On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:00:05 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In sci.physics, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:11:28 GMT
kKcGe.191536$x96.19418@attbi_s72:
wrote:
No it doesn't. The rotation of the earth got nothing to do with
the way I synchronize my clocks. SR says that my two clocks will
remain synchronized after slow transport in the opposite
directions.


Transported involves acceleration.

Not quite that simple; Kenseto has already compensated for that
issue by ensuring that the acceleration for both clocks is the same
(except for being in opposing directions).

He also always specifies "slow transport". While the word "slow" is
inherently imprecise, what Ken's trying to say here is that, in any
particular inertial frame, for any particular object viewed from that
frame, d(gamma)/dv = 0 at relative velocity 0. In consequence, the
amount of time a clock loses in a particular time interval as it is
moved at velocity v decreases as the second order of the velocity as v
-- 0, but the distance it covers decreases as the first order of v.
Hence, for any specified accuracy and any specified distance, you can
find a speed of movement such that, if the clock is moved more slowly
than that, it will remain in sync to within the specified degree of
accuracy after it's moved.

As to acceleration, that doesn't affect the behavior of clocks, and
can be ignored. Whether the clocks are fired from a cannon to move
them or are pulled by snails, the _acceleration_ won't affect them
(unless they break as a result of it); only the velocity at which they
move matters. No further consideration need be given to that aspect.

I doubt Ken understands any of this, but he's certainly picked up on
the fact that "slow transport" is an acceptable way of getting two
distant clocks synchronized in a particular frame to a given degree of
accuracy. He seems to think it's different from using light signals
to synchronize distant clocks, though, and that, of course, is
incorrect.


However -- and this is where tensor knowledge would be helpful -- if
one clock is on the equator and one clock is just north of the
equator on a rotating perfect sphere, they will drift out of sync.

But the original objection had to do with the frame of reference we're
actually in, and the real Earth isn't a perfect sphere, and on the
Earth (or rather, on a smoothed-off idealized Earth where everything's
at sea level) the clocks will run at the same rate everywhere on the
surface.

With all this said, any experiment on the Earth's surface which
involves synchronized clocks had better be conducted over a small
distance, and had best be oriented north/south; otherwise the Sagnac
effect must be allowed for in interpreting the results. And that's
first order in the distance you go around the sphere. Take the clock
24,000 miles, all the way around the equator, and regardless of how
slowly you do it, it'll be out of sync when it gets home again;
whether it gains or loses time depends on which way around the Earth
it goes. Or take two clocks 12,000 miles in opposite directions, so
they meet on the other side of the world, and they'll be found to be
out of sync with each other.


If both clocks are on the equator they will stay in synch according
to an observer between the clocks, but to an observer, say, orbiting
in free space somewhere between Earth and Mars, they will not be in
synch.


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

"sal" wrote in message
news | On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:00:05 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
|
| In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
|
| wrote
| on Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:11:28 GMT
| kKcGe.191536$x96.19418@attbi_s72:
| wrote:
| No it doesn't. The rotation of the earth got nothing to do with
| the way I synchronize my clocks. SR says that my two clocks will
| remain synchronized after slow transport in the opposite
| directions.
|
|
| Transported involves acceleration.
|
| Not quite that simple; Kenseto has already compensated for that
| issue by ensuring that the acceleration for both clocks is the same
| (except for being in opposing directions).
|
| He also always specifies "slow transport". While the word "slow" is
| inherently imprecise, what Ken's trying to say here is that, in any
| particular inertial frame, for any particular object viewed from that
| frame, d(gamma)/dv = 0 at relative velocity 0. In consequence, the
| amount of time a clock loses in a particular time interval as it is
| moved at velocity v decreases as the second order of the velocity as v
| -- 0, but the distance it covers decreases as the first order of v.
| Hence, for any specified accuracy and any specified distance, you can
| find a speed of movement such that, if the clock is moved more slowly
| than that, it will remain in sync to within the specified degree of
| accuracy after it's moved.
|
| As to acceleration, that doesn't affect the behavior of clocks, and
| can be ignored. Whether the clocks are fired from a cannon to move
| them or are pulled by snails, the _acceleration_ won't affect them
| (unless they break as a result of it); only the velocity at which they
| move matters. No further consideration need be given to that aspect.
|
| I doubt Ken understands any of this, but he's certainly picked up on
| the fact that "slow transport" is an acceptable way of getting two
| distant clocks synchronized in a particular frame to a given degree of
| accuracy. He seems to think it's different from using light signals
| to synchronize distant clocks, though, and that, of course, is
| incorrect.
|
|
| However -- and this is where tensor knowledge would be helpful -- if
| one clock is on the equator and one clock is just north of the
| equator on a rotating perfect sphere, they will drift out of sync.
|
| But the original objection had to do with the frame of reference we're
| actually in, and the real Earth isn't a perfect sphere, and on the
| Earth (or rather, on a smoothed-off idealized Earth where everything's
| at sea level) the clocks will run at the same rate everywhere on the
| surface.
|
| With all this said, any experiment on the Earth's surface which
| involves synchronized clocks had better be conducted over a small
| distance, and had best be oriented north/south; otherwise the Sagnac
| effect must be allowed for in interpreting the results. And that's
| first order in the distance you go around the sphere. Take the clock
| 24,000 miles, all the way around the equator, and regardless of how
| slowly you do it, it'll be out of sync when it gets home again;
| whether it gains or loses time depends on which way around the Earth
| it goes. Or take two clocks 12,000 miles in opposite directions, so
| they meet on the other side of the world, and they'll be found to be
| out of sync with each other.
|
You couldn't handle something as easy as the triplet paradox
I gave you because you were a bit tired of doing lots of
pointless algebra, and now you are ranting about something you
know nothing about.
Take the clock 24,000 miles, all the way around the equator, and
regardless of how slowly you do it, it'll be IN sync when it gets home
again. PROVE otherwise.
Androcles

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:31:38 +0000, Androcles wrote:




"sal" wrote in message
news

[ snip ]

| With all this said, any experiment on the Earth's surface which
| involves synchronized clocks had better be conducted over a small
| distance, and had best be oriented north/south; otherwise the
| Sagnac effect must be allowed for in interpreting the results.
| And that's first order in the distance you go around the sphere.
| Take the clock 24,000 miles, all the way around the equator, and
| regardless of how slowly you do it, it'll be out of sync when it
| gets home again; whether it gains or loses time depends on which
| way around the Earth it goes. Or take two clocks 12,000 miles in
| opposite directions, so they meet on the other side of the world,
| and they'll be found to be out of sync with each other.

You couldn't handle something as easy as the triplet paradox I gave
you because you were a bit tired of doing lots of pointless algebra,

Oh, calm down. In the message to which I was responding in the post
to which you refer, you posted several vaguely worded questions
regarding times, all of which required tedious calculations. I worked
through several of them, making what seemed like reasonable guesses to
deal with the fact that you apparently hadn't taken the effort to be
completely clear as to what you were trying to ask. YOU, on the other
hand, hadn't presented your answers for comparison; as far as I can
see you just posed the questions and left it for someone else (me) to
work them out. So I spent a couple hours (yes, it took a couple hours
(at least)) and worked on most of them, but I didn't work through all
of them -- so what?

If you don't throw too much dust in the air I'll eventually get back
to answering your earlier posts, but as you have also pointed out,
thoughtful answers to complex posts take time.


and now you are ranting about something you know nothing about.

Uh huh.... ranting, for sure.


Take the clock 24,000 miles, all the way around the equator, and
regardless of how slowly you do it, it'll be IN sync when it gets
home again. PROVE otherwise.

The Earth is a rotating frame, just like a rotating disk in a laser
gyroscope. In an LG the Sagnac effect results in the signal taking a
different amount of time to go around the disk when the disk is
rotating than when it's stationary, and it takes a different amount of
time to go around the disk one way than the other way. In
consequence, "signal time" is out of sync with "disk time" when it
gets back. The Earth is the same thing, scaled up a few thousand
times, and the consequences may be expected to be the same:
small-scale Sagnac effect devices lead (most of) us to the conclusion
that what I described is what will happen.

