Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #385575 > unrolled thread

The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-10 03:36 -0700
    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 12:54 -0700
      Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-10 22:03 +0200
        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 18:26 -0700
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 20:49 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 20:56 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-10 21:05 -0700
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-11 12:23 -0700
                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-12 12:44 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 21:20 -0700
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-11 00:12 -0700
                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 11:04 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-11 05:09 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 10:56 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-11 20:30 +0200
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-11 09:47 +0200
    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-11 02:28 -0700
      Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-11 09:55 -0700
        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-12 12:53 -0700
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-12 22:15 +0200
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-12 15:37 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-12 23:28 -0700
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-13 05:44 -0700
        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-13 12:42 -0500
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-13 13:29 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-18 18:49 -0500
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 06:38 +0200
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 07:13 -0700
                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 20:34 +0200
                    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:21 -0700
                      Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:41 -0700
                      Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-19 23:35 -0700
                        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 08:05 -0700
                          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-20 17:23 +0200
                            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 08:53 -0700
                              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-20 18:32 +0200
                                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 18:32 -0700
                                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 23:15 -0700
                                    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 05:41 -0700
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:18 -0500
                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 20:40 +0200
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-19 12:51 -0700
              Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:39 -0700
                Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-19 20:34 -0700
                  Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 00:13 -0700
                    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-20 08:15 -0700
      Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-13 03:41 -0700
        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 11:34 -0700
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-13 23:08 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-14 07:15 -0700
        Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 05:05 -0700
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 09:46 -0700
          Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 12:34 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 13:30 -0700
            Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 14:53 -0700
    Re: The Nightmare of Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-19 15:03 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#385762

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 2:15:29 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:c39c3b5a-faf4-4ee4-85eb-d5cd76a41138@googlegroups.com...
> 
> |Pentcho never did any serious study, all his time is spent on cutting and 
> pasting links. He
> 
> Gobledygook!Gobledygook!

Proof that Weirdo Woz is a turkey.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385774

W dniu poniedziałek, 13 czerwca 2016 00:37:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 2:15:29 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> >
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > dyskusyjnych:c39c3b5a-faf4-4ee4-85eb-d5cd76a41138@googlegroups.com...
> > 
> > |Pentcho never did any serious study, all his time is spent on cutting and 
> > pasting links. He
> > 
> > Gobledygook!Gobledygook!
> 
> Proof that Weirdo Woz is a turkey.

Listen to your fellow idiot Jan. I'm only
mere imitator of his incredible wisdom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385778

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 12:28:43 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu poniedziałek, 13 czerwca 2016 00:37:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 2:15:29 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > >
> > > Gobledygook!Gobledygook!
> > 
> > Proof that Weirdo Woz is a turkey.
> 
> Listen to your fellow idiot Jan. I'm only
> mere imitator of his incredible wisdom.

Nope, you are nothing but a gobbling turkey.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/turkey?s=t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385800

On 6/11/16 6/11/16 - 11:55 AM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 2:28:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Argument 1 (consistent with Newton's emission theory of light) Conclusion:
>> The acceleration of the falling light is g, like the acceleration of
>> ordinary falling objects. The observer on the ground will measure the speed
>> of the light to be c'=c(1+gh/c^2).
>
> That is not a valid argument, because, for a consistent sequence of
> particles, pulses, wavecrests, or any other entities going from one fixed
> location to another, each entity in the sequence takes the same amount of
> time to make the journey, regardless of whether the entities accelerate
> during the journey, so the frequency of arrival equals the frequency of
> emission.

Your objection is valid only in flat spacetime (i.e. without gravity), and only 
for a static physical situation. Like Valev you seem to ignore (or be unaware 
of) the difference in local coordinates at top and bottom -- you must not use 
concepts like "frequency" without stating precisely what you mean by them, and 
in your paragraph here you use that word with two different meanings (one 
meaning at the top, and another meaning at the bottom; only in flat spacetime 
are these the same).

