Science > Physics > Androcles discovers that SR does not apply to gravity
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Daryl McCullough" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2005 08:04:42 AM |
| Object: |
Androcles discovers that SR does not apply to gravity |
Androcles writes:
Consider two identical, perfect clocks A
and B in contra-revolving but otherwise
identical orbits around the Earth...
That thought experiment correctly shows that SR does not apply to gravity.
SR is only valid in situations in which gravity can be ignored (or in
circumstances in which gravity can be treated as approximately uniform,
in which case SR applies approximately for freefalling observers).
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles discovers that SR does not apply to gravity |
16 Feb 2005 06:38:18 PM |
|
|
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cuvjtq023uq@drn.newsguy.com...
Androcles writes:
Consider two identical, perfect clocks A
and B in contra-revolving but otherwise
identical orbits around the Earth...
That thought experiment correctly shows that SR does not apply to
gravity.
SR is only valid in situations in which gravity can be ignored (or in
circumstances in which gravity can be treated as approximately
uniform,
in which case SR applies approximately for freefalling observers).
So ignore gravity.
"The co-axial contra-rotating rotors allow very controlled flight,
allowing the precise placement of heavy loads for construction."
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/kamov32/kamov326.html
The clocks are on the blade tips.
Why do they run slow relative to each other?
LA! LA! LA!, McCullough?
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl McCullough" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles discovers that SR does not apply to gravity |
16 Feb 2005 07:35:27 PM |
|
|
Androcles says...
So ignore gravity.
"The co-axial contra-rotating rotors allow very controlled flight,
allowing the precise placement of heavy loads for construction."
In that case, the problem is easy. If a clock is moving in a
circle of radius R, and the speed of the clock is a constant v
(so the time for one revolution is 2*pi*R/v) then the clock will
advance by 2*pi*R/v square-root(1-(v/c)^2) each revolution. Two
clocks revolving in opposite directions will show the same time
when they meet each other.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Two clocks passing show the same time. |
16 Feb 2005 11:28:48 PM |
|
|
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cv0scv0ejl@drn.newsguy.com...
Androcles says...
So ignore gravity.
"The co-axial contra-rotating rotors allow very controlled flight,
allowing the precise placement of heavy loads for construction."
In that case, the problem is easy. If a clock is moving in a
circle of radius R, and the speed of the clock is a constant v
(so the time for one revolution is 2*pi*R/v) then the clock will
advance by 2*pi*R/v square-root(1-(v/c)^2) each revolution.
TADA! Drum roll, please!
Two clocks revolving in opposite directions will show the same time
when they meet each other. < ----- McCullough
That's close to what I said and you disagreed, but I'm glad you can see
it now.
Theorem: Time is Absolute.
Proof:
Suppose it were not absolute. Consider two identical, perfect clocks A
and B in contra-revolving but otherwise identical orbits around the
Earth. Each agrees with the time of the other,
tau = t, dtau/dt = 1,
each agrees the rate of change of time is less than for the other,
dtau/dt < 1 and dt/dtau < 1
for each orbit.
We then have
[tau(A)< t(B) .AND. t(B)< tau(A) .AND. tau(A) =t(B)] = FALSE.
See, nothing to do with graves or tees. Sam and Joe are passing Origins
at the same instant that Sally and Jane do, but going in the opposite
direction. Everyone's clock reads 1 hour as they meet at Origins as it
reads 1 hour.
You were trying to tell me that the Sam and Joe would compute some
different time for Sally and Jane, but that was wrong, wasn't it?
Amazing what can be done with a thought experiment.
Now, why did Einstein think the length of Joe's ladder is less than the
length of Jane's ladder, or that Joe's wristwatch ticks at different to
Jane's wristwatch, all gravity joking aside?
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Two clocks passing show the same time. |
17 Feb 2005 08:48:40 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:kYVQd.64961$68.337@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cv0scv0ejl@drn.newsguy.com...
Androcles says...
So ignore gravity.
"The co-axial contra-rotating rotors allow very controlled flight,
allowing the precise placement of heavy loads for construction."
In that case, the problem is easy. If a clock is moving in a
circle of radius R, and the speed of the clock is a constant v
(so the time for one revolution is 2*pi*R/v) then the clock will
advance by 2*pi*R/v square-root(1-(v/c)^2) each revolution.
TADA! Drum roll, please!
Two clocks revolving in opposite directions will show the same time
when they meet each other. < ----- McCullough
That's close to what I said and you disagreed, but I'm glad you can see
it now.
Theorem: Time is Absolute.
