Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408751 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-10 11:30 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-12 16:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 177 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 11:30 -0800
Cretin Robert Winn continues to spam "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-10 11:52 -0800
Re: Cretin Robert Winn continues to spam Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:21 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-10 21:08 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:34 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 14:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:24 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:45 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:14 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:39 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:21 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:44 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 15:42 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 17:58 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:21 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:36 +0100
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:07 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:20 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:41 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:40 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 17:18 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 15:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:57 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 18:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 23:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time stringduality@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 05:38 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 06:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 09:41 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:43 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 12:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 21:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 21:52 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 07:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 08:38 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:10 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 10:42 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 17:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 23:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 17:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:28 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:42 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 23:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 15:19 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:53 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:28 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:57 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:30 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 14:54 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:42 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:32 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-12 23:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:20 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:48 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:26 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:59 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-15 20:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 00:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 05:53 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:39 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-16 16:32 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 08:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 12:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-16 21:18 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:39 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:35 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:10 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:34 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:55 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 06:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:24 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 18:10 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 04:44 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 22:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 04:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 07:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 10:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 15:47 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 07:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 16:53 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 18:36 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:50 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:17 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:19 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-17 21:01 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 00:35 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:09 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:13 +0100
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:03 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:47 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:46 -0600
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 07:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 09:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 09:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 12:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:54 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 08:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 12:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 21:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:31 -0800
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 15:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7ql2n$1dg1$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408841 |
On 2/11/2017 2:13 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > You are probably done. I will keep using the Galilean transformation equations because they agree with the experiments that I deem important. Well, maybe that's the problem. The experiments you deem important is different than the experiments physicists deem important. Given that, I don't think there's much hope of coming to any agreement between you and anyone else, since it is unlikely anyone else will ever use the same experimental data sets that you deem important. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 07:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1888fa71-9bc8-4678-a25f-290f2e72200a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408751 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. n' is really the same amount of time as t. The clock measuring n' is just going slower than the clock measuring t. If we are talking about seconds of a clock showing n' as compared to seconds of a clock showing t, it is no different from saying that a rotation of a planet is a day, but a day measured by the rotation of earth is not the same amount of time as a day measured by the rotation of Mars or a day measured by the rotation of Jupiter. But we could stand on Mars and calculate the difference between the time of a day on Mars and a day on earth. > Scientists have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, making the second the building block of the universe in the minds of scientists, the one thing in existence that never varies. So it does not appear that scientists and ordinary people like me will ever agree with regard to relativity. An experiment performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2010 showed that if an atomic clock is lifted just one foot farther from the center of the earth, it will be measured to tick faster. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale That means that a second has a different length at Point-A than it does 1 foot above or below Point-A. That is NOT similar to the difference between a "day" on earth versus a "day" on Mars. The NIST used atomic clocks in their experiment because atomic clocks are VERY precise - precise enough to measure very very tiny differences in time. You could use ordinary clocks, or you could use apples or a book to measure time, but a decaying apple or book does not measure time precisely enough to show any measurable difference in a day. The NIST experiment means time is running slower for my feet than for my hips, and time is running slower for my hips than for my head. And that seems to mean that time can be compared to a spinning disk which moves slower at the center (Point-A) than half way between the center and the outer edge (Point-B), and it moves faster at the outer edge (Point-C) than in any location closer to the center. Yet, it all holds together. The outer edge does not vanish into the future, and the center does not vanish into the past. The whole disk rotates in the "now." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 07:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dd0af999-0030-4f93-b99e-e9043635c013@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408819 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:46:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. n' is really the same amount of time as t. The clock measuring n' is just going slower than the clock measuring t. If we are talking about seconds of a clock showing n' as compared to seconds of a clock showing t, it is no different from saying that a rotation of a planet is a day, but a day measured by the rotation of earth is not the same amount of time as a day measured by the rotation of Mars or a day measured by the rotation of Jupiter. But we could stand on Mars and calculate the difference between the time of a day on Mars and a day on earth. > > Scientists have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, making the second the building block of the universe in the minds of scientists, the one thing in existence that never varies. So it does not appear that scientists and ordinary people like me will ever agree with regard to relativity. > > An experiment performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2010 showed that if an atomic clock is lifted just one foot farther from the center of the earth, it will be measured to tick faster. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > That means that a second has a different length at Point-A than it does 1 foot above or below Point-A. > > That is NOT similar to the difference between a "day" on earth versus a "day" on Mars. > > The NIST used atomic clocks in their experiment because atomic clocks are VERY precise - precise enough to measure very very tiny differences in time. > > You could use ordinary clocks, or you could use apples or a book to measure time, but a decaying apple or book does not measure time precisely enough to show any measurable difference in a day. > > The NIST experiment means time is running slower for my feet than for my hips, and time is running slower for my hips than for my head. > > And that seems to mean that time can be compared to a spinning disk which moves slower at the center (Point-A) than half way between the center and the outer edge (Point-B), and it moves faster at the outer edge (Point-C) than in any location closer to the center. Yet, it all holds together. The outer edge does not vanish into the future, and the center does not vanish into the past. The whole disk rotates in the "now." > > Ed Yes, that is all very interesting, but I have not factored that into the equations yet. I will do that when the time comes. In the meantime, I am just discussing what Einstein called Special Relativity. With regard to what I have done so far, if you want to show what you have described in equation form, you have a set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of a clock at your feet. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your hips. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your head. I know this seems inconvenient, but it is the best I can do until I get this gravitationless conversation resolved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 09:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6219e95a-a697-4b3e-afe9-2c85b613a224@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408820 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:46:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. n' is really the same amount of time as t. The clock measuring n' is just going slower than the clock measuring t. If we are talking about seconds of a clock showing n' as compared to seconds of a clock showing t, it is no different from saying that a rotation of a planet is a day, but a day measured by the rotation of earth is not the same amount of time as a day measured by the rotation of Mars or a day measured by the rotation of Jupiter. But we could stand on Mars and calculate the difference between the time of a day on Mars and a day on earth. > > > Scientists have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, making the second the building block of the universe in the minds of scientists, the one thing in existence that never varies. So it does not appear that scientists and ordinary people like me will ever agree with regard to relativity. > > > > An experiment performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2010 showed that if an atomic clock is lifted just one foot farther from the center of the earth, it will be measured to tick faster. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > That means that a second has a different length at Point-A than it does 1 foot above or below Point-A. > > > > That is NOT similar to the difference between a "day" on earth versus a "day" on Mars. > > > > The NIST used atomic clocks in their experiment because atomic clocks are VERY precise - precise enough to measure very very tiny differences in time. > > > > You could use ordinary clocks, or you could use apples or a book to measure time, but a decaying apple or book does not measure time precisely enough to show any measurable difference in a day. > > > > The NIST experiment means time is running slower for my feet than for my hips, and time is running slower for my hips than for my head. > > > > And that seems to mean that time can be compared to a spinning disk which moves slower at the center (Point-A) than half way between the center and the outer edge (Point-B), and it moves faster at the outer edge (Point-C) than in any location closer to the center. Yet, it all holds together. The outer edge does not vanish into the future, and the center does not vanish into the past. The whole disk rotates in the "now." > > > > Ed > > Yes, that is all very interesting, but I have not factored that into the equations yet. I will do that when the time comes. In the meantime, I am just discussing what Einstein called Special Relativity. With regard to what I have done so far, if you want to show what you have described in equation form, you have a set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of a clock at your feet. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your hips. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your head. I know this seems inconvenient, but it is the best I can do until I get this gravitationless conversation resolved. Sorry, I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. The equations should be the same for the different heights. All that changes is the variable that is the distance from the center of the earth. The paper produced by the NIST is here: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf It's titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity." It includes plenty of equations. Special Relativity uses a very simple equation. While the NIST experiment is about General Relativity, the spinning disk analogy I provided is about Special Relativity. I failed to realize that until after I clicked on "POST." In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, Einstein wrote that someone at the North Pole will experience time running faster than someone at the equator. That is because someone at the North pole is just spinning in place as the earth spins on its axis, while someone at the equator is moving at over 1,037 miles per hour (1,670 kilometers per hour). If I want to calculate the length of a second at one velocity versus another, I use this calculator: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 It says that when someone at the North pole records one second has passed, someone at the equator will record that 1.0000155157098 seconds have passed. That relates better to the spinning disk analogy I provided. (In reality, the earth is not a perfect sphere, so there is also difference in altitude which needs to be taken into account via general relativity, but the concept is still valid.) Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 09:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a7eb598-24b7-4dc6-961e-8fc949a118ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408821 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:01:15 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:46:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. n' is really the same amount of time as t. The clock measuring n' is just going slower than the clock measuring t. If we are talking about seconds of a clock showing n' as compared to seconds of a clock showing t, it is no different from saying that a rotation of a planet is a day, but a day measured by the rotation of earth is not the same amount of time as a day measured by the rotation of Mars or a day measured by the rotation of Jupiter. But we could stand on Mars and calculate the difference between the time of a day on Mars and a day on earth. > > > > Scientists have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, making the second the building block of the universe in the minds of scientists, the one thing in existence that never varies. So it does not appear that scientists and ordinary people like me will ever agree with regard to relativity. > > > > > > An experiment performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2010 showed that if an atomic clock is lifted just one foot farther from the center of the earth, it will be measured to tick faster. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > > > That means that a second has a different length at Point-A than it does 1 foot above or below Point-A. > > > > > > That is NOT similar to the difference between a "day" on earth versus a "day" on Mars. > > > > > > The NIST used atomic clocks in their experiment because atomic clocks are VERY precise - precise enough to measure very very tiny differences in time. > > > > > > You could use ordinary clocks, or you could use apples or a book to measure time, but a decaying apple or book does not measure time precisely enough to show any measurable difference in a day. > > > > > > The NIST experiment means time is running slower for my feet than for my hips, and time is running slower for my hips than for my head. > > > > > > And that seems to mean that time can be compared to a spinning disk which moves slower at the center (Point-A) than half way between the center and the outer edge (Point-B), and it moves faster at the outer edge (Point-C) than in any location closer to the center. Yet, it all holds together. The outer edge does not vanish into the future, and the center does not vanish into the past. The whole disk rotates in the "now." > > > > > > Ed > > > > Yes, that is all very interesting, but I have not factored that into the equations yet. I will do that when the time comes. In the meantime, I am just discussing what Einstein called Special Relativity. With regard to what I have done so far, if you want to show what you have described in equation form, you have a set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of a clock at your feet. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your hips. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your head. I know this seems inconvenient, but it is the best I can do until I get this gravitationless conversation resolved. > > Sorry, I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. The equations should be the same for the different heights. All that changes is the variable that is the distance from the center of the earth. > > The paper produced by the NIST is here: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf It's titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity." It includes plenty of equations. > > Special Relativity uses a very simple equation. While the NIST experiment is about General Relativity, the spinning disk analogy I provided is about Special Relativity. I failed to realize that until after I clicked on "POST." > > In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, Einstein wrote that someone at the North Pole will experience time running faster than someone at the equator. That is because someone at the North pole is just spinning in place as the earth spins on its axis, while someone at the equator is moving at over 1,037 miles per hour (1,670 kilometers per hour). > > If I want to calculate the length of a second at one velocity versus another, I use this calculator: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 It says that when someone at the North pole records one second has passed, someone at the equator will record that 1.0000155157098 seconds have passed. That relates better to the spinning disk analogy I provided. (In reality, the earth is not a perfect sphere, so there is also difference in altitude which needs to be taken into account via general relativity, but the concept is still valid.) > > Ed Nuts! Since the person at the equator will be experiencing time running slower due to traveling at 1,037 mph, that means he will experience 1 second having passed while the guy at the North Pole experienced 1.0000155157098 seconds having passed. That's the reverse of what I wrote above. I hit POST too fast again. :-( Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 10:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8bb2130f-b219-424e-b1ae-08b422b3af48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408821 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:01:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:46:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. n' is really the same amount of time as t. The clock measuring n' is just going slower than the clock measuring t. If we are talking about seconds of a clock showing n' as compared to seconds of a clock showing t, it is no different from saying that a rotation of a planet is a day, but a day measured by the rotation of earth is not the same amount of time as a day measured by the rotation of Mars or a day measured by the rotation of Jupiter. But we could stand on Mars and calculate the difference between the time of a day on Mars and a day on earth. > > > > Scientists have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, making the second the building block of the universe in the minds of scientists, the one thing in existence that never varies. So it does not appear that scientists and ordinary people like me will ever agree with regard to relativity. > > > > > > An experiment performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2010 showed that if an atomic clock is lifted just one foot farther from the center of the earth, it will be measured to tick faster. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > > > That means that a second has a different length at Point-A than it does 1 foot above or below Point-A. > > > > > > That is NOT similar to the difference between a "day" on earth versus a "day" on Mars. > > > > > > The NIST used atomic clocks in their experiment because atomic clocks are VERY precise - precise enough to measure very very tiny differences in time. > > > > > > You could use ordinary clocks, or you could use apples or a book to measure time, but a decaying apple or book does not measure time precisely enough to show any measurable difference in a day. > > > > > > The NIST experiment means time is running slower for my feet than for my hips, and time is running slower for my hips than for my head. > > > > > > And that seems to mean that time can be compared to a spinning disk which moves slower at the center (Point-A) than half way between the center and the outer edge (Point-B), and it moves faster at the outer edge (Point-C) than in any location closer to the center. Yet, it all holds together. The outer edge does not vanish into the future, and the center does not vanish into the past. The whole disk rotates in the "now." > > > > > > Ed > > > > Yes, that is all very interesting, but I have not factored that into the equations yet. I will do that when the time comes. In the meantime, I am just discussing what Einstein called Special Relativity. With regard to what I have done so far, if you want to show what you have described in equation form, you have a set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of a clock at your feet. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your hips. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your head. I know this seems inconvenient, but it is the best I can do until I get this gravitationless conversation resolved. > > Sorry, I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. The equations should be the same for the different heights. All that changes is the variable that is the distance from the center of the earth. > > The paper produced by the NIST is here: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf It's titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity." It includes plenty of equations. > > Special Relativity uses a very simple equation. While the NIST experiment is about General Relativity, the spinning disk analogy I provided is about Special Relativity. I failed to realize that until after I clicked on "POST." > > In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, Einstein wrote that someone at the North Pole will experience time running faster than someone at the equator. That is because someone at the North pole is just spinning in place as the earth spins on its axis, while someone at the equator is moving at over 1,037 miles per hour (1,670 kilometers per hour). > > If I want to calculate the length of a second at one velocity versus another, I use this calculator: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 It says that when someone at the North pole records one second has passed, someone at the equator will record that 1.0000155157098 seconds have passed. That relates better to the spinning disk analogy I provided. (In reality, the earth is not a perfect sphere, so there is also difference in altitude which needs to be taken into account via general relativity, but the concept is still valid.) > > Ed Well, Newton had this figured out for satellites in orbit using absolute time. If there is a difference of time at different altitudes, then Newton's equations would have to be modified to use the time that a clock would actually show.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 12:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9a952d77-4034-4390-86a9-7838ca09d071@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408827 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:31:43 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:01:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:46:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. n' is really the same amount of time as t. The clock measuring n' is just going slower than the clock measuring t. If we are talking about seconds of a clock showing n' as compared to seconds of a clock showing t, it is no different from saying that a rotation of a planet is a day, but a day measured by the rotation of earth is not the same amount of time as a day measured by the rotation of Mars or a day measured by the rotation of Jupiter. But we could stand on Mars and calculate the difference between the time of a day on Mars and a day on earth. > > > > > Scientists have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, making the second the building block of the universe in the minds of scientists, the one thing in existence that never varies. So it does not appear that scientists and ordinary people like me will ever agree with regard to relativity. > > > > > > > > An experiment performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2010 showed that if an atomic clock is lifted just one foot farther from the center of the earth, it will be measured to tick faster. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > > > > > That means that a second has a different length at Point-A than it does 1 foot above or below Point-A. > > > > > > > > That is NOT similar to the difference between a "day" on earth versus a "day" on Mars. > > > > > > > > The NIST used atomic clocks in their experiment because atomic clocks are VERY precise - precise enough to measure very very tiny differences in time. > > > > > > > > You could use ordinary clocks, or you could use apples or a book to measure time, but a decaying apple or book does not measure time precisely enough to show any measurable difference in a day. > > > > > > > > The NIST experiment means time is running slower for my feet than for my hips, and time is running slower for my hips than for my head. > > > > > > > > And that seems to mean that time can be compared to a spinning disk which moves slower at the center (Point-A) than half way between the center and the outer edge (Point-B), and it moves faster at the outer edge (Point-C) than in any location closer to the center. Yet, it all holds together. The outer edge does not vanish into the future, and the center does not vanish into the past. The whole disk rotates in the "now." > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > Yes, that is all very interesting, but I have not factored that into the equations yet. I will do that when the time comes. In the meantime, I am just discussing what Einstein called Special Relativity. With regard to what I have done so far, if you want to show what you have described in equation form, you have a set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of a clock at your feet. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your hips. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your head. I know this seems inconvenient, but it is the best I can do until I get this gravitationless conversation resolved. > > > > Sorry, I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. The equations should be the same for the different heights. All that changes is the variable that is the distance from the center of the earth. > > > > The paper produced by the NIST is here: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf It's titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity." It includes plenty of equations. > > > > Special Relativity uses a very simple equation. While the NIST experiment is about General Relativity, the spinning disk analogy I provided is about Special Relativity. I failed to realize that until after I clicked on "POST." > > > > In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, Einstein wrote that someone at the North Pole will experience time running faster than someone at the equator. That is because someone at the North pole is just spinning in place as the earth spins on its axis, while someone at the equator is moving at over 1,037 miles per hour (1,670 kilometers per hour). > > > > If I want to calculate the length of a second at one velocity versus another, I use this calculator: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 It says that when someone at the North pole records one second has passed, someone at the equator will record that 1.0000155157098 seconds have passed. That relates better to the spinning disk analogy I provided. (In reality, the earth is not a perfect sphere, so there is also difference in altitude which