| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Time and tide wait for no man
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Keith Stein |
 Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Eric Gisse" <fsegg@uaf.edu> wrote in message
news:fd0fc2fa.0402292359.e4a8d8c@posting.google.com...
Quote:
What is your point? Seriously.
My point Mr. Gisse is that Einstein's theories make the extraordinary
prediction that clocks in high Earth orbit (such as those on the GPS)
will run FAST, whereas clocks in low Earth orbit (e.g. on the ISS)
will run SLOW. This latter prediction has never been confirmed,
and nor do i believe that it ever will be, 'cos i don't believe for one
microsecond that it happens eh!
Why don't i think it happens ?
Firstly because Einstein's derivation of SR time dilations is daft!
He assumes the impossible (i.e. that the speed of light relative
to an observer is independent of the speed of the observer). Then
he shows that indeed it is impossible UNLESS moving clocks go
slow, and he concludes that therefore moving clocks DO run slow.
Well as King Canute discovered: Time and tide wait for no man eh!.
Secondly if clocks in low Earth orbit really do go slow by the
relatively large (i.e. easily measurable) amounts predicted by Einstein,
then someone would have demonstrated this long before now, i think.
Quote: Why are you so fixated on putting a clock on the ISS? If you want to
see the verification of SR's predictions go play with GPS.
The reason i particularly want to see the test done on the ISS is
that the test i am advocating is far more reliable and accurate than any
inferences from the GPS. It is not easy to accurately compare clocks
which are 20,000 km apart and travelling relative to each other at
several km/sec, whereas clocks which are adjacent and stationary
relative to each other can be compared very reliably and accurately eh!
Quote: GPS is calibrated with both SR *and* GR. Time shift due to curved
space and velocity, without one of them you will be off - it does not
matter which one you pick.
Well if clocks in both high and low earth orbit really do behave in the
extraordinary manner predicted by Einstein's theories, then, seriously
I'm a relativist eh!
keith stein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Patrick Powers |
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ALO0c.21$6K2.5@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Quote:
Firstly because Einstein's derivation of SR time dilations is daft!
He assumes the impossible (i.e. that the speed of light relative
to an observer is independent of the speed of the observer).
Golly! Silly Albert. Good thing you're on the ball or he might have
pulled a fast one on us! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Keith Stein |
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Patrick Powers" <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9511688f.0403020251.2ced9fd3@posting.google.com...
Quote: "Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<ALO0c.21$6K2.5@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Firstly because Einstein's derivation of SR time dilations is daft!
He assumes the impossible (i.e. that the speed of light relative
to an observer is independent of the speed of the observer).
Golly! Silly Albert. Good thing you're on the ball or he might have
pulled a fast one on us!
Well don't expect anyone to drop their devotion to Einstein just because
i point out that SR is daft, Mr. Powers, but an experiment to determine
the time dilations on a low Earth orbit satellite would put an end to this
deception:
"If one of two synchronous clocks at A is move
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
1/2 * t * v^2 / c^2 second slow." A.Einstein (1905)
Unless "Silly Albert" is right of course !
keith stein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Keith Stein |
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Eric Gisse" <fsegg@uaf.edu> wrote >
Quote: What is your point? Seriously.
My point Mr. Gisse is that Einstein's theories make the extraordinary
prediction that clocks in high Earth orbit (such as those on the GPS)
will run FAST, whereas clocks in low Earth orbit (e.g. on the ISS)
will run SLOW. This latter prediction has never been confirmed,
and nor do i believe that it ever will be, 'cos i don't believe for one
microsecond that it happens eh!
Why is it that your belief is so strong that you ignore everything
else thats supporting SR/GR and fixate simply on the ISS?
But there is absolutely no evidence supporting Einstein's assumption
that the speed of light relative to an observer is independent of the
speed of the observer, Mr.Gisse, not then, not now, not ever eh!
Quote: Why don't i think it happens ?
Firstly because Einstein's derivation of SR time dilations is daft!
He assumes the impossible (i.e. that the speed of light relative
to an observer is independent of the speed of the observer). Then
he shows that indeed it is impossible UNLESS moving clocks go
slow, and he concludes that therefore moving clocks DO run slow.
