Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Physics Based On Einstein's Errors

Relativity Einstein Big Bang LIGO

  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#52 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 01:22 PM

To recapitulate, there were three identical atomic clocks used by Hafele and Keating.  They all started out together at a Naval Base in Maryland.

 

One remained there.  The other two were put on planes and flown at identical speeds around the world (but in different directions).

 

Eventually they were reunited.  When they were, all three showed a different amount of elapsed time.  It should go without saying that they were not all "slower than the others."

 

There was one, and only one, frame of reference which could be used to predict the actual readings on the clocks, i.e., the ECI.
 


Edited by Moronium, 23 January 2019 - 01:23 PM.


#53 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 01:33 PM

It doesn't take a genius to conclude that SR could not possibly give useful or reliable results.  In SR, all frames, including the frames of the three clocks involved, would be deemed to be equally valid and all correct.  But each of those frames, if used to reach conclusions, would give different results, and none of those results would correspond to the actual readings on the clocks in question.

 

SR holds that clock retardation is the result of "relative" motion.  Turns out that it is a function of absolute motion.


Edited by Moronium, 23 January 2019 - 01:36 PM.


#54 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 03:23 PM

As I have repeatedly explained, recent findings show that there is no one single "magical" frame.  There is no universally valid "preferred frame."

 

As Einstein himself said, "all physics are local."

 

The proper choice of the preferred frame that needs to be employed to get accurate predictions is the barycenter of the dominant gravitational influence of the locality in question.

 

For experiments on or near earth, that frame is the (non-rotating) ECI.  For observations made on interplanetary scale, it would be the barycenter of the solar system, and so on.

 

You might, instead of calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar, actually read some of the relevant scientific literature, eh?  Hafele and Keatings analysis of their findings, for example.

That's still not consistent with a speed of light that observers in motion relative to each other measure to be the same though.

 

To recapitulate, there were three identical atomic clocks used by Hafele and Keating.  They all started out together at a Naval Base in Maryland.

 

One remained there.  The other two were put on planes and flown at identical speeds around the world (but in different directions).

 

Eventually they were reunited.  When they were, all three showed a different amount of elapsed time.  It should go without saying that they were not all "slower than the others."

And you would think it would go without saying that SR obviously doesn't predict that more than one of the clocks will be slower than the others. You would that would be obvious but apparently not. You are still completely failing to grasp the SR model and what it predicts.

 

It doesn't take a genius to conclude that SR could not possibly give useful or reliable results.

No it certainly doesn't. It takes a complete moron.

 

In SR, all frames, including the frames of the three clocks involved, would be deemed to be equally valid and all correct.

Totally!

 

But each of those frames, if used to reach conclusions, would give different results, and none of those results would correspond to the actual readings on the clocks in question.

Nope. They reach exactly the same conclusions about what each frame experiences at any given time in any given coordinate system. It wouldn't be much of a model if they didn't.

 

It's just that each frame disagrees about the lengths of clocks and rods, but each frame can work out exactly what every other frame measures them to be.

 

The 'actual' reading on the clocks? What the hell does that even mean? You have to specify a frame if reference, that's the whole point.

 

SR holds that clock retardation is the result of "relative" motion.  Turns out that it is a function of absolute motion.

Relative motion produces reciprocal time dilation. Acceleration (for one observer more than the other) is needed for one clock to end up slower than the other when they're back in the same frame again.


Edited by A-wal, 23 January 2019 - 03:32 PM.


#55 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 03:48 PM

Relative motion produces reciprocal time dilation. Acceleration (for one observer more than the other) is needed for one clock to end up slower than the other when they're back in the same frame again.

 

 

Reciprocal time dilation is a hypothesis that, apart from being self-contradictory if interpreted in any factual (as opposed to mathematical) sense, has been disconfirmed.  Read the paper I cited.

 

I'm not going to try to respond to all your unsupported and incorrect assertions.  The "clocks" in question are those used in the H-K experiment.  They showed actual times elapsed, not just the hypothetical elapsed times postulated by SR.  Their readings were not imagined, they were empirically observed, get it?

 

As has been recently demonstrated, acceleration has absolutely NOTHING to do with clock retardation in any direct sense. Indirectly, It may (but need not) be present to create increased speeds (which account for the different clock rates).  Try to keep up, willya, A-wal?

 

Relative motion does NOT produce "reciprocal time dilation."  Just ask the twins in the twin paradox, eh?


Edited by Moronium, 23 January 2019 - 03:58 PM.


#56 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 04:11 PM

Reciprocal time dilation is a hypothesis that, apart from being self-contradictory if interpreted in any factual (as opposed to mathematical) sense, has been disconfirmed.

This is at best another misunderstanding, at worst another lie. Not only is it in no way self-contradictory, it's also the only self-consistent description of the effects of relative motion, given that the inertial objects in question measure the speed of light to be the same.

 

Read the paper I cited.

No.

 

I'm not going to try to respond to all your unsupported and incorrect assertions.  The "clocks" in question are those used in the H-K experiment.  They showed actual times elapsed, not just the hypothetical elapsed times postulated by SR.  Their readings were not imagined, they were empirically observed, get it?

