Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Herbert Dingle asks Einsteinians

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Pentcho Valev - 12 Jul 2008 08:38 GMT
http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by
Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks,
A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different
rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The
supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to
work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not
only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would
then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of
which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often
claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz.
'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no
account of possible effects of accleration, gravitation, or any
difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform
motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.'
Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to
conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock
worked more slowly?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Sue... - 12 Jul 2008 08:50 GMT
> http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
> Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock
> worked more slowly?"

Good question.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node139.html

Sue...

> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
harry - 12 Jul 2008 09:00 GMT
> http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
> Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock
> worked more slowly?"

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :

Par. 1
"Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which [in first approximation] the
equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good."

Par.4:
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points
A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary
system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v
along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer
synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has
remained at B by (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the
time occupied in the journey from A to B.
It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go
more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

Harald
Sue... - 12 Jul 2008 09:15 GMT
On Jul 12, 4:00 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:

> >http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
> > Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
> at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."

For each side of the polygon, the clock appears faster for
1/2 the length (approaching) and slower for half the length
(receeding).

If a massless hollow shell had been specifed, the force
required to maintain the flywheel on that trajectory might
justify a conclusion that the eqatorial path reduces the
frequency.  I don't see that in the narrative.

He may have assumed a retardation for Newton's
particle light in the wrong place.

Today we do it this way.
"Retarded potentials"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

Sue...

> Harald
Androcles - 12 Jul 2008 10:18 GMT
| > http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
| > Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
|
| Harald

Which doesn't work, since it is a simple matter to place an atomic clock
( not just an old wind-up bedside alarm clock) at the Polar Halley Research
Station
 http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//living_and_working/research_stations/halley/
and compare it with the GPS or any other near equatorial location.
So much for your whining "inertial".
Test of SR: failed.

You get an F, fuckhead.
hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat - 12 Jul 2008 12:10 GMT
>| > http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
>| > Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>
>You get an F, fuckhead.

http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm

RELATIVITY

The precision of GPS measurements is so great that it requires the
application of Albert Einstein’s special and general theories of
relativity for the reduction of its measurements. Professor Carroll
Alley of the University of Maryland once articulated the significance
of this fact at a scientific conference devoted to time measurement in
1979. He said, “I think it is appropriate ... to realize that the
first practical application of Einstein’s ideas in actual engineering
situations are with us in the fact that clocks are now so stable that
one must take these small effects into account in a variety of systems
that are now undergoing development or are actually in use in
comparing time worldwide. It is no longer a matter of scientific
interest and scientific application, but it has moved into the realm
of engineering necessity.”

According to relativity theory, a moving clock appears to run slow
with respect to a similar clock that is at rest. This effect is called
“time dilation.” In addition, a clock in a weaker gravitational
potential appears to run fast in comparison to one that is in a
stronger gravitational potential. This gravitational effect is known
in general as the “red shift” (only in this case it is actually a
“blue shift”).

GPS satellites revolve around the earth with a velocity of 3.874 km/s
at an altitude of 20,184 km. Thus on account of the its velocity, a
satellite clock appears to run slow by 7 microseconds per day when
compared to a clock on the earth’s surface. But on account of the
difference in gravitational potential, the satellite clock appears to
run fast by 45 microseconds per day. The net effect is that the clock
appears to run fast by 38 microseconds per day. This is an enormous
rate difference for an atomic clock with a precision of a few
nanoseconds. Thus to compensate for this large secular rate, the
clocks are given a rate offset prior to satellite launch of - 4.465
parts in 1010 from their nominal frequency of 10.23 MHz so that on
average they appear to run at the same rate as a clock on the ground.
The actual frequency of the satellite clocks before launch is thus
10.22999999543 MHz.

Although the GPS satellite orbits are nominally circular, there is
always some residual eccentricity. The eccentricity causes the orbit
to be slightly elliptical, and the velocity and altitude vary over one
revolution. Thus, although the principal velocity and gravitational
effects have been compensated by a rate offset, there remains a slight
residual variation that is proportional to the eccentricity. For
example, with an orbital eccentricity of 0.02 there is a relativistic
sinusoidal variation in the apparent clock time having an amplitude of
46 nanoseconds. This correction must be calculated and taken into
account in the GPS receiver.

The displacement of a receiver on the surface of the earth due to the
earth’s rotation in inertial space during the time of flight of the
signal must also be taken into account. This is a third relativistic
effect that is due to the universality of the speed of light. The
maximum correction occurs when the receiver is on the equator and the
satellite is on the horizon. The time of flight of a GPS signal from
the satellite to a receiver on the earth is then 86 milliseconds and
the correction to the range measurement resulting from the receiver
displacement is 133 nanoseconds. An analogous correction must be
applied by a receiver on a moving platform, such as an aircraft or
another satellite. This effect, as interpreted by an observer in the
rotating frame of reference of the earth, is called the Sagnac effect.
It is also the basis for a laser ring gyro in an inertial navigation
system.
Pentcho Valev - 12 Jul 2008 14:20 GMT
> http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> in general as the “red shift” (only in this case it is actually a
> “blue shift”).

