Science > Physics > Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
17 Feb 2006 07:00:30 AM |
| Object: |
Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein calculated the slowness that
invariably overtook clocks fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc
and then used the calculations in the derivation of the frequency shift
factor (Appendix 3). The breathtaking logic of Einstein makes
Einstein's zombies go into convulsions and yet they always remain
vigilant about something, no matter how intensive the frenzy is. This
something is the location of the non-rotating clock (at rest) which
according to Einstein's calculations is overtaken by fastness. The
clock at rest should stand at the center of the disc where the
comparison with rotating clocks is impossible. It should never stand
alongside the rotating periphery where the comparison with rotating
clocks would be possible.
The reason is simple. Einstein's theory is an inconsistency and if the
(single) clock at rest stood alongside the rotating periphery, it would
prove slow whereas rotating clocks passing it one after the other would
prove fast. That is an easy exercise but if someone is too used to
believing relativity hypnotists he/she could see Problem 3 ("Circular
motion"), case (b), on p. 15 (solution on p. 19) in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
17 Feb 2006 06:13:19 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein calculated the slowness that
invariably overtook clocks fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc
and then used the calculations in the derivation of the frequency shift
factor (Appendix 3).
Yes.
The reason is simple. Einstein's theory is an inconsistency
No, only your MISconceptions about relativity are inconsistent. <shrug>
and if the
(single) clock at rest stood alongside the rotating periphery, it would
prove slow whereas rotating clocks passing it one after the other would
prove fast.
Not true. Look up the experiment by Bailey et al in the FAQ. They
replaced the rotating disk with muons traveling around an approximately
circular storage ring. The muons going around the ring had considerably
longer lifetimes than muons at rest, within ~0.1% of the value predicted
by SR. That is, the clock inside the muons (that governs their decay)
experiences less elapsed proper time going around the ring (at ~0.9999
c) than does a muon at rest in the lab.
In the language of your scenario, the clock at rest "ticks faster" than
the clock passing it on the edge of the rotating disk. Your _guess_ is
experimentally refuted. The _computation_ using SR is confirmed.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
18 Feb 2006 01:01:30 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein calculated the slowness that
invariably overtook clocks fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc
and then used the calculations in the derivation of the frequency shift
factor (Appendix 3).
Yes.
The reason is simple. Einstein's theory is an inconsistency
No, only your MISconceptions about relativity are inconsistent. <shrug>
and if the
(single) clock at rest stood alongside the rotating periphery, it would
prove slow whereas rotating clocks passing it one after the other would
prove fast.
Not true. Look up the experiment by Bailey et al in the FAQ. They
replaced the rotating disk with muons traveling around an approximately
circular storage ring. The muons going around the ring had considerably
longer lifetimes than muons at rest, within ~0.1% of the value predicted
by SR. That is, the clock inside the muons (that governs their decay)
experiences less elapsed proper time going around the ring (at ~0.9999
c) than does a muon at rest in the lab.
In the language of your scenario, the clock at rest "ticks faster" than
the clock passing it on the edge of the rotating disk. Your _guess_ is
experimentally refuted. The _computation_ using SR is confirmed.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Don't panic, Roberts. There is only one thing you and your brotherhood
could do. Let me quote:
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
A class action might be the way to go.
100,000 students claim $50,000 each for wasted study time.
1,000 companies claim $50M each for wasted research expenditure.
.........just for starters.
Jim G
c'=c+v
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
18 Feb 2006 02:01:35 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein calculated the slowness that
invariably overtook clocks fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc
and then used the calculations in the derivation of the frequency shift
factor (Appendix 3).
Yes.
The reason is simple. Einstein's theory is an inconsistency
No, only your MISconceptions about relativity are inconsistent. <shrug>
and if the
(single) clock at rest stood alongside the rotating periphery, it would
prove slow whereas rotating clocks passing it one after the other would
prove fast.
Not true. Look up the experiment by Bailey et al in the FAQ. They
replaced the rotating disk with muons traveling around an approximately
circular storage ring. The muons going around the ring had considerably
longer lifetimes than muons at rest, within ~0.1% of the value predicted
by SR. That is, the clock inside the muons (that governs their decay)
experiences less elapsed proper time going around the ring (at ~0.9999
c) than does a muon at rest in the lab.
