| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2007 11:01:10 AM |
| Object: |
Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A predicts that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
03 Oct 2007 11:53:00 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 11:01 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A predicts that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Ken Seto
This has already been done without the lame idea of TV pictures and
little WalMart alarm clocks. Mutual time dilation is observed in HEP
collisions at particle labs.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
02 Oct 2007 02:21:44 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A predicts that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
In any case, the effect is symmetric. If I think your
clock is blue-shifted, you think mine is blue-shifted
and by the same amount.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
02 Oct 2007 03:06:03 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
In any case, the effect is symmetric. If I think your
clock is blue-shifted, you think mine is blue-shifted
and by the same amount.
Give us an actual example that the effect is symmetric. The GPS clock and
the ground clock are not symmetric.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
02 Oct 2007 03:23:55 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
Have you heard of "blue-shift" and "red-shift"? Do
you think that time-dilation predicts both of those
effects?
In any case, the effect is symmetric. If I think your
clock is blue-shifted, you think mine is blue-shifted
and by the same amount.
Give us an actual example that the effect is symmetric.
1. I communicate with a moving aircraft using a
radio of frequency 1 GHz. The aircraft is moving toward
me at 300 m/sec. The signal the aircraft receives
is at frequency 1.000001 GHz, and the signal I receive
from the aircraft, broadcast at 1 GHz, appears to me
to be at 1.000001 GHz.
2. I communicate with a moving aircraft using a
radio of frequency 1 GHz. The aircraft is moving away
from me at 300 m/sec. The signal the aircraft receives
is at frequency 0.999999 GHz, and the signal I receive
from the aircraft, broadcast at 1 GHz, appears to me
to be at 0.999999 GHz.
The GPS clock and
the ground clock are not symmetric.
Weren't you asking an SR question? That is not
a situation in which SR applies. SR makes no predictions
about the gravitational effect which causes most
of that time difference, and which is not symmetric.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
03 Oct 2007 08:59:00 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191356635.603521.54530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A
predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that
A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following
proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of
his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
Have you heard of "blue-shift" and "red-shift"? Do
you think that time-dilation predicts both of those
effects?
So you are saying that the TV clock will run fast when it is approaching you
and it is running slow when it is receding from you???? I don't think so.
Besides satellite TV wouldn't work if what you say is true. Clocks in
relative motion will not change rate. They will change rate after
acceleration.
In any case, the effect is symmetric. If I think your
clock is blue-shifted, you think mine is blue-shifted
and by the same amount.
Give us an actual example that the effect is symmetric.
1. I communicate with a moving aircraft using a
radio of frequency 1 GHz. The aircraft is moving toward
me at 300 m/sec. The signal the aircraft receives
is at frequency 1.000001 GHz, and the signal I receive
from the aircraft, broadcast at 1 GHz, appears to me
to be at 1.000001 GHz.
Here you are talking about Doppler shift which is sensitive to direction of
motion. Time dilation is not sensitve to direction of relative motion.
2. I communicate with a moving aircraft using a
radio of frequency 1 GHz. The aircraft is moving away
from me at 300 m/sec. The signal the aircraft receives
is at frequency 0.999999 GHz, and the signal I receive
from the aircraft, broadcast at 1 GHz, appears to me
to be at 0.999999 GHz.
Here you are talking about Doppler shift which is sensitive to direction of
motion. Time dilation is not sensitve to direction of relative motion.
The GPS clock and
the ground clock are not symmetric.
Weren't you asking an SR question? That is not
a situation in which SR applies. SR makes no predictions
about the gravitational effect which causes most
of that time difference, and which is not symmetric.
Wrong The SR effect on the GPS clock is calculated using the SR formula and
it is
7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. The gravitational
potential effect is calculkated separately and it is 45 us/day running fast
compared to the ground clock. The combined effects is 38 us/day running
fast.
Besides if what you said is true then SR shouldn't work on earth because the
earth is in a gravitational field. Also, there is no actual example of SR
symmetry. All clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
03 Oct 2007 09:05:22 AM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 6:59 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[snip crap]
All clocks in relative motion are running at different rates.