Proof:
Suppose it were not absolute. Consider two identical, perfect clocks A
and B in contra-revolving but otherwise identical orbits around the
Earth. Each agrees with the time of the other,
tau = t, dtau/dt = 1,
That is wrong.
You don't know what the symbols mean.
each agrees the rate of change of time is less than for the other,
dtau/dt < 1 and dt/dtau < 1
The inequality
dtau/dt < 1
is a statement about the ticks on the tau-clock A as
measured by the person with the t-clock B
It should read
dtau/dt = sqrt(1-vA(t)^2) = 1/gammaA(t)
where t is the parameter that describes the path of the
remote tau-clock A and vA(t) is the speed of the clock.
The inequality
dt/dtau < 1
is a statement about the ticks on the t-clock B as
measured by the person with the tau-clock A.
It should read
dt/dtau = sqrt(1-vB(tau)^2) = 1/gammaB(tau)
where tau is the parameter that describes the path of the
remote t-clock B and vB(tau) is the speed of the clock.
for each orbit.
This is a meaningless qualifier.
Look at the qualifiers I just gave.
We then have
[tau(A)< t(B) .AND. t(B)< tau(A) .AND. tau(A) =t(B)] = FALSE.
After they get back together again, the total elasped
times on both clocks can be compared. Then you get
Delta(t) < Delta(tau) OR
Delta(t) = Delta(tau) OR
Delta(t) > Delta(tau)
These Deltas can be calculated as integrals
Delta(tau) = Int{ sqrt( 1-vA(t')^2 ) dt' }
= Int{ 1/gammaA(t') dt' }
Delta(t) = Int{ sqrt( 1-vB(t')^2 ) dt' }
= Int{ 1/gammaB(t') dt' }
as seen in any inertial frame (where at each
instant t' the speeds vA(t') and vB(t') are given.
If (but not only if) the trips were symmetrical w.r.t.
this inertial observer, then you find
Delta(t) = Delta(tau)
See, nothing to do with graves or tees.
Indeed.
Everything to do with understanding what the symbols mean.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl McCullough" |
|
| Title: Re: Two clocks passing show the same time. |
17 Feb 2005 10:14:34 AM |
|
|
Androcles says...
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote
In that case, the problem is easy. If a clock is moving in a
circle of radius R, and the speed of the clock is a constant v
(so the time for one revolution is 2*pi*R/v) then the clock will
advance by 2*pi*R/v square-root(1-(v/c)^2) each revolution.
Theorem: Time is Absolute.
Proof:
Suppose it were not absolute. Consider two identical, perfect clocks A
and B in contra-revolving but otherwise identical orbits around the
Earth. Each agrees with the time of the other,
tau = t, dtau/dt = 1,
Correct.
each agrees the rate of change of time is less than for the other,
dtau/dt < 1 and dt/dtau < 1
for each orbit.
No, that's not true. That's an example of what I mean when I say
that every time you try to do a derivation in Special Relativity
you make a mistake. You end up with nonsense because you *insert*
your own nonsense.
The Lorentz transformations are transformations between two different
*inertial* coordinate systems. A clock that is undergoing circular
motion is not at rest in *any* inertial coordinate system. So applying
Lorentz transformations makes no sense.
This is really not something peculiar to Special Relativity. Galilean
transformations only apply between inertial coordinate systems, as well.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Two clocks passing show the same time. |
19 Feb 2005 03:38:33 AM |
|
|
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cv2fta01j6m@drn.newsguy.com...
Androcles says...
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote
In that case, the problem is easy. If a clock is moving in a
circle of radius R, and the speed of the clock is a constant v
(so the time for one revolution is 2*pi*R/v) then the clock will
advance by 2*pi*R/v square-root(1-(v/c)^2) each revolution.
Theorem: Time is Absolute.
Proof:
Suppose it were not absolute. Consider two identical, perfect clocks
A
and B in contra-revolving but otherwise identical orbits around the
Earth. Each agrees with the time of the other,
tau = t, dtau/dt = 1,
Correct.
each agrees the rate of change of time is less than for the other,
dtau/dt < 1 and dt/dtau < 1
for each orbit.
No, that's not true.
Still struggling, fuckwit?
Struggle with this instead.
It is known that Einstein's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary Einsteinian view draws a
sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the
other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and
the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet
an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current,
or rate of change of charge at the places where parts of the conductor
are situated. But if the magnet is "stationary" and the conductor is in
an inertial frame of reference that is "moving", no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we
find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed, such equality being known
as the PoR --to electric rates of change of charge (coulombs per unit
tau) of the Lorentz contracted path and time dilated intensity, as
those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Two clocks passing show the same time. |
19 Feb 2005 03:40:19 AM |
|
|
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cv2fta01j6m@drn.newsguy.com...
[snip crap]
Even the fuckwit moortel thinks you are a fuckwit.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Two clocks passing show the same time. |
17 Feb 2005 12:08:34 PM |
|
|
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cv2fta01j6m@drn.newsguy.com...
Androcles says...
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote
In that case, the problem is easy. If a clock is moving in a
circle of radius R, and the speed of the clock is a constant v
(so the time for one revolution is 2*pi*R/v) then the clock will
advance by 2*pi*R/v square-root(1-(v/c)^2) each revolution.
Theorem: Time is Absolute.
Proof:
Suppose it were not absolute. Consider two identical, perfect clocks A
and B in contra-revolving but otherwise identical orbits around the
Earth. Each agrees with the time of the other,
tau = t, dtau/dt = 1,
Correct.
each agrees the rate of change of time is less than for the other,
dtau/dt < 1 and dt/dtau < 1
for each orbit.
No, that's not true. That's an example of what I mean when I say
that every time you try to do a derivation in Special Relativity
you make a mistake. You end up with nonsense because you *insert*
your own nonsense.
The Lorentz transformations are transformations between two different
*inertial* coordinate systems. A clock that is undergoing circular
motion is not at rest in *any* inertial coordinate system. So applying
Lorentz transformations makes no sense.
This is really not something peculiar to Special Relativity. Galilean
transformations only apply between inertial coordinate systems, as well.
Ah yes, in my reply I had overlooked the contra-revolving
bit. The clocks are at rest w.r.t. each other, but not in an
inertial frame.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Two clocks passing show the same time. |
17 Feb 2005 09:08:41 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
Theorem: Time is Absolute.
[snip]
Every time you post trash this comes back in your face, Androcyst.
Learn to like it.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HopeThatHelps.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrizeYours.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CoverUp.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GDefence.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html>
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html>
Androcyst is a spewing psychotic idiot troll.
Why are you having so much trouble with basic algebra?
Let L = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the
stationary frame.
Let L' = distance between Sam and Joe, as measured in the
moving frame.
Let v = speed of Sam and Joe, as measured in the stationary
frame (with Joe in front of Sam).
Let L_1 = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_1' = distance light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_1 = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let T_1' = time light travels in going from Sam to Joe, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let L_2 = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let L_2' = distance light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
Let T_2 = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the stationary frame.
Let T_2' = time light travels in going from Joe to Sam, as
measured in the moving frame.
What people are saying to you is that
1. L_1 = cL/(c-v)
2. L_1/T_1 = c
3. L_1' = L'
4. L_1'/T_1' = c
5. L_2 = cL/(c+v)
6. L_2/T_2 = c
7. L_2' = L'
8. L_2'/T_2' = c
So
L_1 is *not* equal to L_2.
L_1 is *not* equal to L.
L_1 is *not* equal to L'.
L_1 is *not* equal to L_1'.
L_2 is *not* equal to L.
L_2 is *not* equal to L'.
L_2 is *not* equal to L_2'.
T_1 is *not* equal to T_2.
T_1 is *not* equal to L/c.
T_1 is *not* equal to L'/c.
T_1 is *not* equal to T_1'.
T_2 is *not* equal to L/c.
T_2 is *not* equal to L'/c.
T_2 is *not* equal to T_2'.
On the other hand,
L_1' is equal to L_2'.
L_1' is equal to L'.
L_2' is equal to L'.
T_1' is equal to T_2'.
T_1' is equal to L'/c.
T_2' is equal to L'/c.
Is there yet another way for you to misunderstand?
Hey idiot Androcles,
<http://www.google.com/search?q=Androcles+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be>
reposting the same idiot drool that has been so thoroughly, utterly
publicly discredited by those who can do math (e.g., Randy Poe, in
disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely demonstrates what an
intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
Androcyst and logs:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
Androcyst and vectors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
Androcyst and limits:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeInfinity.html
Androcyst and equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Androcyst and square roots:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
Androcyst and exclusive ors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Androcyst and partial differential equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Two clocks passing show the same time. |
18 Feb 2005 10:59:54 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4214B379.A68F9637@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
Theorem: Time is Absolute.
[snip]
Every time you post trash this comes back in your face, Androcyst.
Learn to like it.
I love it.
[snip crap]
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count.
Every time you post trash this comes back in your face, Sch-wart-zit.
Learn to like it.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
