Preferred Frame Theory supported by Hafele-Keating experiment
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
Next: Absolute motion in kinetic theory
From: paparios on 19 Jul 2010 04:30 On 19 jul, 03:42, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 19, 5:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Snip totally wrong assertions about what SR says or does not say... > > The Hafele-Keating experiment did show that time dilation occurred due > to relative motion, but that time dilation only made sense from a > single frame of reference - one that remained stationary with respect > to the rotating Earth. > > The upshot of all this is that Einstein's principle of relativity is > fundamentally flawed: there is a preferred frame of reference, despite > Einstein's assertion to the contrary. Look and listen if you can. The Hafele-Keating experiment purpose was to demonstrate that for a very accurate and synchronized group of atomic clocks, if you take some of them in a tour around the world and back, then the traveling clocks will be observed to retain their synchronizity among themselves, but they will no longer synchronized with respect to the clocks that were left at the lab. This should be understandable even for a 4 year old child....but of course you are not in that group since you are a troll. If you consider the frame of reference of one of the planes, you will see that, again, at the start of the experiment all of the clocks (both at the lab and at the planes) are syncronized and, when the plane return to the airport the clocks, again, are not synchronized. From the point of view of one guy on the plane, the earth with the clocks moved (in the opposite direction), and he can calculate the amount of time in which the plane clocks and the left at ground clocks should be different. The numbers so calculated and the observed results agree and they are related to the calculated and observed results (from the point of view of one guy left at the lab) through coordinate transformations. No paradox is in there, no inconsistent is in there. Bottom line is what it was predicted, using SR and GR, was observed to occur in the experiment. Miguel Rios
From: Androcles on 19 Jul 2010 04:34 <paparios(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:482cf620-e314-4568-b59f-194ecf1c0b26(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... On 19 jul, 03:42, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 19, 5:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Snip totally wrong assertions about what SR says or does not say... ==================== Mission accomplished.
From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 18:22 On Jul 19, 8:30 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 jul, 03:42, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jul 19, 5:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Snip totally wrong assertions about what SR says or does not say... It wasn't about what SR says, but about what Hafale said about the paradox: "One of the most enduring scientific debates of this century is the relativistic clock "paradox" (1) or problem (2), when stemmed originally from an alleged logical inconsistency in predicted time differences between traveling and reference clocks after a round trip". > > > > > The Hafele-Keating experiment did show that time dilation occurred due > > to relative motion, but that time dilation only made sense from a > > single frame of reference - one that remained stationary with respect > > to the rotating Earth. > > > The upshot of all this is that Einstein's principle of relativity is > > fundamentally flawed: there is a preferred frame of reference, despite > > Einstein's assertion to the contrary. > > Look and listen if you can. The Hafele-Keating experiment purpose was > to demonstrate that for a very accurate and synchronized group of > atomic clocks, if you take some of them in a tour around the world and > back, then the traveling clocks will be observed to retain their > synchronizity among themselves, but they will no longer synchronized > with respect to the clocks that were left at the lab. There is more to it than that. Relativity predicts specifically what this loss of synchronicity will be for any local observer and relatively moving clock. The predictions result in paradoxes, and it was the issue of paradox that is initially addressed by Hafele: "One of the most enduring scientific debates of this century is the relativistic clock "paradox" (1) or problem (2), when stemmed originally from an alleged logical inconsistency in predicted time differences between traveling and reference clocks after a round trip". > This should be > understandable even for a 4 year old child....but of course you are > not in that group since you are a troll. Sure, call me a troll when you can't address the actual issue. > If you consider the frame of reference of one of the planes, you will > see that, again, at the start of the experiment all of the clocks > (both at the lab and at the planes) are syncronized and, when the > plane return to the airport the clocks, again, are not synchronized. > From the point of view of one guy on the plane, the earth with the > clocks moved (in the opposite direction), and he can calculate the > amount of time in which the plane clocks and the left at ground clocks > should be different. Yes. He can do this from his own frame of reference, or he can do it from the preferred frame of reference (which Hafele uses). > The numbers so calculated and the observed > results agree and they are related to the calculated and observed > results (from the point of view of one guy left at the lab) through > coordinate transformations. Those coordinate transforms rely on using the preferred frame of reference, but Einstein's principle of relativity does not support the existence of such a frame: "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" > No paradox is in there, no inconsistent is in there. No paradox is evident only when you disregard Einstein's principle of relativity and base your coordinate transforms on the preferred frame of reference.