In a static gravitational field, for a uniform stream of particles or wavecrests 
headed down, the proper time between departures will be greater than the proper 
time between arrivals (at a lower altitude in the gravitational field). This is 
gravitational blueshift. (Here proper time is of the emitter and detector, 
respectively, both at rest.)

For the case of light waves in vacuum, the local wavelength is also different 
between top (departure) and bottom (arrival). We KNOW this because in vacuum 
light always follows a null geodesic, which means the spacetime 4-vector 
displacement between wavecrests is parallel transported along the path, and 
parallel transport does not change the norm of a 4-vector; so as its 
(locally-measured) frequency changes (previous paragraph), its 
(locally-measured) wavelength must change correspondingly to preserve the norm 
of the 4-vector, and that means that its LOCALLY-MEASURED speed remains c, at 
every point along its path.

	A uniform stream of particles also experiences a blueshift....


Pentcho Valev does not understand even the basics of SR or GR, and he repeatedly 
gets just about everything wrong. His "Argument 1" is WRONG because he did not 
distinguish between LOCAL MEASUREMENTS made at different locations.


> On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 2:28:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Argument 2 (consistent with Einstein's relativity): Premise 2: There IS
>> gravitational time dilation. Premise 3: The wavelength decreases as the
>> light falls - if it is λ at the top of the tower, it will be
>> λ'=λ/(1+gh/c^2) at the bottom.
>
> Yes, this is a valid account of gravitational redshift.

Only to lowest order, and with a careful definition of each symbol used -- this 
last is where Valev repeatedly fails.


> A difference between
> the frequencies of emission and reception for a uniform sequence of entities
> between two stationary locations logically implies different effective time
> standards at the two locations (i.e., “time dilation”).

"Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". Rather it is a 
geometrical effect due to geometrical projections onto measuring instruments 
that have different orientations in spacetime.

	The definition of the second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the
	radiation from the hyperfine transition of the ground state
	of Cs133. This does NOT depend on the location or motion
	of the Cs atom, but is valid only LOCALLY. The local laws of
	physics are the same, at both the top of the experiment (where
	the light was emitted) and at the bottom (where the light was
	observed).

If this were due to different time standards, one would not be able to 
self-consistently account for all the many variations in "time dilation" 
observed for variations in relative speed, relative altitude, etc.

	It would also be rather difficult to describe, as one would
	need to CHANGE the meaning of "1 second", and ordinary
	English would not suffice. One would be left with a horrible
	mess in which the local laws of physics 	vary with a
	laboratory's location and motion (and ...) -- one could not
	write one physics text or reference book, one would need
	different books for each lab. The current definitions avoid
	this, because they reflect an observed symmetry of nature
	(namely the constancy of the local vacuum speed of light).


> On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 2:28:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Conclusion: The acceleration of the falling light is NEGATIVE, -2g (that
>> is, the speed of the light DECREASES as the light falls). Yet the observer
>> on the ground will measure the speed of the light to be c (unchanged).

Valev is very confused, and thinks his COORDINATE-DEPENDENT acceleration means 
something. All it actually means is that he used inappropriate coordinates.


> The numerical values of quantities such as ordinary velocity and acceleration
> depend on the coordinates in which they are expressed. It’s true that, in
> terms of Schwarzschild coordinates, the radial speed of light is lower near a
> massive body, so the coordinate velocity of a pulse of light approaching a
> massive body decreases, and hence (in this sense) the light decelerates as it
> falls.

Hmmm. That is not really a valid "sense" -- the LIGHT does not really 
"decelerate", the COORDINATES just make it seem to do so.

IOW: at each point along its trajectory, the light simply follows the null 
geodesic it has been following all along. The norm of the 4-vector between 
wavecrests does not change (this is parallel transport of that 4-vector). So the 
LIGHT does not change (i.e. none of its intrinsic properties change along its 
path). But the coordinates' relationship to the light path does change.


> The same is true for massive particles moving at relativistic speeds.
> On the other hand, in terms of any local free-falling inertial coordinates,
> the speed of light (and the limiting speed for massive particles) is c.  This
> is not contradictory, it is consistent with the existence of time dilation
> and the resulting relationship between the global Schwarzschild coordinates
> and local free-falling inertial coordinates.

