| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist...
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Spaceman... |
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
Quote: What frequency outcome? There is one hill in a straight pipe. Whether
it is done fast or done slow, there is still only one hill. So if you
have clocks that is ticking, say, 1000 times a second, and you send
clocks through this pipe with one hill through at different speeds,
please show how the time dilation (the change of that 1000 times a
second) is related to how fast the clock encounters the one hill.
Preferably, show a little formula that shows *how much* encountering
that one hill at different speeds will change the frequency.
equation?
Yuck!
Think Newton's first law,
and second Law about such.
Then think the "unbalanced forces" of Newton1 are each motion through
the gravitational potential radius change.
Moving faster through the potential differences (radius changing faster)
will cause the different rate change than it would if slower through the
same
path.
Think about a chunk of gum on a golfball,
and that gum will be the frequency count each spin it makes
around the golfball.
As it goes through the g-potential it will change rate,
if it goes through it faster, it will change rate less because
it has less time to be effected by each potential change.
and of course, if it goes slower through the potential changes
it will change rate slower.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Spaceman... |
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Greg Neill wrote:
Quote: "Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:opOdnSTr7oW2UeHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
An observer at rest will measure an acceleration of
the object. The object itself feels no forces
so long as it is allowed to move inertially
(responding only to gravity).
Feels no forces, yet is under acceleration.
Right.
Actually it is changing it's force during the acceleration
since the acceleration is increasing or changing its velocity.
Quote: Silly Greg.
You set your accelerometer wrong yet again.
If you set it at 0 while you are falling, you will
never know you "are" falling.
Correct. In fact, it will then always read zero
when you are falling, no matter in what gravity
field.
Then you most definitely set it wrong.
If you have an accelerometer that can not detect
the fall itself and is set at 0 even when it is accelerating
then you are stupid.
You basically have an accelerometer that does not
measure acceleration correctly at all.
Sheesh,
How stupid is that accelerometer.
Hint: very stupid.
Quote: Even falling towards the Sun, which has
a much larger field than Earths. Or towards the
Moon, which has a much smaller one. That is a
characteristic fresfall, and is due to the
equivalence principle of gravitational and
inertial masses.
And only a person that is stupid would set an accelerometer
for 0 when they know the rate it is fallign is not zero.
You must set your scale in the bathroom to start at 5 lbs
also huh?
Sheesh.
Quote: No time like the present to learn then. Let's see
your attempt, and we can help you along with it.
I don't want any help from people that set a freakin
accelerometer for a 0 when it is definitely accelerating.
Freakin moron physics is what that is.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg Neill... |
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Quote: Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:opOdnSTr7oW2UeHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
An observer at rest will measure an acceleration of
the object. The object itself feels no forces
so long as it is allowed to move inertially
(responding only to gravity).
Feels no forces, yet is under acceleration.
Right.
Actually it is changing it's force during the acceleration
since the acceleration is increasing or changing its velocity.
A freely falling body feels no force due to gravity
(weight). It would if it were being prevented from
falling freely. Then it would feel the resistance
force. Also, since all bodies repond to gravity in
the same way, no new inter-body forces due to gravity
in a freefalling system arise.
Whether or not the acceleration due to gravity changes
over a given trajectory depends upon the details of
the particular gravitational field the body is
traversing. A falling body near the surface of the
Earth, for example, follows an essentially canstant
acceleration of about 9.8 m/s^2. Over relatively small
changes in height the acceleration due to Earth's
gravity is essentially constant.
Quote:
Silly Greg.
You set your accelerometer wrong yet again.
If you set it at 0 while you are falling, you will
never know you "are" falling.
Correct. In fact, it will then always read zero
when you are falling, no matter in what gravity
field.
Then you most definitely set it wrong.
If you have an accelerometer that can not detect
the fall itself and is set at 0 even when it is accelerating
then you are stupid.
Blame Nature. An accelerometer in freefall can detect
no forces to measure. Now, you can choose to set the
freefall acceleration reading to be anything you want,
but it will always read that same value no matter where
the accelerometer is set into freefall.
Quote: You basically have an accelerometer that does not
measure acceleration correctly at all.
Why don't you tell us how you think an acceleromter
works? Start by naming which of Newton's laws is
involved.
Quote: Sheesh,
How stupid is that accelerometer.
Hint: very stupid.
Even falling towards the Sun, which has
a much larger field than Earths. Or towards the
Moon, which has a much smaller one. That is a
characteristic fresfall, and is due to the
equivalence principle of gravitational and
inertial masses.
And only a person that is stupid would set an accelerometer
for 0 when they know the rate it is fallign is not zero.
How are they to set reading on the accelerometer without
an accelerometer to set the reading by?
Imagine that you are in a sealed laboratory adrift in
space. There are no windows, and no communications to
the outside of the lab. Your task is to build an
accelerometer. You have no idea whether you are floating
in intergalactic space far from any large masses, or
plunging towards a planet in freefall. How would you
construct and calibrate your acceleromter?
Quote: You must set your scale in the bathroom to start at 5 lbs
also huh?
No, why do you do that?
Quote:
No time like the present to learn then. Let's see
your attempt, and we can help you along with it.
I don't want any help from people that set a freakin
accelerometer for a 0 when it is definitely accelerating.
Freakin moron physics is what that is.
Your choice. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Spaceman... |
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Greg Neill wrote:
Quote: "Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:opOdnSTr7oW2UeHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
An observer at rest will measure an acceleration of
the object. The object itself feels no forces
so long as it is allowed to move inertially
(responding only to gravity).
Feels no forces, yet is under acceleration.
Right.
Actually it is changing it's force during the acceleration
since the acceleration is increasing or changing its velocity.
A freely falling body feels no force due to gravity
(weight).
So you have 0 acceleration occuring then,
NOT!
So you ignore F=ma so you can have a 0 force
only because you set your (a) in such to zero like only
an idiot would if they know the acceleration rate is occuring
for real.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg Neill... |
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:ZY-dnS9STYLb7uDVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Quote: Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:opOdnSTr7oW2UeHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
An observer at rest will measure an acceleration of
the object. The object itself feels no forces
so long as it is allowed to move inertially
(responding only to gravity).
Feels no forces, yet is under acceleration.
Right.
Actually it is changing it's force during the acceleration
since the acceleration is increasing or changing its velocity.
A freely falling body feels no force due to gravity
(weight).
So you have 0 acceleration occuring then,
No, the object is following an inertial trajectory
which is accelerating according to observers in
other inertial frames. That trajectory involves a
changing velocity with respect to those observers.
What is different about this form of acceleration and
that caused by applying other arbitrary forces is that
all bodies accelerate at the same rate when responding
to gravity. This would not happen if, for example,
you were to apply a force of 100 N to various bodies;
They'd all accelerate at different rates according to
their individual masses.
Freefall in a gravitational field results in what is
called a locally inertial frame of reference. Physics
in a locally inertial frame behaves just as it would in
a regular inertial frame travelling in a straight line
at a constant velocity far from gravitating masses.
Quote: NOT!
So you ignore F=ma so you can have a 0 force
only because you set your (a) in such to zero like only
an idiot would if they know the acceleration rate is occuring
for real.
You've missed the point, again, as usual.
Suppose you had a hollow sphere and within the
sphere was a small object at rest in the center
of the sphere, floating in a perfect vacuum. The
sphere is more massive than the object within (or
at least has a different mass).
If you somehow applied a force F to the sphere and
the obect within simultaneously, the object would
accelerate with respect to the sphere (it is less
massive so accelerates more quickly in response to
the force F) and eventually it would strike the
inside of the sphere.
If you took the same setup and released it into
freefall in a gravitational field, the small interior
object would remain at rest with respect to the sphere
and stay at its center just as though the gravitational
field wasn't there, even though the whole assemblage
is accelerating with respect to the field (or the planet,
say, that is causing the field).
