"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein

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/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/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.

Tahc wrote:
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.

Evidently, you are not a mathematician.
Mathematicians have confirmed the logical
consistency of special relativity.

If you want to learn special relativity,
it's sometimes helpful to begin with
familiar concepts and then transition
slowly toward the new ideas.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Perspicacious wrote:

If you want to learn special relativity

evidently you have never come across this guy before...

Answers along the lines that Al and Sam give and ignoring him
completely are the best options

br

Perspicacious (= Eugene Shubert) wrote :
If you want to learn special relativity,
it's sometimes helpful to begin with
familiar concepts and then transition
slowly toward the new ideas.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

Eugene Shubert has been debunked numerous times here and
on his own forum :

http://www.everythingimportant.org/v...hp?t=451&start =14

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3928

Of course, as honestly as any crackpot or religious fanatic, Eugene
deleted some posts which make him feel uncomfortable :

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3915

When the station comes to the train?

Only one is moving *through space*
Only one will have its clock slowdown

There are no reciprocal effects in relativty.
Why should there be?

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
| When the station comes to the train?
|
| Only one is moving *through space*
| Only one will have its clock slowdown
|
| There are no reciprocal effects in relativty.
| Why should there be?


It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which
do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

--Albert Einstein.
Mind you, the idiot soon forgets what he started and goes into a tirade
of his own
off topic rant about light and how it affects time.

Androcles

Androcles wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
| When the station comes to the train?
|
| Only one is moving *through space*
| Only one will have its clock slowdown
|
| There are no reciprocal effects in relativty.
| Why should there be?


It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which
do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion,
"IN MOTION" relattive to what?
no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

--Albert Einstein.
Mind you, the idiot soon forgets what he started and goes into a tirade
of his own
off topic rant about light and how it affects time.

Androcles

Androcles

I take it this is a quote from Albert E. What is the reference?
How can one tell if the magnet or the conductor is moving? Moving
relative to what?

"G" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Nick" wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | When the station comes to the train?
| |
| | Only one is moving *through space*
| | Only one will have its clock slowdown
| |
| | There are no reciprocal effects in relativty.
| | Why should there be?
|
|
| It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the
| present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which
| do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the
| reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
| observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of
the
| conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
| distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the
other
| of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
| conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet
an
| electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current
at
| the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the
magnet
| is stationary and the conductor in motion,
| "IN MOTION" relattive to what?


Egads! Can't you read?
What do I have to do, spoonfeed every byte to you?
I can wipe your arse for you, but you'll have to **** for yourself.

"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
"depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"




| no electric field arises in
| the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find
an
| electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
| energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion
in
| the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
| intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former
case.
|
| --Albert Einstein.
| Mind you, the idiot soon forgets what he started and goes into a
tirade
| of his own
| off topic rant about light and how it affects time.
|
| Androcles
|
| Androcles
|
| I take it this is a quote from Albert E. What is the reference?

If you can't read, its time you practiced.
Google for it.


| How can one tell if the magnet or the conductor is moving?

You look.
Places to look are inside model trains, vacuum cleaners, fans in
computers,
generators in cars, emergency generators, fans in kitchens,
hydro-electric
power stations, nuclear power stations, oil-fired power stations, coal
fired
power stations, electric cars, motors in industry.... the list is
frigging endless.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/motor1.htm

Moving
| relative to what?
|
Write this out, by hand, 100 times

" the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"

during homework detention. Then you can go out and play.
Androcles.

Androcles

You mean the relative motion of the magnet and the conductor in the
case where
one is rotating ? In the case of linear motion it is not possible to
tell if the magnet or conductor is moving

G

"G" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Androcles
|
| You mean the relative motion of the magnet and the conductor in the
| case where
| one is rotating ? In the case of linear motion it is not possible to
| tell if the magnet or conductor is moving
|
| G


Correct.

http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/maglev.htm
http://www.rtri.or.jp/rd/maglev/jpeg/magcg_m.jpg
http://www.calpoly.edu/~cm/studpage/clottich/fund.html

Androcles.