Yes. And also for non-relativistic speeds. This is all just geometry.


> On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 2:28:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> This cries for explanation but Einsteinians will remain forever silent...
>
> All this is explained - in excruciating detail - in any good book on
> relativity.  It's true that one can also find erroneous popular explanations
> of this subject, but that's true of any subject.  To really understand a
> subject, a person needs some independent reasoning ability, to distinguish
> valid from invalid explanations.  See above.

Yes. Valev is hopeless. Whatever he is trying to do, it is NOT science.

My point here is that you also seem to have some misconceptions about the 
subtleties of GR.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385814

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:42:32 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> Your objection is valid only in flat spacetime (i.e. without
> gravity), and only for a static physical situation...

The premise of Argument 1 is Newtonian physics in flat space with absolute time, rejecting both special and general relativity.  It claims that we can give a viable alternative account of gravitational redshift purely on the basis of Newtonian physics.  Indeed, some of the links claim this as well.  The claim is false, because Newtonian physics does not entail gravitational time dilation and therefore has no gravitational redshift.  But to explain this, we must work within Newtonian physics.  It is not relevant to say that this isn't how general relativity explains redshift.  That is given.  To refute Argument 1 we must explain why it fails as a viable alternative account on its own terms.

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:42:32 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> "Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". 
> Rather it is a geometrical effect due to geometrical projections
> onto measuring instruments that have different orientations in 
> spacetime.

Relative to an essentially static time coordinate (such as the Schwarzschild time coordinate) in a region with a stationary gravitational field, the rate of proper time for stationary clocks at different gravitational potentials is different, hence the difference in frequency between emission and reception of a steady sequence of objects passing from one stationary clock to the other.  

When talking about foundational issues, it's best to express things in operational terms.  Talking about "geometrical effects" is rarely helpful in discussions like this, because they lead to philosophical chicken-or-egg arguments about whether geometry and kinematics are efficacious or merely descriptive, etc.

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:42:32 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> It’s true that, in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates, the 
>> radial speed of light is lower near a massive body, so the 
>> coordinate velocity of a pulse of light approaching a massive
>> body decreases, and hence (in this sense) the light decelerates
>> as it falls.
> 
> Hmmm. That is not really a valid "sense" -- the LIGHT does not 
> really "decelerate", the COORDINATES just make it seem to do so.

I don't think it's sensible to say that a specific operationally defined and factual "sense" is "really not a valid sense".  No one disputes that, in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates (the more or less unique static time coordinate in a spherical field), the radial speed of light is lower near a massive body, so the Schwarzschild coordinate velocity of a pulse of light approaching a massive body decreases.  This is a plain fact.  Now, when an operationally meaningful velocity of an entity decreases, it is undeniable that *in this specific sense* the entity is decelerating, by definition.  It's necessary to understand this in order to respond in a useful way to the "-2g" comments.

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:42:32 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> The same is true for massive particles moving at relativistic speeds.
> 
> Yes. And also for non-relativistic speeds.

Slow-moving particles generally still accelerate toward a massive body, even in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates.  Only when they reach relativistic speeds do their paths decelerate in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386172

On 6/13/16 6/13/16   3:29 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:42:32 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Your objection is valid only in flat spacetime (i.e. without gravity), and
>> only for a static physical situation...
>
> The premise of Argument 1 is Newtonian physics in flat space with absolute
> time, rejecting both special and general relativity.

Nobody actually said so until you did here. I prefer to state implications and 
assumptions explicitly, so I said something equivalent, but phrased in more 
modern terms.


> On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:42:32 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> "Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". Rather it is a
>> geometrical effect due to geometrical projections onto measuring
>> instruments that have different orientations in spacetime.
>
> Relative to an essentially static time coordinate (such as the Schwarzschild
> time coordinate) in a region with a stationary gravitational field, the rate
> of proper time for stationary clocks at different gravitational potentials is
> different, hence the difference in frequency between emission and reception
> of a steady sequence of objects passing from one stationary clock to the
> other.

But the Schw. time coordinate does NOT agree with real clocks anywhere except at 
spatial infinity. And it CERTAINLY is not proper time for "stationary clocks at 
different gravitational potentials".

If you want to discuss operational quantities, you must use CLOCKS, not some 
arbitrary coordinates (no matter how familiar they may seem to you).


> When talking about foundational issues, it's best to express things in
> operational terms.

OK, so discuss what CLOCKS MEASURE, not the "Schw. time coordinate".

	It simply is not possible to construct a device that displays
	the Schw. time coordinate, without making some rather strong
	assumptions. But we make clocks all the time, without any
	assumptions (we validate them against each other).

I repeat: "Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". The "time 
standard" we use comes from ISO, and the second is defined as 9,192,631,770 
cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs133. Yet using this 
standard for each measurement (local to each measurement, of course), 
operationally we do observe "time dilation" in all its forms.

	You don't want discussions of geometry, but it is difficult
	to reconcile the observations without it -- Cs clocks at
	different altitudes CLEARLY tick at the same rate (by
	definition, each one ticks at 9,192,631,770 Hz), but they
	do not remain in sync, and they display "time dilation" for
	signals between them. I know of no successful model for this
	except geometrical curvature in spacetime.


> On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:42:32 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> It’s true that, in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates, the radial speed
>>> of light is lower near a massive body, so the coordinate velocity of a
>>> pulse of light approaching a massive body decreases, and hence (in this
>>> sense) the light decelerates as it falls.
>>
>> Hmmm. That is not really a valid "sense" -- the LIGHT does not really
>> "decelerate", the COORDINATES just make it seem to do so.
>
> I don't think it's sensible to say that a specific operationally defined and
> factual "sense" is "really not a valid sense".

But YOU are not using an "operational sense" -- you refer to the "Schwarzschild 
coordinates", not CLOCKS, so your discussion is not operational at all. You are 
using coordinates that happen to IMPOSE the behavior you describe onto the 
phenomena. Moreover, in your "sense", you are relying on a PUN on the words 
"speed" and "decelerates".

One essential aspect of GR is to NOT use coordinate-dependent quantities when 
discussing phenomena, because coordinates are arbitrary and can STRONGLY 
influence the description of the phenomena, leading to incorrect conclusions. 
This is lesson you need to learn, because your discussion is a case of that.


>  No one disputes that, in
> terms of Schwarzschild coordinates (the more or less unique static time
> coordinate in a spherical field), the radial speed of light is lower near a
> massive body, so the Schwarzschild coordinate velocity of a pulse of light
> approaching a massive body decreases.

Yes. But this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the behavior of light, it is 
merely the behavior OF THE COORDINATES. You seem completely unaware of this.


> Now, when an
> operationally meaningful velocity of an entity decreases,

You are confused. Schw. coordinates are NOT "operationally meaningful". For that 
you must use CLOCKS. And to avoid PUNS on "speed", you must make a LOCAL 
measurement of the speed of light -- you will of course obtain c (in vacuum).


> On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 10:42:32 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> The same is true for massive particles moving at relativistic speeds.
>>
>> Yes. And also for non-relativistic speeds.
>
> Slow-moving particles generally still accelerate toward a massive body,

Again, coordinate-dependent quantities can AND DO confuse you. If you really 
want to discuss "acceleration", the only general quantity is an object's 
4-acceleration, which is identically zero for an object in freefall (including a 
light pulse or beam). GR is NOT Newtonian mechanics, and many words are used 
with DIFFERENT meanings in the two theories.