:) Because you can't respond to them without making yourself look like a complete idiot. Their 'unimagined' readings in no way disagree with the predictions of SR, do they Mr Strawman? If they do then tell us exactly how the results were different from SR's predictions, not what you think SR predicts based on your flimsy (to put it mildly) grasp of SR.

 

As has been recently demonstrated, acceleration has absolutely NOTHING to do with clock retardation in any direct sense. Indirectly, It may (but need not) be present to create increased speeds (which account for the different clock rates).  Try to keep up, willya, A-wal?

I've never claimed that acceleration itself is directly responsible, in fact I've made the point before that this isn't the case using two scenarios with identical acceleration but different er differences in elapsed clock times (although acceleration is needed for there to be a difference). You try to keep up A-hole!

 

Relative motion does NOT produce "reciprocal time dilation."  Just ask the twins in the twin paradox, eh?

The twin paradox in no way shows that relative motion does not produce reciprocal time dilation dumb dumb.



#57 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 04:19 PM

In the H-K e

 

The twin paradox in no way shows that relative motion does not produce reciprocal time dilation dumb dumb.

 

 

Hehehehe.  Each twin "claims" that the other's clock is moving slower than his (reciprocal time dilation).  But each twin is not correct.  Only the earth twin is correct.  The space twin is just flat WRONG.

 

If each were right, then each would be younger than the other when reunited, a logical impossibility.

 

If there were no time dilation, one way or the other, then they would be the same age.

 

But one actually IS younger than the other.  That's not "reciprocal," pal.


Edited by Moronium, 23 January 2019 - 04:41 PM.


#58 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 04:29 PM

Their 'unimagined' readings in no way disagree with the predictions of SR, do they Mr Strawman? If they do then tell us exactly how the results were different from SR's predictions, not what you think SR predicts based on your flimsy (to put it mildly) grasp of SR.

 

 

 

Heh, your animated ramblings are, in their own way, quite precious.

 

OK, let's take this slow.  Assume SR applies, now what?

 

1.  The "stationary" Naval base clock would predict that the clocks on both planes are running slower than his, by an equal amount (since they are travelling away from him at the same speed--assume it's 500 mph).  Is this what happened?  Hell no.

 

2.  The eastbound plane would predict that both other clocks have slowed relative to his, with the westbound clock slowing twice at much (since it is receding from from him at twice the rate--1000 mph instead of only  500 mph).  Is this what actually happened?  Hell no.

 

3.  The westbound plane would say the opposite of the eastbound plane.  It this what actually happened?  Hell, no.

 

What did happen was that eastbound plane's clock recorded the least elapsed time, the naval station's clock showed more elapsed time, and the westbound clock showed the most elapsed time of all three.

 

How can that be explained?

 

Easy, just see how they are moving with respect to the preferred frame (the eci), rather than how they are moving with respect to each other.


Edited by Moronium, 23 January 2019 - 04:33 PM.


#59 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 05:06 PM

Hehehehe.  Each twin "claims" that the other's clock is moving slower than his (reciprocal time dilation).  But each twin is not correct.  Only the earth twin is correct.  The space twin is just flat WRONG.

Oh my god this is so tragic to watch. You really are oblivious to just how clueless you are aren't you.

 

If each were right, then each would be younger than the other when reunited.

No, they really wouldn't. It entirely depends on which one changes frames. You could start them off in any frame you like and the results would never change, the one that accelerates most (not directly because they accelerate but because they're the ones who move into a frame in which they were previously time dilated and length contracted) is the one whose watch is behind in the end.

 

If there were no time dilation, one way or the other, then they would be the same age.

Obviously. There's also no difference in their age if they accelerate away from Earth at the same rate and then accelerate back again, although less time would have passed for them than for a third one who stayed on Earth. The triplet paradox. It's all about which one changes frames, they are the younger one in the end and it in no way suggests any kind of preferred frame.

 

But one actually IS younger than the other.  That's not "reciprocal," pal.

One IS younger if one DOES change frames while the other DOESN'T, DUMB DUMB.

 

Heh, your animated ramblings are, in their own way, quite precious.

Your pathetic attempts to save face while you're being completely demolished are what's truly precious, dumb dumb.

 

OK, let's take this slow.  Assume SR applies, now what?

 

1.  The "stationary" Naval base clock would predict that the clocks on both planes are running slower than his, by an equal amount (since they are travelling away from him at the same speed--assume it's 500 mph).  Is this what happened?  Hell no.

If both planes are moving at the same velocity relative to the navel base then yes, while they're moving at this same relative velocity both clocks will be equally slowed from the frame of the navel base.

 

2.  The eastbound plane would predict that both other clocks have slowed relative to his, with the westbound clock slowing twice at much (since it is receding from from him at twice the rate--1000 mph instead of only  500 mph).  Is this what actually happened?  Hell no.

No. Moving at twice the relative velocity does not produce twice the time dilation dumb dumb.