Well as King Canute discovered: Time and tide wait for no man eh!.
Why is it daft?
Because one can prove absolutely anything, by assuming the impossible eh!
Quote: It works in everything tried. His derivation collapses
to the classical equations when v<<c. Let me repeat something I said a
moment ago, it works in EVERYTHING tried. Can you cite an instance
where SR or GR has not matched up with experiment?
Yes i can, Mr.Gisse:
Quote: "... 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. "
Which is from Einstein's original SR paper, and indeed is about the
only testable prediction in it, and it doesn't happen eh! Of course I
know a few years later Einstein explained this by discovering a second
time dilation which magically was equal and opposite to this first time
dilation all over the Earth's surface. What a magician eh!
" Now you see it, now you don't "
Quote: Do keep in mind that the conclusion about clocks falls out of the
assumptions, its not an assumption in of itself.
But good theories start from assumptions which are self evident,
not from assumptions which are impossible eh!
Quote: BTW, im still waiting for the publication information on that USNO
internal report that says the H&K experiment is crap. I still want to
see it for myself, but I can't just hunt for a paper of indeterminate
origin - I have better things to do.
Here you go then Mr. Gisse: Study these eh!
ORIGINAL TEST RESULTS OF HAFELE AND KEATING
As reported in the 1971 USNO internal report by Hafele,
Clock No Eastward Westward
(ns) (ns)
120 -196 +413
361 -54 -44
408 +166 +101
447 -97 +26
and if you want any more you'll have to write to USNO. Tell them you
want the report in which Hafele makes the following comments on his
results.....
Hafele's comments on the results as reported in 1971 were as follows:-
"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree
that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative
of anything"
and "The difference between theory and experiment is disturbing"
They will certainly know the one you want, but i can't promise that
they'll let you have it. They may think you're a "whistle blower" eh! :-)
Quote: Secondly if clocks in low Earth orbit really do go slow by the
relatively large (i.e. easily measurable) amounts predicted by Einstein,
then someone would have demonstrated this long before now, i think.
How woould you know? You haven't even looked. Whenever Sam Wormley
puts up his usual list of sources you ignore them. If you have looked,
you haven't shown it. Its the same thing over and over again.
Well i don't doubt that once again you will try to defend that Hafele and
Keating fraud, Mr. Gisse, and you do that because you have nothing better
to offer eh! For sure you can't give me a reference to any paper which
demonstrates so much as 1 microsecond of SR time dilation, and yet
a test on the ISS should yeild about 25 us/day eh!
Quote: Why are you so fixated on putting a clock on the ISS? If you want to
see the verification of SR's predictions go play with GPS.
The reason i particularly want to see the test done on the ISS is
that the test i am advocating is far more reliable and accurate than
any
inferences from the GPS. It is not easy to accurately compare clocks
which are 20,000 km apart and travelling relative to each other at
several km/sec, whereas clocks which are adjacent and stationary
relative to each other can be compared very reliably and accurately eh!
I hate to break it to you, but once you move the companion clock away
from the idle one, it is no longer adjacent. There will be effects as
soon as you start moving the clock around.
Indeed there will, according to SR, but we can test that prediction with
an experiment in which it is only necessary to compare the clocks while
they are adjacent, as i have explained to you many time before Mr.Gisse
1. Synchronise two clocks
2. Take one to the International Space Station.
3. D days later take up the other.
4. Compare the two clocks on the ISS.
Quote: What makes you say with such certainty that GPS is less accurate than
your proposed experiment? Last I checked, using differential GPS, you
could get accuracy down to a few centimeters. Thats pretty sweet.
The reason i particularly want to see the test done on the ISS is
that the test i am advocating is far more reliable and accurate than any
inferences from the GPS. It is not easy to accurately compare clocks
which are 20,000 km apart and travelling relative to each other at
several km/sec, whereas clocks which are adjacent and stationary
relative to each other can be compared very reliably and accurately eh!
keith stein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:34 pm
|
|