Beyond observing that it happens on small rotating disks, "proving" it
happens on the Earth itself requires doing the experiment. If you
want to know if it's been done and what the result was, why don't YOU
spend the time to look it up? Find out what the predicted clock
difference is, whether it's large enough to measure, and whether it's
been tested using clocks in airplanes or time signals relayed
satellite-to-satellite (which should show a similar effect, depending
on how the relaying is done).

And you still have avoided the question I asked, 'way back when, which
wasn't rhetorical, and to which I really did want to hear an answer:
How do _you_ account for the Sagnac effect? As far as I can see,
according to emission theory, it's impossible, yet it happens, both in
vacuum and in a medium. How do you account for it?


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

"sal" wrote in message
news | On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:31:38 +0000, Androcles wrote:
|
|
|
|
| "sal" wrote in message
| news |
| [ snip ]
|
| | With all this said, any experiment on the Earth's surface which
| | involves synchronized clocks had better be conducted over a small
| | distance, and had best be oriented north/south; otherwise the
| | Sagnac effect must be allowed for in interpreting the results.
| | And that's first order in the distance you go around the sphere.
| | Take the clock 24,000 miles, all the way around the equator, and
| | regardless of how slowly you do it, it'll be out of sync when it
| | gets home again; whether it gains or loses time depends on which
| | way around the Earth it goes. Or take two clocks 12,000 miles in
| | opposite directions, so they meet on the other side of the world,
| | and they'll be found to be out of sync with each other.
|
| You couldn't handle something as easy as the triplet paradox I gave
| you because you were a bit tired of doing lots of pointless algebra,
|
| Oh, calm down. In the message to which I was responding in the post
| to which you refer, you posted several vaguely worded questions
| regarding times, all of which required tedious calculations.

That's the nature of your religion, not mine.



I worked
| through several of them, making what seemed like reasonable guesses to
| deal with the fact that you apparently hadn't taken the effort to be
| completely clear as to what you were trying to ask.


Ok, I'll be completely clear, so ist klar.
Which is Einstein's k-frame, the system of coordinates x',y,z that
is independent of time, or xi,eta, zeta?



YOU, on the other
| hand, hadn't presented your answers for comparison; as far as I can
| see you just posed the questions and left it for someone else (me) to
| work them out.

I'm not the one proposing the cuckoo transforms that you cannot derive.
Burden of proof is upon you.

So I spent a couple hours (yes, it took a couple hours
| (at least)) and worked on most of them, but I didn't work through all
| of them -- so what?

So you can't answer my questions, that's what.
I can give my answers in a jiffy. Ask away.
Sagnac may take a little longer, you didn't supply any numerical data
and don't understand Doppler.


| If you don't throw too much dust in the air I'll eventually get back
| to answering your earlier posts, but as you have also pointed out,
| thoughtful answers to complex posts take time.

It's your dust; I answer your posts point by point.

|
| and now you are ranting about something you know nothing about.
|
| Uh huh.... ranting, for sure.

Yes. You confess to not understanding Doppler and write about Sagnac.
Now there a people out there claim they understand it, thanks to you.
You've promoted your religion and that's all that matters to you. If
ever
I've seen a rant, your's is typical.
|
|
| Take the clock 24,000 miles, all the way around the equator, and
| regardless of how slowly you do it, it'll be IN sync when it gets
| home again. PROVE otherwise.
|
| The Earth is a rotating frame, just like a rotating disk in a laser
| gyroscope. In an LG the Sagnac effect results in the signal taking a
| different amount of time to go around the disk when the disk is
| rotating than when it's stationary, and it takes a different amount of
| time to go around the disk one way than the other way.

HOW do you detect time in a tiny device like a ring?


In
| consequence, "signal time" is out of sync with "disk time" when it
| gets back. The Earth is the same thing, scaled up a few thousand
| times, and the consequences may be expected to be the same:
| small-scale Sagnac effect devices lead (most of) us to the conclusion
| that what I described is what will happen.