	Indeed there are three different types of "acceleration" in
	common usage in GR: coordinate acceleration, proper acceleration,
	and 4-acceleration. Coordinate acceleration can be ANYTHING,
	because it depends explicitly on the choice of coordinates.
	Proper acceleration is just the 4-acceleration projected onto
	the object's instantaneously co-moving inertial rest frame.
	4-accleration is the derivative of the object's 4-velocity with
	respect to its proper time. Reasonable authors ALWAYS specify
	which they mean.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386185

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:iu-dnckbLrBjQPjKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...

|I repeat: "Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". The 
"time
|standard" we use comes from ISO, and the second is defined as 9,192,631,770
|cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs133. Yet using 
this

Unfortunately, in the world we inhabit a bunch of idiots screaming
"STANDARD!!!! STANDARD!!!" is not enough to create a standard.

What you wrote is not any standard, check it at GPS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386221

El domingo, 19 de junio de 2016, 0:39:07 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:iu-dnckbLrBjQPjKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 
> |I repeat: "Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". The 
> "time
> |standard" we use comes from ISO, and the second is defined as 9,192,631,770
> |cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs133. Yet using 
> this
> 
> Unfortunately, in the world we inhabit a bunch of idiots screaming
> "STANDARD!!!! STANDARD!!!" is not enough to create a standard.
> 
> What you wrote is not any standard, check it at GPS.

You go and check yourself in the GPS documents and provide proof of your assertions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386235

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:4580fcf7-1782-4ff6-b6f2-22d72a199e52@googlegroups.com...

El domingo, 19 de junio de 2016, 0:39:07 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:iu-dnckbLrBjQPjKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> |I repeat: "Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". 
> The
> "time
> |standard" we use comes from ISO, and the second is defined as 
> 9,192,631,770
> |cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs133. Yet 
> using
> this
>
> Unfortunately, in the world we inhabit a bunch of idiots screaming
> "STANDARD!!!! STANDARD!!!" is not enough to create a standard.
>
> What you wrote is not any standard, check it at GPS.

|You go and check yourself in the GPS documents

A standard, poor idiot, is what people do, not what they say.
And they do clocks indicating t'=t, against your moronic
"standard".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386249

El domingo, 19 de junio de 2016, 14:34:12 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:4580fcf7-1782-4ff6-b6f2-22d72a199e52@googlegroups.com...
> 
> El domingo, 19 de junio de 2016, 0:39:07 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:iu-dnckbLrBjQPjKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >
> > |I repeat: "Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". 
> > The
> > "time
> > |standard" we use comes from ISO, and the second is defined as 
> > 9,192,631,770
> > |cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs133. Yet 
> > using
> > this
> >
> > Unfortunately, in the world we inhabit a bunch of idiots screaming
> > "STANDARD!!!! STANDARD!!!" is not enough to create a standard.
> >
> > What you wrote is not any standard, check it at GPS.
> 
> |You go and check yourself in the GPS documents
> 
> A standard, poor idiot, is what people do, not what they say.
> And they do clocks indicating t'=t, against your moronic
> "standard".

I see, so your way of reading a clock is a standard and all the idiots, like you, around there do standard clocks indicating t'=t (whatever that means). All the other so called standards are just moronic.

Way to go man. I have learned a lot today.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386252

On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 3:21:09 PM UTC-7, paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 19 de junio de 2016, 14:34:12 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > 
> I see, so your way of reading a clock is a standard and all the idiots, like you, around there do standard clocks indicating t'=t (whatever that means). 

He never explained it. He usually decorates it with the phrase "as proved by GPS" or
something like that, I forget.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386272

W dniu poniedziałek, 20 czerwca 2016 00:21:09 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> El domingo, 19 de junio de 2016, 14:34:12 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > dyskusyjnych:4580fcf7-1782-4ff6-b6f2-22d72a199e52@googlegroups.com...
> > 
> > El domingo, 19 de junio de 2016, 0:39:07 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:iu-dnckbLrBjQPjKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > >
> > > |I repeat: "Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". 
> > > The
> > > "time
> > > |standard" we use comes from ISO, and the second is defined as 
> > > 9,192,631,770
> > > |cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs133. Yet 
> > > using
> > > this
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, in the world we inhabit a bunch of idiots screaming
> > > "STANDARD!!!! STANDARD!!!" is not enough to create a standard.
> > >
> > > What you wrote is not any standard, check it at GPS.
> > 
> > |You go and check yourself in the GPS documents
> > 
> > A standard, poor idiot, is what people do, not what they say.
> > And they do clocks indicating t'=t, against your moronic
> > "standard".
> 
> I see, so your way of reading a clock is a standard and 

My way of reading clocks indication is: I'm looking at 
their output (usually display) and take the digits it
outputs (usually - visible there).

