Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #356915
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons |
| Date | 2015-07-13 10:10 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d0ge0fF9dtrU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (20 earlier) <mntd0g$cff$1@node2.news.atman.pl> <d0ertcFrebkU1@mid.individual.net> <mnti4h$hmh$1@node2.news.atman.pl> <d0f2nkFt57hU1@mid.individual.net> <mntng9$phn$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
On 12/07/2015 10:44 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:d0f2nkFt57hU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 12/07/2015 9:13 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:d0ertcFrebkU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> >> |I create two accurate clocks that are immune to environmental effects. >> |They stay synchronised when next to each other on the ground. I launch >> |one into a circular equatorial orbit. I keep the other on the ground at >> |the equator. I then contrive to view the clock in orbit through at >> |telescope each time it passes directly overhead. >> |There is obviously some delay due to the time the light takes to get >> |from the clock in orbit down to me, but I can cancel that out by >> |considering only the difference between successive readings on the >> clock. >> |So, what will I see? >> |a) The readings on the clock in orbit advance at the same rate as the >> |readings on the clock here on Earth. >> |b) The readings on the clock in orbit advance faster. >> |c) The readings on the clock in orbit advance slower. >> >> According to relativity, You will see a,b or c depending on >> alitude. AFAIR. > > |And according to your theory? > > According to my theory, it depends on theory. What does that mean? > > >> But real question is - how are You going to determine they >> are immune? You can't do it. > > |It's a thought experiment. If I say they're immune, then they are. > > Exactly. That simply means - every answer is possible. It's a constraint, so it reduces the possible answers. In the particular instance, its purpose is to avoid the possibility that just being in space affects the clock. You do seem to be avoiding the issue, suggesting that you know very well that your position is untenable. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-07-10 11:47 +1000
Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-07-11 18:52 +1000
Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-11 11:35 +0200
Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-11 04:32 -0700
Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-07-11 21:35 +1000
Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-11 14:17 +0200
Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 17:04 -0700
Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-07-13 10:10 +1000
Re: Two stupid questions for relativistic morons JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 13:15 -0700
csiph-web