Ken Seto
That's a boy, Kenny - boy
You don't even have to try your *****-brain experiment, you ALREADY
know the result. You have been telling the whole world the result for
most of your adult life :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
03 Oct 2007 09:17:36 AM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 9:59 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191356635.603521.54530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A
predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that
A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following
proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of
his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
Have you heard of "blue-shift" and "red-shift"? Do
you think that time-dilation predicts both of those
effects?
So you are saying that the TV clock will run fast when it is approaching you
and it is running slow when it is receding from you???? I don't think so.
Besides satellite TV wouldn't work if what you say is true. Clocks in
relative motion will not change rate. They will change rate after
acceleration.
In any case, the effect is symmetric. If I think your
clock is blue-shifted, you think mine is blue-shifted
and by the same amount.
Give us an actual example that the effect is symmetric.
1. I communicate with a moving aircraft using a
radio of frequency 1 GHz. The aircraft is moving toward
me at 300 m/sec. The signal the aircraft receives
is at frequency 1.000001 GHz, and the signal I receive
from the aircraft, broadcast at 1 GHz, appears to me
to be at 1.000001 GHz.
Here you are talking about Doppler shift which is sensitive to direction of
motion.
Yes, I am talking about the effect that relates the interval
at which signals are generated (according to onboard
clock), to the interval at which those events are
received. That is the Doppler effect.
Time dilation is not sensitve to direction of relative motion.
That's correct, but the relation between interval of transmitted
events from a moving platform and interval of receipt of those
events is given by relativistic Doppler, and *does* depend
on direction of relative motion.
2. I communicate with a moving aircraft using a
radio of frequency 1 GHz. The aircraft is moving away
from me at 300 m/sec. The signal the aircraft receives
is at frequency 0.999999 GHz, and the signal I receive
from the aircraft, broadcast at 1 GHz, appears to me
to be at 0.999999 GHz.
Here you are talking about Doppler shift which is sensitive to direction of
motion. Time dilation is not sensitve to direction of relative motion.
But Doppler shift is the effect which describes the
relationship between those two frequencies.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
04 Oct 2007 08:54:37 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191421056.735042.168410@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:59 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191356635.603521.54530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A
predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts
that
A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following
proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture
of
his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
Have you heard of "blue-shift" and "red-shift"? Do
you think that time-dilation predicts both of those
effects?
So you are saying that the TV clock will run fast when it is approaching
you
and it is running slow when it is receding from you???? I don't think
so.
Besides satellite TV wouldn't work if what you say is true. Clocks in
relative motion will not change rate. They will change rate after
acceleration.
Why no reply on this??
In any case, the effect is symmetric. If I think your
clock is blue-shifted, you think mine is blue-shifted
and by the same amount.
Give us an actual example that the effect is symmetric.
1. I communicate with a moving aircraft using a
radio of frequency 1 GHz. The aircraft is moving toward
me at 300 m/sec. The signal the aircraft receives
is at frequency 1.000001 GHz, and the signal I receive
from the aircraft, broadcast at 1 GHz, appears to me
to be at 1.000001 GHz.
Here you are talking about Doppler shift which is sensitive to direction
of
motion.
Yes, I am talking about the effect that relates the interval
at which signals are generated (according to onboard
clock), to the interval at which those events are
received. That is the Doppler effect.
Time dilation is not sensitve to direction of relative motion.
That's correct, but the relation between interval of transmitted
events from a moving platform and interval of receipt of those
events is given by relativistic Doppler, and *does* depend
on direction of relative motion.
No the information in the TV program (the rate of the TV clock) is not
sentive to direction of relative motion. Otherwise satellite TV wouldn't
work properly.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
04 Oct 2007 09:41:17 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 9:54 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191421056.735042.168410@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:59 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191356635.603521.54530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A
predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts
that
A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following
proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture
of
his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
Have you heard of "blue-shift" and "red-shift"? Do
you think that time-dilation predicts both of those
effects?
So you are saying that the TV clock will run fast when it is approaching
you
and it is running slow when it is receding from you???? I don't think
so.
Besides satellite TV wouldn't work if what you say is true. Clocks in
relative motion will not change rate. They will change rate after
acceleration.
Why no reply on this??
Missed it, I guess. Anyway, it's wrong. TV is not going to
be bothered by a few nanoseconds of what is called
"time jitter". There are much larger jitter effects in the
communication circuitry, and the system is designed to
accomodate them.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
04 Oct 2007 03:50:32 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191508877.740068.104210@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:54 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191421056.735042.168410@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:59 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191356635.603521.54530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that
A
predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B
predicts
that
A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following
proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV
picture
of
his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his
actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his
actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
Have you heard of "blue-shift" and "red-shift"? Do
you think that time-dilation predicts both of those
effects?
So you are saying that the TV clock will run fast when it is
approaching
you
and it is running slow when it is receding from you???? I don't
think
so.
Besides satellite TV wouldn't work if what you say is true. Clocks
in
relative motion will not change rate. They will change rate after
acceleration.
Why no reply on this??
Missed it, I guess. Anyway, it's wrong. TV is not going to
be bothered by a few nanoseconds of what is called
"time jitter". There are much larger jitter effects in the
communication circuitry, and the system is designed to
accomodate them.
So its time jitter even if the relative velocity is a significant portion
that of the speed of light?
Also my proposed experiments is designed to test the SR concept of symmetry.
Do you disagree with that?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
04 Oct 2007 03:54:43 PM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 4:50 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191508877.740068.104210@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:54 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191421056.735042.168410@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:59 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191356635.603521.54530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that
A
predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B
predicts
that
A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following
proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV
picture
of
his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his
actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his
actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
Have you heard of "blue-shift" and "red-shift"? Do
you think that time-dilation predicts both of those
effects?
So you are saying that the TV clock will run fast when it is
approaching
you
and it is running slow when it is receding from you???? I don't
think
so.
Besides satellite TV wouldn't work if what you say is true. Clocks
in
relative motion will not change rate. They will change rate after
acceleration.
Why no reply on this??
Missed it, I guess. Anyway, it's wrong. TV is not going to
be bothered by a few nanoseconds of what is called
"time jitter". There are much larger jitter effects in the
communication circuitry, and the system is designed to
accomodate them.
So its time jitter even if the relative velocity is a significant portion
that of the speed of light?
You said "if this was true, satellite TV wouldn't work".
You weren't talking about relativistic satellites,
you were talking about the current generation of
satellite TV. They don't have significant relativistic
jitter effects.
Do try to keep your own arguments straight.
Also my proposed experiments is designed to test the SR concept of symmetry.
Do you disagree with that?
I agree that was your intention. I'm pointing out
that the only way it's a test is if you actually
DO the experiment. Thinking about it is not a test.
You seemed to be trying to claim that simply
describing it, without doing the measurement,
provided the test. It doesn't.
When I pointed that out, you seemed to think that
merely NAMING the experiment "test" made it a
test. It doesn't.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
05 Oct 2007 08:53:17 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191531283.939543.252660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 4:50 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191508877.740068.104210@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:54 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191421056.735042.168410@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:59 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191356635.603521.54530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims
that
A
predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B
predicts
that
A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The
following
proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this
claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV
picture
of
his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his
actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his
actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
Have you heard of "blue-shift" and "red-shift"? Do
you think that time-dilation predicts both of those
effects?
So you are saying that the TV clock will run fast when it is
approaching
you
and it is running slow when it is receding from you???? I don't
think
so.
Besides satellite TV wouldn't work if what you say is true.
Clocks
in
relative motion will not change rate. They will change rate
after
acceleration.
Why no reply on this??
Missed it, I guess. Anyway, it's wrong. TV is not going to
be bothered by a few nanoseconds of what is called
"time jitter". There are much larger jitter effects in the
communication circuitry, and the system is designed to
accomodate them.
So its time jitter even if the relative velocity is a significant
portion
that of the speed of light?
You said "if this was true, satellite TV wouldn't work".
You weren't talking about relativistic satellites,
you were talking about the current generation of
satellite TV. They don't have significant relativistic
jitter effects.
Do try to keep your own arguments straight.
Also my proposed experiments is designed to test the SR concept of
symmetry.
Do you disagree with that?
I agree that was your intention. I'm pointing out
that the only way it's a test is if you actually
DO the experiment. Thinking about it is not a test.
You seemed to be trying to claim that simply
describing it, without doing the measurement,
provided the test. It doesn't.
So what is the maintream physicists' excuse not to do any experiment that
could validate the SR claim of symmetry?????
MY guess: Don't rock the boat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
05 Oct 2007 09:38:18 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 9:53 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191531283.939543.252660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 4:50 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191508877.740068.104210@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:54 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191421056.735042.168410@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:59 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191356635.603521.54530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims
that
A
predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B
predicts
that
A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The
following
proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this
claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV
picture
of
his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his
actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his
actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
Have you heard of "blue-shift" and "red-shift"? Do
you think that time-dilation predicts both of those
effects?
So you are saying that the TV clock will run fast when it is
approaching
you
and it is running slow when it is receding from you???? I don't
think
so.
Besides satellite TV wouldn't work if what you say is true.
Clocks
in
relative motion will not change rate. They will change rate
after
acceleration.
Why no reply on this??
Missed it, I guess. Anyway, it's wrong. TV is not going to
be bothered by a few nanoseconds of what is called
"time jitter". There are much larger jitter effects in the
communication circuitry, and the system is designed to
accomodate them.
So its time jitter even if the relative velocity is a significant
portion
that of the speed of light?
You said "if this was true, satellite TV wouldn't work".
You weren't talking about relativistic satellites,
you were talking about the current generation of
satellite TV. They don't have significant relativistic
jitter effects.
Do try to keep your own arguments straight.
Also my proposed experiments is designed to test the SR concept of
symmetry.
Do you disagree with that?
I agree that was your intention. I'm pointing out
that the only way it's a test is if you actually
DO the experiment. Thinking about it is not a test.
You seemed to be trying to claim that simply
describing it, without doing the measurement,
provided the test. It doesn't.
So what is the maintream physicists' excuse not to do any experiment that
could validate the SR claim of symmetry?????
Mutual doppler is observed between every pair of radios
talking on mutually-moving platforms. This is done routinely
thousands of times a day.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
06 Oct 2007 08:26:13 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191595098.357991.176430@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 9:53 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191531283.939543.252660@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 4:50 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191508877.740068.104210@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 9:54 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191421056.735042.168410@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 9:59 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191356635.603521.54530@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 4:06 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191352904.624101.245400@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR
claims
that
A
predicts
that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and
B
predicts
that
A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The
following
proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of
this
claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send
a TV
picture
of
his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to
his
actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to
his
actual
clock
second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Sure it is time dilation.
Have you heard of "blue-shift" and "red-shift"? Do
you think that time-dilation predicts both of those
effects?
So you are saying that the TV clock will run fast when it is
approaching
you
and it is running slow when it is receding from you???? I
don't
think
so.
Besides satellite TV wouldn't work if what you say is true.
Clocks
in
relative motion will not change rate. They will change rate
after
acceleration.
Why no reply on this??
Missed it, I guess. Anyway, it's wrong. TV is not going to
be bothered by a few nanoseconds of what is called
"time jitter". There are much larger jitter effects in the
communication circuitry, and the system is designed to
accomodate them.
So its time jitter even if the relative velocity is a significant
portion
that of the speed of light?
You said "if this was true, satellite TV wouldn't work".
You weren't talking about relativistic satellites,
you were talking about the current generation of
satellite TV. They don't have significant relativistic
jitter effects.
Do try to keep your own arguments straight.
Also my proposed experiments is designed to test the SR concept of
symmetry.
Do you disagree with that?
I agree that was your intention. I'm pointing out
that the only way it's a test is if you actually
DO the experiment. Thinking about it is not a test.
You seemed to be trying to claim that simply
describing it, without doing the measurement,
provided the test. It doesn't.
So what is the maintream physicists' excuse not to do any experiment
that
could validate the SR claim of symmetry?????
Mutual doppler is observed between every pair of radios
talking on mutually-moving platforms. This is done routinely
thousands of times a day.
This does not establish that both observers measure the same value of shift.
In order to claim symmetry the value of the shift must be the same.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
11 Oct 2007 11:44:26 AM |
|
|
Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1191595098.357991.176430
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Mutual doppler is observed between every pair of radios
talking on mutually-moving platforms. This is done routinely
thousands of times a day.
all he would need to do is get two cop cars with Doppler ladars approach each
other on a highway, with each traveling at 60 mph.
Then have them check each others speed.
They will each see the other car approaching at 120 mph.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
02 Oct 2007 03:32:05 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 12:21 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A predicts that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Relative Doppler shift includes time dilation while classical Doppler
shift does not. What would be interesting is that both observers do a
180 degrees turn with the same acceleration profile. In doing so, the
symmetry still exists. After turning around with the same speed but
opposite in direction, both observers re-send the same TV program. By
adding the results of the signal received (synchronized with the
content of the program) now with the one previously, all you left is
the time dilation. Granted technical details have to be worked out,
but this thought experiment does show that unmistakable mutual time
dilation which is forbidden by reality itself.
In any case, the effect is symmetric. If I think your
clock is blue-shifted, you think mine is blue-shifted
and by the same amount.
We thank Mr. Seto for bringing up this thought experiment to show the
absolute nonsense of SR. Remember that the twin's paradox is the
combined results of the time dilation and the principle of
relativity. To resolve this paradox, either time is not dilated or
the principle of relativity must be wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
02 Oct 2007 04:22:42 PM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 4:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:21 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A predicts that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Relative Doppler shift includes time dilation while classical Doppler
shift does not. What would be interesting is that both observers do a
180 degrees turn with the same acceleration profile. In doing so, the
symmetry still exists. After turning around with the same speed but
opposite in direction, both observers re-send the same TV program.
Such a situation occurs every time a Doppler radar signal
is sent, reflected off a target, and immediately sent back
to the transmitter.
By
adding the results of the signal received (synchronized with the
content of the program) now with the one previously, all you left is
the time dilation. Granted technical details have to be worked out,
but this thought experiment does show that unmistakable mutual time
dilation which is forbidden by reality itself.
Yes, brilliantly argued. I conclude therefore that it is
impossible for Doppler radar to be blue-shifted by the
same amount when it reflects off a target, and that
therefore it can't possibly work, and that nobody would
use the equation delta-f = 2v/c to model the two-way
blue-shift, because that denies physical reality.
http://www.alphalpha.org/radar/intro_e.html#Effetto%20Doppler
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
03 Oct 2007 12:13:08 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 2:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 2, 4:32 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
Relative Doppler shift includes time dilation while classical Doppler
shift does not. What would be interesting is that both observers do a
180 degrees turn with the same acceleration profile. In doing so, the
symmetry still exists. After turning around with the same speed but
opposite in direction, both observers re-send the same TV program.
Such a situation occurs every time a Doppler radar signal
is sent, reflected off a target, and immediately sent back
to the transmitter.
No, not quite. The RADAR signal was sent once and received once.
<shrug>
By
adding the results of the signal received (synchronized with the
content of the program) now with the one previously, all you left is
the time dilation. Granted technical details have to be worked out,
but this thought experiment does show that unmistakable mutual time
dilation which is forbidden by reality itself.
Yes, brilliantly argued.
Compliments coming from known Einstein Dingleberries are very rare
nowadays even if they mean sarcasm. <shrug>
I conclude therefore that it is
impossible for Doppler radar to be blue-shifted by the
same amount when it reflects off a target, and that
therefore it can't possibly work, and that nobody would
use the equation delta-f = 2v/c to model the two-way
blue-shift, because that denies physical reality.
http://www.alphalpha.org/radar/intro_e.html#Effetto%20Doppler
You conclusion is so wrong. Please study up on your RADAR stuff
before you come back to get your ***** kicked again. <chow>
Next victim, please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
03 Oct 2007 12:20:14 PM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 1:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 2:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 2, 4:32 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
Relative Doppler shift includes time dilation while classical Doppler
shift does not. What would be interesting is that both observers do a
180 degrees turn with the same acceleration profile. In doing so, the
symmetry still exists. After turning around with the same speed but
opposite in direction, both observers re-send the same TV program.
Such a situation occurs every time a Doppler radar signal
is sent, reflected off a target, and immediately sent back
to the transmitter.
No, not quite. The RADAR signal was sent once and received once.
All right. Let's do your exact experiment. The
two observers race off in opposite directions, transmitting
identical TV programs to each other. Each receives the
TV program red-shifted, at a lower than normal
frame rate.
Now they turn around with identical acceleration
profiles and send the same TV program. Each receives
it blue-shifted.
Why does this strike you as impossible?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
05 Oct 2007 08:45:00 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191432014.445167.246700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 1:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 2:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 2, 4:32 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
Relative Doppler shift includes time dilation while classical
Doppler
shift does not. What would be interesting is that both observers do
a
180 degrees turn with the same acceleration profile. In doing so,
the
symmetry still exists. After turning around with the same speed but
opposite in direction, both observers re-send the same TV program.
Such a situation occurs every time a Doppler radar signal
is sent, reflected off a target, and immediately sent back
to the transmitter.
No, not quite. The RADAR signal was sent once and received once.
All right. Let's do your exact experiment. The
two observers race off in opposite directions, transmitting
identical TV programs to each other. Each receives the
TV program red-shifted, at a lower than normal
frame rate.
Now they turn around with identical acceleration
profiles and send the same TV program. Each receives
it blue-shifted.
Why does this strike you as impossible?
It is impossible because the clock second in A's frame has different time
content (different duration) than a clock seconds in B's frame. While they
both observe red or blue shift they will not agree the shift is the same
amount as SR is predicted. This will destroy the SR assertion that all
frames are symmetrical.
Ken Seto
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
05 Oct 2007 08:45:14 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 9:45 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191432014.445167.246700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 1:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 2:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 2, 4:32 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
Relative Doppler shift includes time dilation while classical
Doppler
shift does not. What would be interesting is that both observers do
a
180 degrees turn with the same acceleration profile. In doing so,
the
symmetry still exists. After turning around with the same speed but
opposite in direction, both observers re-send the same TV program.
Such a situation occurs every time a Doppler radar signal
is sent, reflected off a target, and immediately sent back
to the transmitter.
No, not quite. The RADAR signal was sent once and received once.
All right. Let's do your exact experiment. The
two observers race off in opposite directions, transmitting
identical TV programs to each other. Each receives the
TV program red-shifted, at a lower than normal
frame rate.
Now they turn around with identical acceleration
profiles and send the same TV program. Each receives
it blue-shifted.
Why does this strike you as impossible?
It is impossible because the clock second in A's frame has different time
content (different duration) than a clock seconds in B's frame. While they
both observe red or blue shift they will not agree the shift is the same
amount as SR is predicted. This will destroy the SR assertion that all
frames are symmetrical.
All you're doing is asserting it. How is "it's true because I
say so" any sort of proof?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
06 Oct 2007 08:29:00 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191591914.490168.48810@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 9:45 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191432014.445167.246700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 1:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 2:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 2, 4:32 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
Relative Doppler shift includes time dilation while classical
Doppler
shift does not. What would be interesting is that both
observers do
a
180 degrees turn with the same acceleration profile. In doing
so,
the
symmetry still exists. After turning around with the same speed
but
opposite in direction, both observers re-send the same TV
program.