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 19:07 On Jul 20, 8:22 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 19, 8:30 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 19 jul, 03:42, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 5:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Snip totally wrong assertions about what SR says or does not say... > > It wasn't about what SR says, but about what Hafale said about the > paradox: > > "One of the most enduring scientific debates of this century is the > relativistic clock "paradox" (1) or problem (2), when stemmed > originally from an alleged logical inconsistency in predicted time > differences between traveling and reference clocks after a round > trip". So .. they tested whether time dilation happened as predicted by relativity happens .. and it does. > > > The Hafele-Keating experiment did show that time dilation occurred due > > > to relative motion, but that time dilation only made sense from a > > > single frame of reference - one that remained stationary with respect > > > to the rotating Earth. > > > > The upshot of all this is that Einstein's principle of relativity is > > > fundamentally flawed: there is a preferred frame of reference, despite > > > Einstein's assertion to the contrary. > > > Look and listen if you can. The Hafele-Keating experiment purpose was > > to demonstrate that for a very accurate and synchronized group of > > atomic clocks, if you take some of them in a tour around the world and > > back, then the traveling clocks will be observed to retain their > > synchronizity among themselves, but they will no longer synchronized > > with respect to the clocks that were left at the lab. > > There is more to it than that. Relativity predicts specifically what > this loss of synchronicity will be for any local observer and > relatively moving clock. And inertial observer .. yes. It also gives the same result no matter what frame of reference you use for a valid SR analysis. > The predictions result in paradoxes, And that is where you are wrong. You've not shown ANY paradox. You keep making incorrect claims about what you think SR says. > and it > was the issue of paradox that is initially addressed by Hafele: There is no 'paradox' .. just a non-intuitive results and a predicted 'inconsistency' in what clocks read (ie not showing the same time when they reunite) > "One of the most enduring scientific debates of this century is the > relativistic clock "paradox" (1) or problem (2), when stemmed > originally from an alleged logical inconsistency in predicted time > differences between traveling and reference clocks after a round > trip". And that agrees with what I just said. Note the "quotes" around "paradox". It also says there is an inconsistency (ie different reading) for what the clocks show when reunited. > > This should be > > understandable even for a 4 year old child....but of course you are > > not in that group since you are a troll. > > Sure, call me a troll when you can't address the actual issue. You are the one making the same claim over and over and rejecting your burden of proof. > > If you consider the frame of reference of one of the planes, you will > > see that, again, at the start of the experiment all of the clocks > > (both at the lab and at the planes) are syncronized and, when the > > plane return to the airport the clocks, again, are not synchronized. > > From the point of view of one guy on the plane, the earth with the > > clocks moved (in the opposite direction), and he can calculate the > > amount of time in which the plane clocks and the left at ground clocks > > should be different. > > Yes. He can do this from his own frame of reference, or he can do it > from the preferred frame of reference (which Hafele uses). There is NO "preferred frame" in the physics sense. Only preferred in the sense that they prefer to do the calculations in that frame because it is simpler math. One usually does the math for an experiment in the lab frame and not some arbitrary other frame .. but that doesn't means the laboratory frame is some special 'preferred frame' > > The numbers so calculated and the observed > > results agree and they are related to the calculated and observed > > results (from the point of view of one guy left at the lab) through > > coordinate transformations. > > Those coordinate transforms rely on using the preferred frame of > reference, Wrong > but Einstein's principle of relativity does not support the > existence of such a frame: That's right. > "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest" That's right. No preferred frame in SR. > > No paradox is in there, no inconsistent is in there. > > No paradox is evident only when you disregard Einstein's principle of > relativity and base your coordinate transforms on the preferred frame > of reference. Wrong. Why do you continue to lie?
From: eric gisse on 19 Jul 2010 13:59
colp wrote: [...] > Those coordinate transforms rely on using the preferred frame of > reference [...] How stupid can you get? Jeeze... |