No self-contained apparatus that relies on the relative
motions of its parts, or on forces engendered between
its parts by externally induced accelerations (F = M*A)
would register any influence by the gravitational field
as long as it is in freefall. An accelerometer will
not "see" any acceleration in freefall. You could
arbitrarily set it to read a certain value in freefall
(technically an offset value) but it would read that same
value for all time during freefall, even as it approached
a planet and its acceleration actually increased.
You are invited to propose a design or conceptual method
of construction for a self-contained accelerometer that
would be able to be able to detect the "actual" acceleration
of a freefalling body. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sue...... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 16, 12:05 pm, "Spaceman" <space... at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
Quote: Sue... wrote:
I see. So if there was a planet on my house I could
get there with an aerosol can. But if it moved
away, I might need larger and larger thrusters
the farther away it got.
If there was a planet ON your house,
you could get there by jumping.
When does this "inertia" stuff ever help us?
It is a straight line between the centers
of mass?
It does not "keep you straight" it only wants to
move straight.
and when forces change such, it is no longer
an inertial motion alone.
But you can't give us any examples in nature
where nature knows what straight is.
Yes... We could consider the hypothetical
two charge universe. Wiggle one charge and
straight-line coupling causes the other charge
to wiggle via Coulomb coupling.
But put two more charges in the system and
all bets are off about what path an action
takes. Wiggle one, they all wiggle. But
in ways that would seem strange to a person familiar
with springs, strings and billiard balls.
Your rules become useless in a four particle
universe. More particles aren't going to
make your rules work any better.
I think your notions about nature's knowlege
of straight lines might find a better fit
in the radial lines of diagrams like these:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/isq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
You have consistantly associated your
"straight lines" with forces that diminish by
the inverse square law. ( 1/r^2 )
Magnetic force diminishes by the cube (1/r^3)
and particle trajectories are not straight lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
You don't honestly think Newton even knew
why his television needed focusing coils
do you ?
Sue...
Quote:
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Spaceman... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sue... wrote:
Quote: I have seen about five ways to test if a path
is inertial. Which you choose is somewhat dependent
on the theory or set of laws refered to.
The same kind of circular reasoning arises
whenever we critically examine the concept of
inertia. For example, when trying to decide
if our region of spacetime is really flat,
so that "straight lines" exist, we face the
same difficulty. As Einstein said:
The weakness of the principle of inertia lies
in this, that it involves an argument in a
circle: a mass moves without acceleration
if it is sufficiently far from other bodies;
we know that it is sufficiently far from other
bodies only by the fact that it moves without
acceleration.
So,
He proposed that an object moves without acceleration.
(and ignored what constant speeds of what a true inertial only
force would produce?)
He could not use a constant speed like would really happen
if such object was truly far enough away from G-forces?
And he just said that is the problem?
That is pretty funny.
He completely just dropped "true inertia" without any
phsyical reason to do such.
:)
Quote: We could equally well substitute [has the greatest
lapse of proper time] for [is sufficiently far
from other bodies]. In either case the point is
the same: special relativity postulates the existence
of inertial frames and assigns to them a preferred
role, but it gives no a priori way of establishing
the correct mapping between this concept and anything
in reality. This is what Einstein was referring
to when he said "In classical mechanics, and no
less in the special theory of relativity, there
is an inherent epistemological defect...".
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
Aha!
There is his step into the "multiple standards of time" joke
and then of course, he needed to find his multiple standard
of distance and of course.. the math finally worked.
All because he refused to find the "physical" cause
of the change in the "true" inertial path.
LOL
Quote: I found five. Other than a straight line,
which we agree, nature can't even know about,
what are the tests we can use to know if
an object is on an inertial trajectory?
Nature does not "know" anything.
Nature just happens when forces occur.
Nature does not control the forces, the forces
control nature.
Nature does not even have a clue a planet is there,
until forces show up from the planet being there.
Why do you give Nature a knowledge factor at all?
Again, that is like saying light "knows" how to take
the curve it needs.
Quote: Actually, yes, if you took the time to find true inertial paths
and then took the time to find the reasoning for the "change"
in inertial paths..
I took the time. I looked. They are not straight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
You looked in a world of multiple standards.
(In short. a world of "non science" and only theory
still.)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:44 pm
|
|