Your way of readding clocks is: The Shit is predicing
clocks indications!!! The Shit is obviously true!!!
So, clocks indications are what The Shit says!!!!

Yes, my way of reading clocks is standard way of
reading clocks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386290

El lunes, 20 de junio de 2016, 2:35:46 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl  escribió:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 20 czerwca 2016 00:21:09 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > El domingo, 19 de junio de 2016, 14:34:12 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > > Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > > dyskusyjnych:4580fcf7-1782-4ff6-b6f2-22d72a199e52@googlegroups.com...
> > > 
> > > El domingo, 19 de junio de 2016, 0:39:07 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > dyskusyjnych:iu-dnckbLrBjQPjKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > > >
> > > > |I repeat: "Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". 
> > > > The
> > > > "time
> > > > |standard" we use comes from ISO, and the second is defined as 
> > > > 9,192,631,770
> > > > |cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs133. Yet 
> > > > using
> > > > this
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, in the world we inhabit a bunch of idiots screaming
> > > > "STANDARD!!!! STANDARD!!!" is not enough to create a standard.
> > > >
> > > > What you wrote is not any standard, check it at GPS.
> > > 
> > > |You go and check yourself in the GPS documents
> > > 
> > > A standard, poor idiot, is what people do, not what they say.
> > > And they do clocks indicating t'=t, against your moronic
> > > "standard".
> > 
> > I see, so your way of reading a clock is a standard and 
> 
> My way of reading clocks indication is: I'm looking at 
> their output (usually display) and take the digits it
> outputs (usually - visible there).

I see and learn...So you are implying that a clock with hands (like my Longines) or a sundial clock are not standard clocks, while a digital clock radio, with visible display, is a standard clock.

So, Tom Van Baak at http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ was using standard clocks, according to your definitions. He took his  kids and three atomic clocks (with digital displays)up to mount Rainier (a difference of 1340 meters) staying there for 40 hours. After returning he compared the standard readings of the atomic clock with a reference clock located at his home and you know what....he found that t' was not equal to t.

> 
> Your way of readding clocks is: The Shit is predicing
> clocks indications!!! The Shit is obviously true!!!
> So, clocks indications are what The Shit says!!!!
> 
> Yes, my way of reading clocks is standard way of
> reading clocks.

I would review that way of reasoning....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386293

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:9aaa768e-8724-44b6-a311-1c71639eb532@googlegroups.com...

> > I see, so your way of reading a clock is a standard and
>
> My way of reading clocks indication is: I'm looking at
> their output (usually display) and take the digits it
> outputs (usually - visible there).

|I see and learn...So you are implying that a clock with hands (like my 
Longines) or a sundial clock are not standard clocks, while a digital clock 
radio, with visible display, is a standard clock.

No. I'm not. If there is an implication, it's all yours.

|So, Tom Van Baak at http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ was using standard 
clocks, according to your definitions. He took his  kids and three atomic 
clocks (with digital displays)up to mount Rainier (a difference of 1340 
meters) staying there for 40 hours. After returning he compared the 
|standard readings of the atomic clock with a reference clock located at his 
home and you know what....he found that t' was not equal to t.