Master tell zombie red shift is time dilation yes. Zombie sure red
shift is time dilation yes. Enemy tell zombie red shift is variability
of speed of light yes. Zombie sure red shift is variability of speed
of light not. Zombie sing "Divine Einstein" yes. Zombie go into
convulsions yes.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Uncle Al - 12 Jul 2008 16:49 GMT
> http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
> Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
> p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by
> Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks,
> A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different
> rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished?
[snip crap]

http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes

<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

The one travels\ing through more space is the one traveling through
less time.  The ratio by which the two have aged at the end when they
are back together again is the same in all reference frames:

ratio = sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/t (with units of c=1)

Inertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths
through spacetime. No clock anomaly is apparent in any of them until
clocks are compared (by all being local when you do it, initial
calibration then experiment).  The situation is NOT symmetric.

Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present clocks but
not to the mixture of space and time in the reference frame that said
clocks measure. You cannot synchronize clocks except by having them
local. If they are local at the start, you can tell who was naughty
thereafter without measuring acceleration.

Given three identical clocks that are off (a state of not running, or
of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed. Each clock has/will
have a very short toggle jiggger switch sticking out. We load them (or
their parts, or ore and a smelter and a machine shop) in individual
spaceships and set up the experiment.

CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial
reference frame with a little jigger sticking out. Touch the jigger
and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on" state becomes "off."
Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from parts just before we need
it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.

CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built after all
acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past Clock 1 (our
clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are now "on" and
locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time accumulates in each
one. The situation is NOT symmetric!

CLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction to Clock 2.
Clock 3 is zeroed and "off." It was built after all acceleration
ceased, and set to zero.

Some arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn "on" by
touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, touching jiggers.
Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on." Write down the elapsed time
in now "off" Clock 2, then smash the clock with a sledgehammer. Or
melt it down, or toss it over the side. The spaceship with Clock 3 is
returning back over the path taken by the spaceship with Clock 2.

CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial
reference frame with a little jigger sticking out. Clock 3 rushes
past, jiggers touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are now off. All clocks are off.
No clock has accelerated while "on" or even while existing. Write down
elapsed times, smash each clock with a sledgehammer. Or melt them
down, or toss them.

BOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together... Accelerate as
you need. Or send all the results to all three folks by radio and
never decelerate. All clocks have been smashed, melted, tossed. Their
elapsed times were written down. The numbers on the papers won't
change when you accelerate or broadcast the data.

Finally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2+#3 does not equal
#1, the local stationary reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3
elasped time is only about 4.5% that than of #1's accumulated elapsed
time. You have the Twin Paradox (Triplets) without any running clock
having been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration
up or down.

Idiot Pentcho Valev.

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Pentcho Valev - 12 Jul 2008 17:36 GMT
> > http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
> > Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
[quoted text clipped - 87 lines]
> Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>  (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Why should clocks be "smashed, melted, tossed"? Do you have a
toothache? Anyway, essentially this is textbook stuff:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 11, p. 44, Problem 19: "Modified twin paradox"

However the problem (could be called "twin paradox without
acceleration") is extremely dangerous for Einstein criminal cult and
clever Einsteinians don't even mention it. Divine Albert, in a 1918
paper, was unable to solve it without referring to the acceleration
undergone by the travelling clock/twin. Are you cleverer than Divine
Albert, Uncle Al or whatever you are?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Golden California Girls - 12 Jul 2008 22:42 GMT
>> http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
>> Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
[quoted text clipped - 83 lines]
>
> Idiot Pentcho Valev.

Very good, but it is the change in direction that causes the paradox.  Consider
your clocks but with a radio that sends a signal every year with the time and it
gets written down on a slip of paper when it is received along with the time on
the local clock.  As long as the clocks move apart each observer will see the
others clock as slow by the same amount when the slips of paper are compared.
That is due to the time it takes the signal to get to the other clock.  If there
was some instant way to send the signal each would see the others clock has the
same time on it, but there isn't an instant way.

What happens when the moving clock comes back?  Well the observer with the clock
that doesn't change direction sees the moving clock still moving away for some
time.  Say if this direction change occurs 10 light years away, it will be ten
years before the not changing direction observer knows it happened.  However for
the changed direction observer, he instantly sees the others clock going faster.
 He runs into signals sent while he was moving away.  From his viewpoint he is
almost back before the not changing direction observer knows he changed
direction.  This is the paradox.  It is the changing of direction.

If you want another step in this say the changing direction clock stops dead in
its tracks 10 light years away until it gets an acknowledgment that the other
observer knows it has stopped moving.  20 year round trip for that data.  At
that point each will now see the others clock as keeping time at the same rate
but they won't agree as to the time.  Each will think the other slow.

The same paradox happens when the clock starts back on the path to where it
began its adventure.  The other end doesn't know it started for 10 years, hence
the paradox.

However if the "still" end comes to where the "moving" end is, then the clocks
will agree again.
Mitch Raemsch - 12 Jul 2008 23:00 GMT
> http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
> Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Only the one that accelerated the most or is in the greatest gravity
or both will have the slowest clock.

Mitch Raemsch
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.