Bull****! Unadulterated ranting.
Ken Tucker told you Sagnac was entirely classical, but you don't listen.



|
| Beyond observing that it happens on small rotating disks, "proving" it
| happens on the Earth itself requires doing the experiment. If you
| want to know if it's been done and what the result was, why don't YOU
| spend the time to look it up? Find out what the predicted clock
| difference is, whether it's large enough to measure, and whether it's
| been tested using clocks in airplanes or time signals relayed
| satellite-to-satellite (which should show a similar effect, depending
| on how the relaying is done).
|
| And you still have avoided the question I asked, 'way back when, which
| wasn't rhetorical, and to which I really did want to hear an answer:
| How do _you_ account for the Sagnac effect?

Asked and answered, check the record. Google has it. You'll have
to wade through the noise to find the signal, we all do. Signal to noise
ratio on this newsgroup is 1 : 1000.

| As far as I can see,
| according to emission theory, it's impossible, yet it happens, both in
| vacuum and in a medium. How do you account for it?

You can't see very far. Too much ego and not enough IQ.

Androcles.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:16:40 +0000, Androcles wrote:

You can't see very far. Too much ego and not enough IQ.

OK, I get the message: It's time for ad hominems.

I've just got a couple of brief observations, then you can go talk to
egoless long-sighted smart people instead of dumb myopic megalomaniacs
like me. Have fun.


"sal" wrote in message
news | On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:31:38 +0000, Androcles wrote:
|

[ snip ]

| In consequence, "signal time" is out of sync with "disk time" when
| it gets back. The Earth is the same thing, scaled up a few
| thousand times, and the consequences may be expected to be the
| same: small-scale Sagnac effect devices lead (most of) us to the
| conclusion that what I described is what will happen.

Bull****! Unadulterated ranting.
Ken Tucker told you Sagnac was entirely classical, but you don't
listen.

I gave his reply all the attention it deserved. You, however,
apparently missed the point of the "classical" explanation:

Sagnac effect can be explained with classical aether theory. (When
you look at Sagnac in glass fibers rather than vacuum, it's a stretch
to do it classically, but it can be done.)

But emission theory and ballistic theory, in all forms, fall down flat
in the face of Sagnac effect. And that was what I was asking you
about, as you know perfectly well. You gave no answer on that.


| Beyond observing that it happens on small rotating disks,
| "proving" it happens on the Earth itself requires doing the
| experiment. If you want to know if it's been done and what the
| result was, why don't YOU spend the time to look it up? Find out
| what the predicted clock difference is, whether it's large enough
| to measure, and whether it's been tested using clocks in airplanes
| or time signals relayed satellite-to-satellite (which should show
| a similar effect, depending on how the relaying is done).
|
| And you still have avoided the question I asked, 'way back when,
| which wasn't rhetorical, and to which I really did want to hear an
| answer: How do _you_ account for the Sagnac effect?

Asked and answered, check the record. Google has it. You'll have to
wade through the noise to find the signal, we all do. Signal to
noise ratio on this newsgroup is 1 : 1000.

Ah, you give no reference. But of course not, I'm hardly surprised
.... I certainly did see your response on the subject, such as it was,
and it doesn't address the question.

Your answer was that emission theory doesn't apply because the effect
isn't in vacuum. However, you apparently ignored the observation that
Sagnac effect takes place in vacuum, too.


| As far as I can see, according to emission theory, it's
| impossible, yet it happens, both in vacuum and in a medium. How
| do you account for it?

You can't see very far. Too much ego and not enough IQ.

And I guess that's all the answer I'm going to get from you, eh?

Since Sagnac's experiment was, historically, the one that shot down
emission theory, I'm not surprised.


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:16:40 +0000, Androcles wrote:


Yes. You confess to not understanding Doppler

I confess to never having read a paper by Doppler, which is a rather
different statement.


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

"sal" wrote in message
news | On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:16:40 +0000, Androcles wrote:
|
| You can't see very far. Too much ego and not enough IQ.
|
| OK, I get the message: It's time for ad hominems.
|
| I've just got a couple of brief observations, then you can go talk to
| egoless long-sighted smart people instead of dumb myopic megalomaniacs
| like me. Have fun.

