"Ockham" wrote in message
. uk...

"snapdragon31" wrote in message
...

| The equation "Distance = Speed * Time" was taught in grade school. I
| don't expect that you do not know that. Distance is a scaler
| quantity. Distance is always positive. Please don't add a negative
| sign to make it negative.

AB is a vector, BA = -(AB)

displacement is a vector .. distance is not a vector .. it is a non-negative
scalar.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:22:50 GMT, "Ockham" wrote:


"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
|

| | - If a TWLS be conducted between a source and a moving mirror,
| | then the time taken (as observed by the source) of the
| | light beam from source to mirror and back to source is
| | exactly twice that of the time taken from source to
| | mirror. In other words, t_AB = t_BA.
|
| Not true, the reflected beam will be doppler shifted.
|
| Yes, both wavelength and frequency experience a doppler shift.
|
| Only in SR

Correct.


| (though both have been observed).

That is actually funny since you cannot say by whom, when
and under what circumstances.


| In Newtonian
| math the frequency changes as per the Doppler, but the
| wavelength is unaltered.

Incorrect.

Ghost is correct...as he sometimes is...
The wavelength of any TRAVELING wave is absolute and frame independent.

The 'wavelength' of an OSCILLATOR (such as a spinning wheel), if defined as
'the distance it travels in one of its cycles', IS of course frame dependent.

Oscillators don't actually possess 'wavelengths'.
I think that's where your confusion lies.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm