-
Posts
150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by geistkiesel
-
Where in the GPS algorithims is the gravitational and kinetic term corrected re the timing circuits? Kinetic, you mean velocity, or energy, what, I am not clear on this? Geistkiesel
-
If the physics inall inertial frames is the same, identical, equivalent, then a tick rate in frame A is the same as the tick rate in frame B. This is what equivalence of physical law in inertial frames means to me. Geistkiesel
-
So, you are saying that I must wait for the data to arrive? Ok. geistkiesel
-
-
Is there some experimental result that confirms the statement that in expanding space emitted light would forever be excluded from reaching any arbitrary point in space? I suppose I should ask: Is there any experimental results establishing the fact of "expanding space"? If so where? This in itself would assign mechanical properties to space would it not? Then what are some, or any, mechanical attributes of space: density, for instance, in kg/cm^3? Geistkiesel
-
. The moving observer's clock willread 2.7 ly when the ship arrives. I assume you mean that the clock reading will show "2.7ly"l, which is a substantially shorter period of time than the 6 ly on the stationary frame clock. This seems like the dilated time of the space ship imposes a problem in symmetry. If a fleet of space ships move from A to B at 100 different velocities there will be 100 different clock rate readings for all the time of flight measurements between two fixed points in space which is a well defined inertial frame, correct? In a classical world the difference in times for the travel is explained simply by the difference in absolute velocity of the moving frames, absolute velocity wrt a v = 0 , or near v = 0 frame of reference. Then how can anyone say that the physics on each of the 100 inertial frames will give the same result when it is theoretically clear that clocks do not behave the same on each frame, that is the clocks do not tick at the same rate in all inertial frames of reference? Perhaps performing acceleration experiments on different frames is one thing , but when the frame itself produces contradiction of expected confirmation, what is this supposed to mean? Geistkiesel
-
-
If you look closely at SRT postulates, SRT does not apply in accelerating frames. As the orbit around earth is not a straight line SRT cannot be used to analyze any orbital motion. I suppose SRT should be versatile enough to handle curved motion that cannot be measured as such; Meaning that there is no physical measurment that can detect a curve in the apparent local straight line motion. But SRT will not allow this, will it? Geistkiesel
-
From teh question and answer here it appears that the time dilation experienced from a SDAT ior any orbiting object will approach the sutrface clock rate the farther from teh surface the clock is located. Swansont picked the answer B, which is functionally unrelated to "velocity" the onetime definitive mark of SRT. If what the B answer implies is true then a clock originating on the earth surface and synchronized to an earth standard clock will experience a spell of dilation, from some unknown force, perhaps the acceleration force that produced the orbiting object in the first place; then some maximum state, or rate, is achieved, and from then on as the clock moves away from the earth surface and gravitational effects, the clock rate will approach, increase to match, the earth surface standard clock rate? Weirder than weird. I would like to see some mathematical SRT structure that produces this gem of a result. I don't believe it, but then belief is nothing . . .si it? Geistkiesel
-
Quote:
-
If I read Jacques ques tion correctly, if one moves at a speed equal to the oncoming speed of thelight source, the blue shift effect would be nulled out by the observer's motion in the same direction as the source. Hence the observer would observe the absolute rest photon spectrum emanating from the photon source. Geistkiesel
-
You were asking if A and B are moving relative to each other and they see athrid fra,e C, is the AC and BC inertial frame pair. A relative to C and B rel;ative to C, relative motion physically significant? Is this it? I say yes. Let us assume the that C is the embankment and A and B are a train and an airplance moving uniformly with respect to the embankment.Then, if A is moving at 20 units with respect to the embankment, and B is moving 40 units with respect to the embankment, and the A and B frame are moving in the same direction, then the A and B frame may determine their intrinsic absolute velocity with respect to the embankment assumed v = 0, and they can therefore deteremine that B is moving at 20 units faster than A (or A moving 20 unuits slower than B). If A is moving 20 units above zero and B is moving 40 units above zero then B is moving 20 units faster than A. Zero velocity: here the C frame, the embankment. Also, of course, the relative motion of A with respect to B is 20 units measurable independent of the third frame. In other words there is at least two ways of doing it. here is a third: here is a third way. In any event using a common frame of reference for two or more moving objects is done every day. Such as in the Global Positioning System, GPS. Interesting dialogue regarding Special relativity and the Sagnac Effect is included in the GPS story, which does not use SRT in its calculations of position, or for coprrection purposes. GPS uses preferred frames of reference, e.g. ECEF, Earth centered earth fixed, because the preferred frames of reference work, SRT doesn't. Geistkiesel
-
Where is SRT in this linear Sagnac arrangement?
geistkiesel replied to geistkiesel's topic in Relativity
No, not one clue. It just happened. I think the dissidents were winning and they cut us off. WWhat about you? G -
Johnny5, this is a 'linear Sagnac' arrangement. wrap the left and right legs of teh frame into the same circle and there is the original Sagnac. Here the photons emitted at the physical midpoint of the L and R clock/mirrors, to these L and R positiions on the moving frame (wrt the embankment). The schematic shows the left photon lp arriving at L before the rp arrives at R. In the first ct distance the lp arrives at L , the rp 2vt from R. the rp must cross a distance ct' = 2vt + vt', the latter distance occured when the photon was chasing the R across the 2vt disatnce. Here t'= t(2v)/(c-v). This says to me that using the moving frame clocks a measured t' =0 proves no motion; a t' > 0 proves motion, absolutely. Does not the emission point of the photons define an adequate Gallilean coordinate system? Cannot all velocity now be measured wrt the emission point? This point is invarinat in space and time correct? Immutable? for all t = t'. I cannot see how an observer placed anywhere on the frame is privvy to other than the emission times and the arrival times of the reflected light at the moved physical midpoint of L and R at the very earliest. He must use only this data to fomulate a physically proper consideration of whether he is moving or not. The velocity is v = ct'/(2t + t'), is this not correct? If the values of the variables on the RHS are measured, then is this not a measure of absolute velocity wrt c? This is an edit after I posted. In other words, if the photons arrive at the L and R simultaneously the frame is at rest, other wise if the photons arrive sequentially the frame is moving and t' > 0. This is obviously a comparison of zero and nonzero velocity. Geistkiesel
-
If the acceleration gives information to the 'real moving' twin then would not this acceleration postulate apply as a scientific principal across the SRT board? No one will suggest the acceleration postulate is a mere arbitrary tool to "explain away" apparent contradicting arguments re the integrity of SRT. In other words a train accelerates from a train station. There is no recorded acceleration by the train station. Now besides a common sense approach, why not use the acceleation postulate you used above to distinguish which of the two inertial frames, supposedly equivalent, are actually moving and the other at rest as far as physical descriptions apply? A long sentence, but seriously asked. As a corrolary, if the train observer is theoretically justified to make make any consideration regarding motion (i.e. at rest or moving wrt the station), then he may equivalently consider the train as moving, and the station is at rest; he can then, even, now use the acceleration postulate to flip the physical coin for the observer's consideration --he can make the reasonable assumption he is moving; he can use the acceleration principal to add weight to the choices, one or the other, in order for him to produce a physically more 'real universe'. Rejecting the 'real unuivserse' in thihe context of the preceeding would require the observer to ignore the acceleration postulate in favor of maintaining SRT continuity, only. There is no rational excuse that forbids the application of the acceleration postulate as designed by Janus This brings us back, by calculation, to a nonSRT world does it not? Embankments never accelerate, and claims to the converse are not physically true, in general,at least. Earthquakes after all, are real, also. -- motion claimed attributable to the measured relative motion under scrutiny Is it physically reasonable to conclude the motion of the accelerated embankment is reasonable? -- And a different physical result calculated depending on which frame the train observer concluded his motion to be at rest? The observer will see a different algorithim of equations correct? The physics changes with a "point of view"? Simultaneity? Real space? real time? The final conclusion after the observer finishes scrutinizing all the possibilities is:?Answer: A. Only the train is measured as moving, the embaankment is eternally at velocity zero. or, B. the train is at rest wrt the necessarily accelerated embankment? See? And indeed, Janus has spoken the truth. And her moving finger writes and, having writ, moves on; yet, using all her piety and wit, she may lure it back to cancel, at least, half a line. Geistkiesel
-