needs to be taken into account via general relativity, but the concept is still valid.) > > > > Ed > > Well, Newton had this figured out for satellites in orbit using absolute time. If there is a difference of time at different altitudes, then Newton's equations would have to be modified to use the time that a clock would actually show. Newton knew nothing about time dilation. Einstein's formulas are used to make the calculations. GPS satellites require the corrections: Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the GPS satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion (14,000 kilometers per hour). A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite at 20,000 kilometers above ground should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 20:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <be537b78-17eb-4fb3-addf-4f1d62becb97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408842 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:15:38 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:31:43 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:01:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:46:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. n' is really the same amount of time as t. The clock measuring n' is just going slower than the clock measuring t. If we are talking about seconds of a clock showing n' as compared to seconds of a clock showing t, it is no different from saying that a rotation of a planet is a day, but a day measured by the rotation of earth is not the same amount of time as a day measured by the rotation of Mars or a day measured by the rotation of Jupiter. But we could stand on Mars and calculate the difference between the time of a day on Mars and a day on earth. > > > > > > Scientists have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, making the second the building block of the universe in the minds of scientists, the one thing in existence that never varies. So it does not appear that scientists and ordinary people like me will ever agree with regard to relativity. > > > > > > > > > > An experiment performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2010 showed that if an atomic clock is lifted just one foot farther from the center of the earth, it will be measured to tick faster. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > > > > > > > That means that a second has a different length at Point-A than it does 1 foot above or below Point-A. > > > > > > > > > > That is NOT similar to the difference between a "day" on earth versus a "day" on Mars. > > > > > > > > > > The NIST used atomic clocks in their experiment because atomic clocks are VERY precise - precise enough to measure very very tiny differences in time. > > > > > > > > > > You could use ordinary clocks, or you could use apples or a book to measure time, but a decaying apple or book does not measure time precisely enough to show any measurable difference in a day. > > > > > > > > > > The NIST experiment means time is running slower for my feet than for my hips, and time is running slower for my hips than for my head. > > > > > > > > > > And that seems to mean that time can be compared to a spinning disk which moves slower at the center (Point-A) than half way between the center and the outer edge (Point-B), and it moves faster at the outer edge (Point-C) than in any location closer to the center. Yet, it all holds together. The outer edge does not vanish into the future, and the center does not vanish into the past. The whole disk rotates in the "now." > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > Yes, that is all very interesting, but I have not factored that into the equations yet. I will do that when the time comes. In the meantime, I am just discussing what Einstein called Special Relativity. With regard to what I have done so far, if you want to show what you have described in equation form, you have a set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of a clock at your feet. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your hips. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your head. I know this seems inconvenient, but it is the best I can do until I get this gravitationless conversation resolved. > > > > > > Sorry, I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. The equations should be the same for the different heights. All that changes is the variable that is the distance from the center of the earth. > > > > > > The paper produced by the NIST is here: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf It's titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity." It includes plenty of equations. > > > > > > Special Relativity uses a very simple equation. While the NIST experiment is about General Relativity, the spinning disk analogy I provided is about Special Relativity. I failed to realize that until after I clicked on "POST." > > > > > > In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, Einstein wrote that someone at the North Pole will experience time running faster than someone at the equator. That is because someone at the North pole is just spinning in place as the earth spins on its axis, while someone at the equator is moving at over 1,037 miles per hour (1,670 kilometers per hour). > > > > > > If I want to calculate the length of a second at one velocity versus another, I use this calculator: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 It says that when someone at the North pole records one second has passed, someone at the equator will record that 1.0000155157098 seconds have passed. That relates better to the spinning disk analogy I provided. (In reality, the earth is not a perfect sphere, so there is also difference in altitude which needs to be taken into account via general relativity, but the concept is still valid.) > > > > > > Ed > > > > Well, Newton had this figured out for satellites in orbit using absolute time. If there is a difference of time at different altitudes, then Newton's equations would have to be modified to use the time that a clock would actually show. > > Newton knew nothing about time dilation. Einstein's formulas are used to make the calculations. GPS satellites require the corrections: > Yes, I understand. But had Newton known a clock was slower or faster, I am sure he could have made the correction. All you have to do is use two sets of Galilean transformation equations, one set for each clock. What is the problem you see with doing it that way? > Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the GPS satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion (14,000 kilometers per hour). > > A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite at 20,000 kilometers above ground should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. > > The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! Yes, that is very impressive. But I believe that the clocks correct each other, so scientists do not have to do anything once the satellites are communicating with each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 08:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9fd81e63-24f9-47c8-8f8c-a1aa7ca0336b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408894 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:54:47 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:15:38 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:31:43 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:01:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:46:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. n' is really the same amount of time as t. The clock measuring n' is just going slower than the clock measuring t. If we are talking about seconds of a clock showing n' as compared to seconds of a clock showing t, it is no different from saying that a rotation of a planet is a day, but a day measured by the rotation of earth is not the same amount of time as a day measured by the rotation of Mars or a day measured by the rotation of Jupiter. But we could stand on Mars and calculate the difference between the time of a day on Mars and a day on earth. > > > > > > > Scientists have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, making the second the building block of the universe in the minds of scientists, the one thing in existence that never varies. So it does not appear that scientists and ordinary people like me will ever agree with regard to relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > An experiment performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2010 showed that if an atomic clock is lifted just one foot farther from the center of the earth, it will be measured to tick faster. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > > > > > > > > > That means that a second has a different length at Point-A than it does 1 foot above or below Point-A. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is NOT similar to the difference between a "day" on earth versus a "day" on Mars. > > > > > > > > > > > > The NIST used atomic clocks in their experiment because atomic clocks are VERY precise - precise enough to measure very very tiny differences in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > You could use ordinary clocks, or you could use apples or a book to measure time, but a decaying apple or book does not measure time precisely enough to show any measurable difference in a day. > > > > > > > > > > > > The NIST experiment means time is running slower for my feet than for my hips, and time is running slower for my hips than for my head. > > > > > > > > > > > > And that seems to mean that time can be compared to a spinning disk which moves slower at the center (Point-A) than half way between the center and the outer edge (Point-B), and it moves faster at the outer edge (Point-C) than in any location closer to the center. Yet, it all holds together. The outer edge does not vanish into the future, and the center does not vanish into the past. The whole disk rotates in the "now." > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that is all very interesting, but I have not factored that into the equations yet. I will do that when the time comes. In the meantime, I am just discussing what Einstein called Special Relativity. With regard to what I have done so far, if you want to show what you have described in equation form, you have a set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of a clock at your feet. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your hips. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your head. I know this seems inconvenient, but it is the best I can do until I get this gravitationless conversation resolved. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. The equations should be the same for the different heights. All that changes is the variable that is the distance from the center of the earth. > > > > > > > > The paper produced by the NIST is here: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf It's titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity." It includes plenty of equations. > > > > > > > > Special Relativity uses a very simple equation. While the NIST experiment is about General Relativity, the spinning disk analogy I provided is about Special Relativity. I failed to realize that until after I clicked on "POST." > > > > > > > > In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, Einstein wrote that someone at the North Pole will experience time running faster than someone at the equator. That is because someone at the North pole is just spinning in place as the earth spins on its axis, while someone at the equator is moving at over 1,037 miles per hour (1,670 kilometers per hour). > > > > > > > > If I want to calculate the length of a second at one velocity versus another, I use this calculator: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 It says that when someone at the North pole records one second has passed, someone at the equator will record that 1.0000155157098 seconds have passed. That relates better to the spinning disk analogy I provided. (In reality, the earth is not a perfect sphere, so there is also difference in altitude which needs to be taken into account via general relativity, but the concept is still valid.) > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > Well, Newton had this figured out for satellites in orbit using absolute time. If there is a difference of time at different altitudes, then Newton's equations would have to be modified to use the time that a clock would actually show. > > > > Newton knew nothing about time dilation. Einstein's formulas are used to make the calculations. GPS satellites require the corrections: > > > Yes, I understand. But had Newton known a clock was slower or faster, I am sure he could have made the correction. All you have to do is use two sets of Galilean transformation equations, one set for each clock. > What is the problem you see with doing it that way? I don't know. I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. You need to ask a mathematician who understands time dilation as a REAL natural phenomenon, and not just as an "illusion" --- if you can find one. > > > Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the GPS satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion (14,000 kilometers per hour). > > > > A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite at 20,000 kilometers above ground should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. > > > > The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! > > Yes, that is very impressive. But I believe that the clocks correct each other, so scientists do not have to do anything once the satellites are communicating with each other. The clocks don't "correct each other." "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that, in addition to performing the calculation of position using 3D trilateration, will also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required." Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 10:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <07782cc7-c3e2-402a-afa3-a7b14e3cb0f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408937 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 9:51:24 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:54:47 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:15:38 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 12:31:43 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:01:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:46:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 1:30:41 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. n' is really the same amount of time as t. The clock measuring n' is just going slower than the clock measuring t. If we are talking about seconds of a clock showing n' as compared to seconds of a clock showing t, it is no different from saying that a rotation of a planet is a day, but a day measured by the rotation of earth is not the same amount of time as a day measured by the rotation of Mars or a day measured by the rotation of Jupiter. But we could stand on Mars and calculate the difference between the time of a day on Mars and a day on earth. > > > > > > > > Scientists have defined a second to be a certain number of transitions of a cesium atom, making the second the building block of the universe in the minds of scientists, the one thing in existence that never varies. So it does not appear that scientists and ordinary people like me will ever agree with regard to relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An experiment performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2010 showed that if an atomic clock is lifted just one foot farther from the center of the earth, it will be measured to tick faster. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That means that a second has a different length at Point-A than it does 1 foot above or below Point-A. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is NOT similar to the difference between a "day" on earth versus a "day" on Mars. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The NIST used atomic clocks in their experiment because atomic clocks are VERY precise - precise enough to measure very very tiny differences in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You could use ordinary clocks, or you could use apples or a book to measure time, but a decaying apple or book does not measure time precisely enough to show any measurable difference in a day. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The NIST experiment means time is running slower for my feet than for my hips, and time is running slower for my hips than for my head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And that seems to mean that time can be compared to a spinning disk which moves slower at the center (Point-A) than half way between the center and the outer edge (Point-B), and it moves faster at the outer edge (Point-C) than in any location closer to the center. Yet, it all holds together. The outer edge does not vanish into the future, and the center does not vanish into the past. The whole disk rotates in the "now." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that is all very interesting, but I have not factored that into the equations yet. I will do that when the time comes. In the meantime, I am just discussing what Einstein called Special Relativity. With regard to what I have done so far, if you want to show what you have described in equation form, you have a set of Galilean transformation equations for the time of a clock at your feet. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your hips. Then you have a different set of Galilean transformation equations with different variables for time and velocity for time at your head. I know this seems inconvenient, but it is the best I can do until I get this gravitationless conversation resolved. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. The equations should be the same for the different heights. All that changes is the variable that is the distance from the center of the earth. > > > > > > > > > > The paper produced by the NIST is here: http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf It's titled "Optical Clocks and Relativity." It includes plenty of equations. > > > > > > > > > > Special Relativity uses a very simple equation. While the NIST experiment is about General Relativity, the spinning disk analogy I provided is about Special Relativity. I failed to realize that until after I clicked on "POST." > > > > > > > > > > In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity, Einstein wrote that someone at the North Pole will experience time running faster than someone at the equator. That is because someone at the North pole is just spinning in place as the earth spins on its axis, while someone at the equator is moving at over 1,037 miles per hour (1,670 kilometers per hour). > > > > > > > > > > If I want to calculate the length of a second at one velocity versus another, I use this calculator: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 It says that when someone at the North pole records one second has passed, someone at the equator will record that 1.0000155157098 seconds have passed. That relates better to the spinning disk analogy I provided. (In reality, the earth is not a perfect sphere, so there is also difference in altitude which needs to be taken into account via general relativity, but the concept is still valid.) > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > Well, Newton had this figured out for satellites in orbit using absolute time. If there is a difference of time at different altitudes, then Newton's equations would have to be modified to use the time that a clock would actually show. > > > > > > Newton knew nothing about time dilation. Einstein's formulas are used to make the calculations. GPS satellites require the corrections: > > > > > Yes, I understand. But had Newton known a clock was slower or faster, I am sure he could have made the correction. All you have to do is use two sets of Galilean transformation equations, one set for each clock. > > What is the problem you see with doing it that way? > > I don't know. I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. You need to ask a mathematician who understands time dilation as a REAL natural phenomenon, and not just as an "illusion" --- if you can find one. > > > > > > Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the GPS satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion (14,000 kilometers per hour). > > > > > > A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite at 20,000 kilometers above ground should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. > > > > > > The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! > > > > Yes, that is very impressive. But I believe that the clocks correct each other, so scientists do not have to do anything once the satellites are communicating with each other. > > The clocks don't "correct each other." "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that, in addition to performing the calculation of position using 3D trilateration, will also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required." Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > > Ed Well, what I read was that the clocks are continually comparing their rates with the rates of other GPS clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 12:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d561328e-ae41-46a5-91bc-e9ef248d8c8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408944 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:12:12 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 9:51:24 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > Well, Newton had this figured out for satellites in orbit using absolute time. If there is a difference of time at different altitudes, then Newton's equations would have to be modified to use the time that a clock would actually show. > > > > > > > > Newton knew nothing about time dilation. Einstein's formulas are used to make the calculations. GPS satellites require the corrections: > > > > > > > Yes, I understand. But had Newton known a clock was slower or faster, I am sure he could have made the correction. All you have to do is use two sets of Galilean transformation equations, one set for each clock. > > > What is the problem you see with doing it that way? > > > > I don't know. I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. You need to ask a mathematician who understands time dilation as a REAL natural phenomenon, and not just as an "illusion" --- if you can find one. > > > > > > > > > Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the GPS satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion (14,000 kilometers per hour). > > > > > > > > A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite at 20,000 kilometers above ground should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. > > > > > > > > The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! > > > > > > Yes, that is very impressive. But I believe that the clocks correct each other, so scientists do not have to do anything once the satellites are communicating with each other. > > > > The clocks don't "correct each other." "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that, in addition to performing the calculation of position using 3D trilateration, will also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required." Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > > > > Ed > > Well, what I read was that the clocks are continually comparing their rates with the rates of other GPS clocks. And what do they do then? Compute an average? Choose a leader? Here's an article from "Physics Today" describing in detail how GPS satellites work: https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf Here's a quote from the first page of the article (note the last sentence in the first paragraph): "Accurate navigation with the GPS is made possible by the phenomenal performance of modern atomic clocks. If navigation errors of more than a meter are to be avoided, an atomic clock must deviate by less than about 4 nanoseconds from perfect synchronization with the other satellite clocks. That amounts to a fractional time stability of better than a part in 1013 . Only atomic clocks can do that. Even so, the system requires frequent uploads of clock corrections to the satellites." The reference for GPS time is a composite clock based on the US Naval Observatory's ensemble of about 50 cesium-beam frequency standards and a dozen hydrogen masers. Clock times on GPS satellites usually agree with the observatory's ensemble to within about 20 ns." Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 16:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e598367b-e308-4c3b-a18a-76ac25794fa4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408955 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:06:03 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:12:12 PM UTC-6, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 9:51:24 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > Well, Newton had this figured out for satellites in orbit using absolute time. If there is a difference of time at different altitudes, then Newton's equations would have to be modified to use the time that a clock would actually show. > > > > > > > > > > Newton knew nothing about time dilation. Einstein's formulas are used to make the calculations. GPS satellites require the corrections: > > > > > > > > > Yes, I understand. But had Newton known a clock was slower or faster, I am sure he could have made the correction. All you have to do is use two sets of Galilean transformation equations, one set for each clock. > > > > What is the problem you see with doing it that way? > > > > > > I don't know. I'm not a mathematician. I'm an analyst. You need to ask a mathematician who understands time dilation as a REAL natural phenomenon, and not just as an "illusion" --- if you can find one. > > > > > > > > > > > > Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the GPS satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion (14,000 kilometers per hour). > > > > > > > > > > A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite at 20,000 kilometers above ground should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. > > > > > > > > > > The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! > > > > > > > > Yes, that is very impressive. But I believe that the clocks correct each other, so scientists do not have to do anything once the satellites are communicating with each other. > > > > > > The clocks don't "correct each other." "The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that, in addition to performing the calculation of position using 3D trilateration, will also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required." Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > > > > > > Ed > > > > Well, what I read was that the clocks are continually comparing their rates with the rates of other GPS clocks. > > And what do they do then? Compute an average? Choose a leader? The article I read said that the clocks are self-correcting. What that means, or if it is true, I could not tell you. > > Here's an article from "Physics Today" describing in detail how GPS satellites work: https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf > > Here's a quote from the first page of the article (note the last sentence in the first paragraph): > > "Accurate navigation with the GPS is made possible by the phenomenal performance of modern atomic clocks. If navigation errors of more than a meter are to be avoided, an atomic clock must deviate by less than about 4 nanoseconds from perfect synchronization with the other satellite clocks. That amounts to a fractional time stability of better than a part in 1013 . Only atomic clocks can do that. Even so, the system requires frequent uploads of clock corrections to the satellites." > > The reference for GPS time is a composite clock based on the US Naval Observatory's ensemble of about 50 cesium-beam frequency standards and a dozen hydrogen masers. Clock times on GPS satellites usually agree with the observatory's ensemble to within about 20 ns." > > Ed Yes, I know all about corrections. I was an electronics technician in the Navy and worked on radar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0bc01fe5-66a3-46fd-9099-f39776d2cfc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408751 |
I don't see what Lorentz's transformation has anything to do with the velocity of light since in Lorentz transformation, Lorentz reverses the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's ether and Lorentz represent the ether with Maxwell's equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 21:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97602b70-4b9a-47f8-af90-1878e3514dbd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408880 |
On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 4:04:22 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't see what Lorentz's transformation has anything to do with the velocity of light since in Lorentz transformation, Lorentz reverses the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's ether and Lorentz represent the ether with Maxwell's equations.
The Lorentz equations are using velocity of light, but the only place it shows up is in the equation for t'.
t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
If x in the above equation is negative, then t' is a longer time than t, not shorter. That is because the velocity of the light being considered is negative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 15:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <89f93d82-830c-41e1-a2d2-681208e0cbcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408751 |
Huygens uses the earth's orbital diameter KL and a 22 time delay to measure the velocity of light, based on Roemer's observation of the period of Io but the period of Io has been measured at 42.45930686 hours which proves Roemer's time delay of Io's period does not occur and cannot be used to calculate the velocity of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 11:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1dc2e000-fa35-4411-809d-d5ac0ad49091@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408751 |
These two sets of Galilean transformation equations can be condensed down to a single set of equations.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t-vt/w
Inverse
x= x' - v't'
y = y'
z = z'
t= t' - v't'/w
What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate.
____________________________________________________
The Galilean transformation cannot be applied to Lorentz's transformation or Einstein's relativity since the velocity of the earth's yearly motion p is only constant at the center of the earth; at the surface of earth, Lorentz's velocity px varies.
.
.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 16:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8bebd261-5501-434f-a0da-7bcd4c9b2389@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408952 |
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 12:31:05 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: > These two sets of Galilean transformation equations can be condensed down to a single set of equations. > > > x'=x-vt > y'=y > z'=z > t'=t-vt/w > > Inverse > > > x= x' - v't' > y = y' > z = z' > t= t' - v't'/w > > What we might note in passing is that as seen from the Galilean transformation equations, -v' is really the same velocity as v, just measured with a clock having a different rate. > > ____________________________________________________ > > > The Galilean transformation cannot be applied to Lorentz's transformation or Einstein's relativity since the velocity of the earth's yearly motion p is only constant at the center of the earth; at the surface of earth, Lorentz's velocity px varies. > > > > . > > > > . Well, I would not know what scientists have been doing, only that they all seem to believe that if you have two clocks with different rates, you end up with the same velocity between frames of reference using the time of either clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web