In the language of your scenario, the clock at rest "ticks faster" than
the clock passing it on the edge of the rotating disk. Your _guess_ is
experimentally refuted. The _computation_ using SR is confirmed.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Don't panic, Roberts. There is only one thing you and your brotherhood
could do. Let me quote:
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
A class action might be the way to go.
100,000 students claim $50,000 each for wasted study time.
1,000 companies claim $50M each for wasted research expenditure.
.........just for starters.
Jim G
c'=c+v
Pentcho Valev
Much like Jim Greenfield, you do not have the stones to test your
personal beliefs in court.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
18 Feb 2006 12:52:17 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140249695.495073.109230@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Relastic" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
17 Feb 2006 07:01:33 PM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein calculated the slowness that
invariably overtook clocks fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc
and then used the calculations in the derivation of the frequency shift
factor (Appendix 3).
Yes.
The reason is simple. Einstein's theory is an inconsistency
No, only your MISconceptions about relativity are inconsistent. <shrug>
and if the
(single) clock at rest stood alongside the rotating periphery, it would
prove slow whereas rotating clocks passing it one after the other would
prove fast.
Not true. Look up the experiment by Bailey et al in the FAQ. They
replaced the rotating disk with muons traveling around an approximately
circular storage ring. The muons going around the ring had considerably
longer lifetimes than muons at rest, within ~0.1% of the value predicted
by SR. That is, the clock inside the muons (that governs their decay)
experiences less elapsed proper time going around the ring (at ~0.9999
c) than does a muon at rest in the lab.
According to a poster and relativity specialist Spaceman. The reason
the moving muon can last longer is because more energy is inputted to
it.. the same energy to make it go around or accelerate hence it
lasts longer. This is in contrast to the muon at rest which has
less energy so it decays faster. How do you refute it?
R.
In the language of your scenario, the clock at rest "ticks faster" than
the clock passing it on the edge of the rotating disk. Your _guess_ is
experimentally refuted. The _computation_ using SR is confirmed.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
18 Feb 2006 12:50:15 PM |
|
|
Relastic wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Not true. Look up the experiment by Bailey et al in the FAQ. They
replaced the rotating disk with muons traveling around an approximately
circular storage ring. The muons going around the ring had considerably
longer lifetimes than muons at rest, within ~0.1% of the value predicted
by SR. That is, the clock inside the muons (that governs their decay)
experiences less elapsed proper time going around the ring (at ~0.9999
c) than does a muon at rest in the lab.
According to a poster and relativity specialist Spaceman.
The person posting around here using the alias Spaceman is by no means a
"relativity specialist".
The reason
the moving muon can last longer is because more energy is inputted to
it.. the same energy to make it go around or accelerate hence it
lasts longer. This is in contrast to the muon at rest which has
less energy so it decays faster. How do you refute it?
I don't. Nor do I need to. The _experiment_ is clear, and refutes
Valev's original nonsense. And it confirms the prediction of SR.
The fact that someone can concoct a different explanation does not
affect those two conclusions.
Note, however, that SR is a consistent physical theory that has been
tested via literally hundreds of experiments (see the FAQ for
references). The notions expressed above are by no means a complete
theory; I think you (or Spacemen) will have extreme difficulty turning
those vague notions into a complete theory that is in accord with _all_
of the experiments.
Interestingly, if you actually manage to turn that into a
complete theory, the odds are quite high that the result
will be experimentally indistinguishable from SR. Basically
the errorbars on the experimental tests of SR are so tiny
that any theory consistent with them must reproduce SR to
at least 6th order in v/c, and to avoid complete equivalence
must differ in 8th or higher order -- that's quite difficult.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
18 Feb 2006 02:38:34 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:H%JJf.9202$rL5.3044@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
The person posting around here using the alias Spaceman is by no means a
"relativity specialist".
LOL
OK agreed,
I am reality mechanics specialist.