If observers in two inertial frames, A and B, moving relative to each other "see" each other's clocks as moving slower than their own clock then should not the application of "reciprocity" be imposed. If observers on both frames assume their motion is at rest wrt the other, then should not the clocks manifest this simple reality of SRT? I mean if both clocks are started and stopped at the same instant then the clocks should reflect the SRT reality of time dilation shouldn't they? Geistkiesel
-
The figure shows a simple linear "Sagnac" arrangement where photons emitted from the moving (moving to the right with velocity v wrt the emission point of the photons) M midpoint of L and R clock/mirrors directed at the L and R clocks. Clearly, the photons arrive at the clocks sequentially. What is not so obvious perhaps is that the lp and rp photons arrive at the moved midpoint simultaneously. The dashed lines show the movement of the frame in increments of 'vt', the time it takes the lp to arrive at L and reflect back to the original emission point. The delta symbol is the distance the frame moves when the photons move to the L and R clocks when located a distance 2vt from the clocks R and L. Does not SRT predict the photons arrive simultabeously at L and R? So where is the need for SRT here? Geistkiesel
-
Spin 1 particles can have either +1, -1 or +-1 spin states. Some have modeled the spin-1 particle as being rigidly polarized when bolied off gthe "tungsten filament". The model is far from the truth. The spin states are generated in every p;artricle in the ordwer of , +1, -1, +-1, +1, -1, +-1,+1, -1, +-1, +1, -1, +-1, ...etc. Only when polarized by a magbnetic field does this switching of states cease. But ask yourself, which is more natural a condition, a random number generator producing random numbers of 1 to 3? or the generator producing the numbers sequentially? If I were you and had this problem I would always opt to assume the ordered state as the physical reality, why? Because as accurate as I can measure spin 1 particle states from virgin polarized particles, I will always get the same statistical spread, and this because millions of particles are measured one time instead of one particle being measured a million times. Geistkiesel Geiosgtkuiesel
-
Hang in There: The 25-Year Wait for Immortality
geistkiesel replied to MolecularMan14's topic in Politics
AzurePhoenix, How do you determione who has the "greatest minds"? I think Einstein was a clever fellow, but as a scientrist, he was best described as a jerk. Can you carry on a conversation on the subject of special relativity theory? Probably not, but you applaud Einstein without having a clue of what you are describing as so "good" such that it appears you belittlle yourself out of a sense of wanting to appear sincere humble and modest to the world around you. How do you rate brilliance, by the level or degree that you are unable to understand the person? Geistkiesel -
Yes of course, but special relativity tells us that detecting or measuring unacceleratd motion in free space is impossible. Tycho? tell me if I err, but the system I briefly described allows the systems to detect motion absolutely without any assumptions where any of the frames adjusts their motion, theoretically. Using a beam of photons as a coordinate of an inertial frame, adjustments to zero velocity is pratical and certainly possible.
-
Two ships Va and Vb are approaching each other at some relatiove velocity Vrel. The ships will pass each oither 100 meters apart. Hoiw can one determine if she is moving or at rest and or what part of Vrel does each frame own? As the ships are about to pass each directs a momentum stone poerpendiclar to her particlular frame aiming at a flat area on the other ship. Thje momentum stone and the flat areas are essentially golf balls and golf ball materials (flats). Case 1. Va is at rest Vb has all the motion. As The Va stone strikes the flat area on Vb the surface if Vb will impart a momentum impulse to the stone in the general direction of Vb. The Vb stone directed at Va, hving only Vb momentum will strike the Va flat and be impoelled in the same direction and anbgle as the Va stone. Case 2 Vb at rest Va has all the motion. Use the same logic on this case. Case 3. Va = Vb. The stones of each ship have the same absolute velocity with opposite directions and therefore the stones will reflect back up the original trajectory of the emitted stone, Case 4, the velocity is split unequally between Va and Vb. The stone with the highest absolute velocity will move in that direction the angle being a measure of the relative amounts.
-