Your description appears accurate.


|
| "sal" wrote in message
| news | | On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:31:38 +0000, Androcles wrote:
| |
|
| [ snip ]
|
| | In consequence, "signal time" is out of sync with "disk time" when
| | it gets back. The Earth is the same thing, scaled up a few
| | thousand times, and the consequences may be expected to be the
| | same: small-scale Sagnac effect devices lead (most of) us to the
| | conclusion that what I described is what will happen.
|
| Bull****! Unadulterated ranting.
| Ken Tucker told you Sagnac was entirely classical, but you don't
| listen.
|
| I gave his reply all the attention it deserved. You, however,
| apparently missed the point of the "classical" explanation:
|
| Sagnac effect can be explained with classical aether theory. (When
| you look at Sagnac in glass fibers rather than vacuum, it's a stretch
| to do it classically, but it can be done.)

Just what IS the Sagnac effect?
Quit beating all around it and describe the empirical result, if you
know.
What is the data?

| But emission theory and ballistic theory, in all forms, fall down flat
| in the face of Sagnac effect.

Assertion carries no weight. You don't know what the Sagnac effect is.


And that was what I was asking you
| about, as you know perfectly well. You gave no answer on that.

I mentioned Doppler and you avoided it like the plague.
I cited a web page and you said, facetiously,
"Thank you, I shall add it to my list of papers-to-be-read-someday,
if-I-live-so-long."
Ad homimen - AS YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL.
How can I discuss Sagnac with you without Doppler?

| | Beyond observing that it happens on small rotating disks,
| | "proving" it happens on the Earth itself requires doing the
| | experiment. If you want to know if it's been done and what the
| | result was, why don't YOU spend the time to look it up? Find out
| | what the predicted clock difference is, whether it's large enough
| | to measure, and whether it's been tested using clocks in airplanes
| | or time signals relayed satellite-to-satellite (which should show
| | a similar effect, depending on how the relaying is done).
| |
| | And you still have avoided the question I asked, 'way back when,
| | which wasn't rhetorical, and to which I really did want to hear an
| | answer: How do _you_ account for the Sagnac effect?
|
| Asked and answered, check the record. Google has it. You'll have to
| wade through the noise to find the signal, we all do. Signal to
| noise ratio on this newsgroup is 1 : 1000.
|
| Ah, you give no reference. But of course not, I'm hardly surprised
| ... I certainly did see your response on the subject, such as it was,
| and it doesn't address the question.
|
| Your answer was that emission theory doesn't apply because the effect
| isn't in vacuum.

Then I gave you an answer.
You've just said above "You gave no answer on that."


| However, you apparently ignored the observation that
| Sagnac effect takes place in vacuum, too.

I haven't apparently ignored anything, ignoring what I say is your
prerogative. Cite the experiment and observation and name the
experimenter where Sagnac was conducted in a vacuum and
state what the Sagnac effect is.

|
| | As far as I can see, according to emission theory, it's
| | impossible, yet it happens, both in vacuum and in a medium. How
| | do you account for it?
|
| You can't see very far. Too much ego and not enough IQ.
|
| And I guess that's all the answer I'm going to get from you, eh?
|
| Since Sagnac's experiment was, historically, the one that shot down
| emission theory, I'm not surprised.

Cite the experiment and observation and name the experimenter
where Sagnac was conducted in a vacuum and state what the
Sagnac effect is.

Androcles

"sal" wrote in message
news | On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:16:40 +0000, Androcles wrote:
|
|
| Yes. You confess to not understanding Doppler
|
| I confess to never having read a paper by Doppler, which is a rather
| different statement.
|
Want to confess to snipping and ignoring my points as well?
I answer yours.
Want to confess to being ignorant of mathematics and physics?
Take your web site down, you are willfully misleading the public
with your nonsense.

Androcles.

Sal:
I doubt Ken understands any of this, but he's certainly picked up on
the fact that "slow transport" is an acceptable way of getting two
distant clocks synchronized in a particular frame to a given degree of
accuracy. He seems to think it's different from using light signals
to synchronize distant clocks, though, and that, of course, is
incorrect.

Ken:
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. OWLS and TWLS were
determined to be isotropic experimentally. Therefoere it is perfectly
reasonable for me to assume that the flight time from A---B = B----A
and thus clocks A and B will remain synchronized if they are slow
transported in the opposite direction. The rotational effect of the
earth got noting to do with it.

Ken Seto