The reason
the moving muon can last longer is because more energy is inputted to
it.. the same energy to make it go around or accelerate hence it
lasts longer. This is in contrast to the muon at rest which has
less energy so it decays faster. How do you refute it?
I don't. Nor do I need to. The _experiment_ is clear, and refutes Valev's
original nonsense. And it confirms the prediction of SR.
The experiment is not clear exept that is ignoring
actual physical conditions it is providing for the longer
life.
It is adding energy and not realizing and not even thinking
about the fact that the added energy is keeping the particle
"alive" longer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
18 Feb 2006 09:48:33 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:H%JJf.9202$rL5.3044@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
The _experiment_ [Bailey et al] is clear, and refutes Valev's
original nonsense. And it confirms the prediction of SR.
The experiment is not clear exept that is ignoring
actual physical conditions it is providing for the longer
life.
Nonsense. The _experiment_ does not ignore anything.
It is adding energy and not realizing and not even thinking
about the fact that the added energy is keeping the particle
"alive" longer.
Please _READ_ the paper [reference in the FAQ]. The experiment does not
"add energy" to the muons.
Yes indeed, the muons were created with significant kinetic energy
relative to the lab frame, but in an SR analysis that is irrelevant and
does not "keep the particle 'alive' longer" -- each muon behaves as
usual in its own frame, and the relationship between its rest frame and
the lab frame accounts for the difference.
Feel free to construct a theory in which adding energy "keeps particles
'alive' longer". So far, nobody has done so AFAIK. This will, of course,
not affect the validity of SR as a description of the experiments it
describes.
IOW: just because you can imagine an explanation that is different from
SR does not mean SR is wrong.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
18 Feb 2006 10:00:21 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:lURJf.10106$rL5.7922@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Spaceman wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:H%JJf.9202$rL5.3044@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
The _experiment_ [Bailey et al] is clear, and refutes Valev's original
nonsense. And it confirms the prediction of SR.
The experiment is not clear exept that is ignoring
actual physical conditions it is providing for the longer
life.
Nonsense. The _experiment_ does not ignore anything.
It is pouring in e/m energy into an object that is made of
e/m energy and saying it lives longer because of time dilation,
and not because of any energy it gave to it!
LOL
That is ignorance stage one!
LOL
Please _READ_ the paper [reference in the FAQ]. The experiment does not
"add energy" to the muons.
It accelerated it.
that is adding energy.
spin a top.
Does it last longer when you spin it faster.
DUH!
Yes indeed, the muons were created with significant kinetic energy
relative to the lab frame, but in an SR analysis that is irrelevant and
does not "keep the particle 'alive' longer" -- each muon behaves as usual
in its own frame, and the relationship between its rest frame and the lab
frame accounts for the difference.
Giving something energy is not irrelevant at all.
Feel free to construct a theory in which adding energy "keeps particles
'alive' longer". So far, nobody has done so AFAIK. This will, of course,
not affect the validity of SR as a description of the experiments it
describes.
You said they accelerate muons
They have done just what you say they are not.
also muons in natural cases also have the same type
situation.
IOW: just because you can imagine an explanation that is different from SR
does not mean SR is wrong.
Just because you can not grasp the explantion I give
for the muon time dilation *****, does not mean it is wrong either
and it does place a thought on SR even if you can't tell it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
19 Feb 2006 04:27:52 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:4JGdnXRJfc3McGre4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:lURJf.10106$rL5.7922@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Spaceman wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:H%JJf.9202$rL5.3044@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
The _experiment_ [Bailey et al] is clear, and refutes Valev's original
nonsense. And it confirms the prediction of SR.
The experiment is not clear exept that is ignoring
actual physical conditions it is providing for the longer
life.
Nonsense. The _experiment_ does not ignore anything.
It is pouring in e/m energy into an object that is made of
e/m energy and saying it lives longer because of time dilation,
and not because of any energy it gave to it!
LOL
That is ignorance stage one!
LOL
Please _READ_ the paper [reference in the FAQ]. The experiment does not
"add energy" to the muons.
It accelerated it.
that is adding energy.
spin a top.
Does it last longer when you spin it faster.