Such a situation occurs every time a Doppler radar signal
is sent, reflected off a target, and immediately sent back
to the transmitter.
No, not quite. The RADAR signal was sent once and received once.
All right. Let's do your exact experiment. The
two observers race off in opposite directions, transmitting
identical TV programs to each other. Each receives the
TV program red-shifted, at a lower than normal
frame rate.
Now they turn around with identical acceleration
profiles and send the same TV program. Each receives
it blue-shifted.
Why does this strike you as impossible?
It is impossible because the clock second in A's frame has different
time
content (different duration) than a clock seconds in B's frame. While
they
both observe red or blue shift they will not agree the shift is the same
amount as SR is predicted. This will destroy the SR assertion that all
frames are symmetrical.
All you're doing is asserting it. How is "it's true because I
say so" any sort of proof?
I am not just asserting it. Even SR says that the passage of a clock second
in B's frame correspond to the passage of less than a clock second in
observer A's frame.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
04 Oct 2007 08:33:05 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191432014.445167.246700@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 1:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 2:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 2, 4:32 pm, Koobee Wublee < wrote:
Relative Doppler shift includes time dilation while classical
Doppler
shift does not. What would be interesting is that both observers do
a
180 degrees turn with the same acceleration profile. In doing so,
the
symmetry still exists. After turning around with the same speed but
opposite in direction, both observers re-send the same TV program.
Such a situation occurs every time a Doppler radar signal
is sent, reflected off a target, and immediately sent back
to the transmitter.
No, not quite. The RADAR signal was sent once and received once.
All right. Let's do your exact experiment. The
two observers race off in opposite directions, transmitting
identical TV programs to each other. Each receives the
TV program red-shifted, at a lower than normal
frame rate.
Now they turn around with identical acceleration
profiles and send the same TV program. Each receives
it blue-shifted.
Why does this strike you as impossible?
Sigh....the information in the TV program (the rate of the TV clock) is not
doppler sensitive (not directional senitive). This follows from the fact
that gamma is also not directional sensitive.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
05 Oct 2007 12:37:29 AM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 10:20 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 3, 1:13 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
No, not quite. The RADAR signal was sent once and received once.
All right. Let's do your exact experiment. The
two observers race off in opposite directions, transmitting
identical TV programs to each other. Each receives the
TV program red-shifted, at a lower than normal
frame rate.
Now they turn around with identical acceleration
profiles and send the same TV program. Each receives
it blue-shifted.
Why does this strike you as impossible?
Yes, in real life, this would be absurd and impossible. Therefore, a
hypothesis thoroughly embarrassing to predict such an absurd situation
must be wrong.
Thanks for coming to the only logical solution. That is the Lorentz
transform must be wrong.
Could that no-child-left-behind policy be working here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
05 Oct 2007 03:34:32 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 1:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:20 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 3, 1:13 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
No, not quite. The RADAR signal was sent once and received once.
All right. Let's do your exact experiment. The
two observers race off in opposite directions, transmitting
identical TV programs to each other. Each receives the
TV program red-shifted, at a lower than normal
frame rate.
Now they turn around with identical acceleration
profiles and send the same TV program. Each receives
it blue-shifted.
Why does this strike you as impossible?
Yes, in real life, this would be absurd and impossible.
Why is it impossible?
Especially in light of the fact that it happens.
Therefore, a
hypothesis thoroughly embarrassing to predict such an absurd situation
must be wrong.
There is a completely classical version of the Doppler
effect and it too is symmetrical. Both are blue-shifted
or both are red-shifted.
In light of the fact that it's easy to see with pictures
how it happens, that it's easy to measure, and that it's
seen every day, why exactly do you think mutual blue-shifting
and mutual red-shifting are impossible? It's even
observable with sound.
The classical version is pure geometry. Have you just
proved that Euclidean geometry is absurd and wrong?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
03 Oct 2007 02:00:52 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 5:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:21 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A predicts that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Relative Doppler shift includes time dilation while classical Doppler
shift does not. What would be interesting is that both observers do a
180 degrees turn with the same acceleration profile.