Oh, from my point of view they were, with the precision of an
acceptable error.
Relativity, you know. "acceptable" is a VERY relative term.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386295

El lunes, 20 de junio de 2016, 11:23:39 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:9aaa768e-8724-44b6-a311-1c71639eb532@googlegroups.com...
> 
> > > I see, so your way of reading a clock is a standard and
> >
> > My way of reading clocks indication is: I'm looking at
> > their output (usually display) and take the digits it
> > outputs (usually - visible there).
> 
> |I see and learn...So you are implying that a clock with hands (like my 
> Longines) or a sundial clock are not standard clocks, while a digital clock 
> radio, with visible display, is a standard clock.
> 
> No. I'm not. If there is an implication, it's all yours.
> 
> |So, Tom Van Baak at http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ was using standard 
> clocks, according to your definitions. He took his  kids and three atomic 
> clocks (with digital displays)up to mount Rainier (a difference of 1340 
> meters) staying there for 40 hours. After returning he compared the 
> |standard readings of the atomic clock with a reference clock located at his 
> home and you know what....he found that t' was not equal to t.
> 
> Oh, from my point of view they were, with the precision of an
> acceptable error.
> Relativity, you know. "acceptable" is a VERY relative term.

Well, may be your point of view needs to be reviewed. For experimental scientists 22 nanoseconds is quite a large difference.
The NIST-F2 caesium fountain clock has a frequency uncertainty of 1.5 × 10−16. At this frequency uncertainty, the NIST-F2 is expected to neither gain nor lose a second in more than 211 million years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386297

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:b90af9a7-809b-4f66-997a-5feefc39e28a@googlegroups.com...


|Well, may be your point of view needs to be reviewed. For experimental 
scientists 22 nanoseconds is quite a large difference.

If the error was unacceptable, it would be corrected. Like it was at GPS.

|The NIST-F2 caesium fountain clock has a frequency uncertainty of 1.5 × 
10−16.

In the theory. In the real world they needed correction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386352

El lunes, 20 de junio de 2016, 12:32:57 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:b90af9a7-809b-4f66-997a-5feefc39e28a@googlegroups.com...
> 
> 
> |Well, may be your point of view needs to be reviewed. For experimental 
> scientists 22 nanoseconds is quite a large difference.
> 
> If the error was unacceptable, it would be corrected. Like it was at GPS.

It is not the clock that is in error. It is the measured fact that going up a mountain for 1340 meters is enough to make an atomic clock to run at a different rate. When the clock returns to the base the measured rate returns to the original rate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386362

W dniu wtorek, 21 czerwca 2016 03:32:02 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> El lunes, 20 de junio de 2016, 12:32:57 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > dyskusyjnych:b90af9a7-809b-4f66-997a-5feefc39e28a@googlegroups.com...
> > 
> > 
> > |Well, may be your point of view needs to be reviewed. For experimental 
> > scientists 22 nanoseconds is quite a large difference.
> > 
> > If the error was unacceptable, it would be corrected. Like it was at GPS.
> 
> It is not the clock that is in error. 

Yes, poor idiot, it is.
If it's corrected, it was an error. And it is
corrected - check at GPS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386375

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 2:15:39 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 21 czerwca 2016 03:32:02 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > El lunes, 20 de junio de 2016, 12:32:57 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > > Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > > dyskusyjnych:b90af9a7-809b-4f66-997a-5feefc39e28a@googlegroups.com...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > |Well, may be your point of view needs to be reviewed. For experimental 
> > > scientists 22 nanoseconds is quite a large difference.
> > > 
> > > If the error was unacceptable, it would be corrected. Like it was at GPS.
> > 
> > It is not the clock that is in error. 
> 
> Yes, poor idiot, it is.
> If it's corrected, it was an error. And it is
> corrected - check at GPS.

You should read the link (at http://leapsecond.com/great2005/ ) before writing you usual nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386231

On 6/18/16 6/18/16   11:38 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:iu-dnckbLrBjQPjKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...
> |I repeat: "Time dilation" is NOT "different effective time standards". The "time
> |standard" we use comes from ISO, and the second is defined as 9,192,631,770
> |cycles of the hyperfine transition of the ground state of Cs133.
>
> What you wrote is not any standard, check it at GPS.

NONSENSE! Your fantasies do not correspond to the real world, and your ignorance 
is showing: Just READ the GPS documents, and you'll find the GPS uses this standard.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web