 

3.  The westbound plane would say the opposite of the eastbound plane.  It this what actually happened?  Hell, no.

The westbound plane would see the east bound plane's watch slowed by the same amount that the eastbound plane sees that the westbound plane's watch is slowed. Once they're back at the base both planes watches will say the same time and be behind the watches of the navel base.

 

What did happen was that eastbound plane's clock recorded the least elapsed time, the naval station's clock showed more elapsed time, and the westbound clock showed the most elapsed time of all three.

If that's true then they need to use more reliable clocks. If this is shown to be genuine then it would be interesting, sounds like bollocks though.

 

How can that be explained?

 

Easy, just see how they are moving with respect to the preferred frame (the eci), rather than how they are moving with respect to each other.

ECI? Earth centric something? Oh they might have picked up frame dragging effects because they were going in different directions relative to the Earths direction of rotation. I'm not sure frame dragging would be anywhere near strong enough to detect though. That's part of GR, it wouldn't work in 0-G.


Edited by A-wal, 23 January 2019 - 05:08 PM.


#60 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 05:19 PM

If that's true then they need to use more reliable clocks. If this is shown to be genuine then it would be interesting, sounds like bollocks though.

 

  I have often suggested that you read the H-K experiment.  You persistently refuse.

 

By the way, many said, at the time anyway, that this is consistent with SR.  It is not.  And it is not predicted by SR.  It is, however completely consistent with, and predicted by, the Lorentz transforms.  But the LT is NOT SR, even though many don't know the difference.  The mistake seems to be thinking that if the LT is confirmed, then SR is confirmed.  Wrong, what is confirmed here is LR (Lorentzian Relativity, with it's absolute simutaneity), from which Einstein lifted the LT.

 

ECI =earth centered inertial frame of reference (non-rotating).


Edited by Moronium, 23 January 2019 - 05:24 PM.


#61 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 05:34 PM

Here's an excerpt from wiki on the topic:


The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another...[I have omitted the claim that this is consistent with SR, because it isn't]...

 

According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor...[OK, that's right]

 

...

 

Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...ting_experiment

 

The important thing here is that the clock readings which actually resulted could be accurately predicted ONLY IF the eci was used as the preferred frame.



#62 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 05:44 PM

The accuracy of the lorentz transforms has been confirmed to an extremely high degree of confidence many times.  This fact is often presented as "proof" of the validity of SR.  But each such confirmation ALSO confirms LR, which is never mentioned.  Most of these experiments did not have conditions that would discriminate between the two competing theories.

 

But the H-K experiment did (as others have since).  LR passed the H-K test.  SR failed it, as the paper I cited (and many others) point out.


Edited by Moronium, 23 January 2019 - 05:45 PM.


#63 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 06:00 PM

By the way, "changing frames" has no effect on clocks in the real world, and it is non-sensical to think otherwise.  What affects clock rates is actual motion, not the perspective of an observer.

 

You can shout otherwise until the cows come home, but that won't make the claim any more reasonable or persuasive.


Edited by Moronium, 23 January 2019 - 06:01 PM.


#64 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 06:12 PM

I don't know the details of the H-K experiment so I'm no position to refute it, I'll say I'm extremely skeptical of the claims but it would be very exiting if turns out to be true. I don't defend SR because out of loyalty, I do it because 90+% of your attempts to refute it completely misrepresent what SR actually describes, hence Mr Strawman.

 

Of course changing frames has an effect on clocks, because the observer is moving into a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted before moving into that frame and it's the reason why one twin ends up younger than the other twin. I would have thought that was obvious.



#65 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 06:38 PM

According to the "logic" of strictly geometrical space-time diagrams (which are bogus), one traveller, 50 light years away, would cause thousands of years to pass "instantly" on a distant planet, simply by "changing frames."  Reality doesn't work that way, sorry, even if math does.  There is simply not even the remotest aspect of cause and effect between the two events.

 

The traveler ages less because he is moving faster, that's all.  It would be true even if he never "changed frames."


Edited by Moronium, 23 January 2019 - 06:44 PM.


#66 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 23 January 2019 - 11:41 PM

SR (the LT, actually) holds that the moving clock will run slow.  So why is it that the spacetwin ends up with the slower clock?

 

Because he's the one moving, obviously.

 

It's like "Who's buried in Grant's tomb?," ya know?


Edited by Moronium, 23 January 2019 - 11:47 PM.


#67 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 12:05 AM

Some people seem to have a knack for making the simplest of questions seem complicated, eh?

 


Edited by Moronium, 24 January 2019 - 12:26 AM.


#68 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 08:48 AM

Some people seem to have a knack for making the simplest of questions seem complicated, eh?

Totally!

 

We have this really simple model in which motion is relative to any observer whichever frame they're in so that objects in motion relative to any frame are time dilated and length contracted in that frame, matching observations of a frame independent speed of light and so if an observer changes frames then they're moving to a frame in which they were previously time dilated and length contracted so their watches will be running slow compared to observers who stay in the same frame.

But then people without the capacity to grasp this simple model get themselves in a muddle when they try to understand what it actually describes and would rather believe that aren't too thick to grasp it so the model must be wrong. Ya know?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Relativity, Einstein, Big Bang, LIGO