Has anyone ever suggested that acceleration can cause
the creation or anhilation of an abacus bead ? :-(
In doing so, the
symmetry still exists. After turning around with the same speed but
opposite in direction, both observers re-send the same TV program. By
adding the results of the signal received (synchronized with the
content of the program) now with the one previously, all you left is
the time dilation. Granted technical details have to be worked out,
but this thought experiment does show that unmistakable mutual time
dilation which is forbidden by reality itself.
Two equal length wires, a sack of abacus beads and an
egg timer is rather sophisticated. The GP-B team might be
able to work out the details in a few decades... given
the funding of course.
In any case, the effect is symmetric. If I think your
clock is blue-shifted, you think mine is blue-shifted
and by the same amount.
We thank Mr. Seto for bringing up this thought experiment to show the
absolute nonsense of SR. Remember that the twin's paradox is the
combined results of the time dilation and the principle of
relativity. To resolve this paradox, either time is not dilated or
the principle of relativity must be wrong.
An abacus doesn't lie. Einstein's exception to PoR:
"The special principle of relativity states that
physical laws should be the same in all inertial
reference frames, but that they may vary across
non-inertial ones. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity
....is out of place and he likely realised it by 1920.
The laws of physics don't change unless they erronously
assumed inertial behaviour for light.
<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
The true function of *time dilation* (imaginary time)
was stated in the 1920 paper:
<<In order to give due prominence to this relationship,
however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t
by an imaginary magnitude
sqrt (-1)
ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in
which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same
role as the three space co-ordinates. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
Oliver Heaviside was already using the concept to
equalise long lines by then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegrapher's_equations
Sue...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
03 Oct 2007 09:19:25 AM |
|
|
On Oct 2, 3:21 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A predicts that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Wrong the TV clock runs at a constant rate whether it is approaching
you or recdeing away from you.
In any case, the effect is symmetric. If I think your
clock is blue-shifted, you think mine is blue-shifted
and by the same amount.
This is the assumption we want to test with this doable thought
experiment. If the effect is symmetric then SR is validated. If not
then the SR claim of symmetry is refuted.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
03 Oct 2007 10:06:42 AM |
|
|
On Oct 3, 10:19 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 3:21 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:01 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
For two observers A and B in relative motion SR claims that A predicts that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock second to his actual clock second
and call this ratio as R_ba.
4. If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
Yes, but if you're just comparing the arrival time of
pictures of clocks to your own clock, what you're
measuring is relativistic Doppler, not time dilation,
and the intervals could be either longer or shorter
than your own clock's (red-shifted or blue-shifted).
Wrong the TV clock runs at a constant rate whether it is approaching
you or recdeing away from you.
Yes, and the value of that constant depends on whether
the clock is moving toward or away from you.
You're aware that this Doppler effect is measured
thousands of times a day by radar and radio
systems, right? A periodic event governed by a
highly-regulated clock circuit is received at
a different rate by objects in relative motion
to the transmitter. That different rate is predicted
by the (relativistic) Doppler equation.
In any case, the effect is symmetric. If I think your
clock is blue-shifted, you think mine is blue-shifted
and by the same amount.
This is the assumption we want to test with this doable thought
experiment. If the effect is symmetric then SR is validated.
Aside from your view of the world, how does this
"thought experiment" validate or invalidate it.
I describe a situation in which it is symmetric,
by assumption (and in accordance with experiment).
I say SR is validated.
You describe a situation and claim, without empirical
evidence, that it isn't symmetric. Then you say
it invalidates SR.
How does assuming SR to be wrong invalidate SR? Don't
you actually have to test?
Anyway, as I said, the test you describe might only
end up measuring the well-known and well-measured
Doppler effect. You need to carefully design your
experiment if you want it to measure time dilation.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Testing the SR Concept Mutual Time Dilation |
04 Oct 2007 08:48:21 AM |
| | | | |