DUH!
Yes indeed, the muons were created with significant kinetic energy
relative to the lab frame, but in an SR analysis that is irrelevant and
does not "keep the particle 'alive' longer" -- each muon behaves as usual
in its own frame, and the relationship between its rest frame and the lab
frame accounts for the difference.
Giving something energy is not irrelevant at all.
Feel free to construct a theory in which adding energy "keeps particles
'alive' longer". So far, nobody has done so AFAIK. This will, of course,
not affect the validity of SR as a description of the experiments it
describes.
You said they accelerate muons
They have done just what you say they are not.
also muons in natural cases also have the same type
situation.
IOW: just because you can imagine an explanation that is different from
SR does not mean SR is wrong.
Just because you can not grasp the explantion I give
for the muon time dilation *****, does not mean it is wrong either
and it does place a thought on SR even if you can't tell it does.
Hey James!
Roberts is begging you to believe him. Ask him why all the Earth's clocks
are
not slow by 14 seconds compared to Cassini time:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
BTW, Roberts works for a phone company, not for NASA-JPL.
All those old farts are living 100 years in the past.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
19 Feb 2006 10:59:46 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
It is pouring in e/m energy into an object that is made of
e/m energy and saying it lives longer because of time dilation,
and not because of any energy it gave to it!
Attempting to discuss a paper you have not read is hopeless. They did
_NOT_ "pour e/m energy" into the muons.
Please _READ_ the paper [reference in the FAQ]. The experiment does not
"add energy" to the muons.
It accelerated it.
Yes, they did. But the muons' acceleration is perpendicular to their
direction of motion, and so does not add any energy to them. In fact, if
energy had been added to the muons they would not remain in the storage
ring (the radius of their orbit depends on their energy, and the
physical ring is of fixed radius).
that is adding energy.
No it isn't. You _really_ need to learn some basic physics. And you
_really_ need to read papers you attempt to discuss.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
19 Feb 2006 11:19:40 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:6u1Kf.10205$rL5.4981@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Spaceman wrote:
It is pouring in e/m energy into an object that is made of
e/m energy and saying it lives longer because of time dilation,
and not because of any energy it gave to it!
Attempting to discuss a paper you have not read is hopeless.
Yep. And you have never read or understood
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein, you get
all your ***** out of "Spacetime Physics" from amazon.com by the tails
wagging the dog.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
19 Feb 2006 11:05:11 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:6u1Kf.10205$rL5.4981@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Spaceman wrote:
It is pouring in e/m energy into an object that is made of
e/m energy and saying it lives longer because of time dilation,
and not because of any energy it gave to it!
Attempting to discuss a paper you have not read is hopeless. They did
_NOT_ "pour e/m energy" into the muons.
So how did the accelerate them?
Please _READ_ the paper [reference in the FAQ]. The experiment does not
"add energy" to the muons.
It accelerated it.
Yes, they did. But the muons' acceleration is perpendicular to their
direction of motion, and so does not add any energy to them.
That is a bunch of crap right there!
The energy increased the motion therefore it increased
the relative mass, and in turn increased the relative energy
from doing such.
that is adding energy.
No it isn't. You _really_ need to learn some basic physics. And you
_really_ need to read papers you attempt to discuss.
You really need to study relative mass and relative energy some day.
If you change an objects speed at all, you have added
energy to it.
You truly are a closed eye person.
Open your eyes man,
The added motion caused a higher relative energy.
Sheesh!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
17 Feb 2006 06:27:24 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The reason is simple. Einstein's theory is an inconsistency and if the
(single) clock at rest stood alongside the rotating periphery, it would
prove slow whereas rotating clocks passing it one after the other would
prove fast. That is an easy exercise
....which you apparently have never done. In fact SR predicts nothing of
the kind - correct formulas for these clock rates and elapsed times
have been posted on this NG umpteen number of times, see e.g.
http://tinyurl.com/dbugp (that's a TEN years old post, you are way
behind).
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's Convulsionaries and the Center of the Disc |
17 Feb 2006 08:06:49 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev - did Einstein owe you money, or have an affair with your
wife?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
