Motor Daddy Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 mooeypoo, I've given numbers, examples, and answered questions directly. You are leading this thread away from the task at hand and starting to talk nonsense, and getting mean. Address my original example in this thread and stick to it. Show me how my numbers are wrong. Show me your numbers of the situation. Why are you trying to turn this thread into a pissing contest? I'm not wasting your time, you are. I am not forcing you to read this thread.
mooeypoo Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 mooeypoo, I've given numbers, examples, and answered questions directly. You are leading this thread away from the task at hand and starting to talk nonsense, and getting mean. Address my original example in this thread and stick to it. Show me how my numbers are wrong. Show me your numbers of the situation. Why are you trying to turn this thread into a pissing contest? I'm not wasting your time, you are. I am not forcing you to read this thread. You're ignoring factual data and insist it's not factual. I don't quite understand how we can debate science this way. Look at the responses you got from all of us (Klaynos lately more than others) and then at your own responses. You're repeating the mantra of "but its wrong" without giving proof. You're arguing facts. You're also ignoring OUR insistence that you don't know the theor(ies) of relativity. We have related specifically to your claims, you just don't seem to listen. ~moo
Motor Daddy Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 You're ignoring factual data and insist it's not factual. I don't quite understand how we can debate science this way. Look at the responses you got from all of us (Klaynos lately more than others) and then at your own responses. You're repeating the mantra of "but its wrong" without giving proof. You're arguing facts. You're also ignoring OUR insistence that you don't know the theor(ies) of relativity. We have related specifically to your claims, you just don't seem to listen. ~moo I gave you numbers in my original example, what are your numbers of the example? Show me how my numbers are wrong. Everyone always wants to see the math, well there it is, for all to see. Do you disagree with the numbers? Show me your numbers!
mooeypoo Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you, not on us. The theory of relativity is working and has been proven to predict reality correctly for 50+ years. The numbers you gave weren't the problem, it's the assumptions you make that are problematic. We related to the problems (which invalidate the math..) and you seem to ignore it. We explained what relativity TRULY means, and you insist on presenting it another way (that it's NOT). What else do you need, really? Read the TRUE depiction of Relativity, and you will see that the numerical values are not the problem here. It's your claims. ~moo
Motor Daddy Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 Since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you, not on us. The theory of relativity is working and has been proven to predict reality correctly for 50+ years. The numbers you gave weren't the problem, it's the assumptions you make that are problematic. We related to the problems (which invalidate the math..) and you seem to ignore it. We explained what relativity TRULY means, and you insist on presenting it another way (that it's NOT). What else do you need, really? Read the TRUE depiction of Relativity, and you will see that the numerical values are not the problem here. It's your claims. ~moo So you agree with my numbers and the example?
Klaynos Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Surely just showing why the numbers is wrong will suffice?
Motor Daddy Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 (edited) Surely just showing why the numbers is wrong will suffice? Yes Sir! Do you agree the sun is blue? Prove me wrong! Define Blue? Do you agree with the numbers in the example? Edited June 19, 2008 by Motor Daddy multiple post merged
D H Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 (edited) If the two clocks were perfectly accurate they would not differ in measuring duration. Yes, they would. This has been verified repeatedly over the last hundred years. Perfectly synchronized clocks will start to differ when the clocks start moving with respect to one another. Atomic clocks have been flown on airplanes and fly today on GPS satellites. Your GPS receiver would not be nearly so accurate if the relativistic effects on timing were not known, modeled, and observed. A second is a second is a second. Just because my clock starts running slow or fast I am supposed to change the definition of a second?? If you have an atomic clock, yes you are. Astronomers do have different time scales that incorporate relativistic effects. The key agencies that define and keep track of a plethora of different time scales are The U.S. Naval Observatory. The USNO is the preeminent authority on precision timing. Web site: http://www.usno.navy.mil. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The BIPM maintains the metric system of units, including the second and International Atomic Time. Web site: http://www.bipm.org/en/home. The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service. The collects information from atomic clocks around the world. It is the source of the important timing parameter called DUT1, the difference between UT1 and UTC. The IERS determines when leap seconds are added to keep local mean midnight at Greenwich England at 12:00 midnight UTC. Web site: http://www.iers.org. The International Astronomical Union is the premiere organization for astronomers. The IAU works with the USNO and the IERS to define reference frames and time frames. Web site: http://www.iau.org. Some key concepts on time, courtesy of the IERS: Coordinate time. "Coordinate time provides an unambiguous way of dating events in a specified reference system. It is the time basis (or coordinate) to be used in the theory of motions referred to this system. The relation of the observed (proper) time of an observer to the coordinate time t depends on the velocity, mass and energy." (Emphasis mine) Barycentric Coordinate Time (TCB). "TCB is the coordinate time at the center of mass of the solar system [and is] is the time label for observations of solar system barycentric phenomena." Terrestrial Time (TT) "TT is the coordinate time at the surface of the Earth. TT is conventionally realized by TT = TAI + 32.184 s (although in fact TAI and TT are independent time scales, and different implementations of TT may differ by a few tens of microseconds.)" International Atomic Time (TAI) "TAI is an international time standard. It is calculated by the BIPM from the readings of more than 200 atomic clocks located in metrology institutes and observatories in more than 30 countries around the world. TAI's unit interval is exactly one SI second at mean sea level. BIPM estimates that TAI does not lose or gain with respect to an imaginary perfect clock by more than about one tenth of a microsecond (0.0000001 second) per year. TAI is a continues time scale which is not connected to Earth rotation. UTC is derived from TAI by introducing leap seconds." (Emphasis mine. Note the incredible accuracy to which time is now measured.) Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) "UTC differs from TAI by the total number of leap seconds, so that UT1-UTC stays smaller than 0.9 s in absolute value." Universal Time (UT1) "UT1 is the rotation angle about the Earth pole. UT1 can be regarded as a time determined by the rotation of the Earth. It is distributed by the IERS as the difference UT1-UTC in IERS Bulletins A and B and in other data files. Universal Time (UT) is counted from 0 hours at midnight. The unit of duration is the mean solar day. UT0 is the rotational time of a particular place of observation. UT1 is computed by correcting UT0 for the effect of polar motion on the longitude of the observing site." This PowerPoint presentation to the IAU on the USNO website discusses relativistic effects on time. Bottom line: An atomic clock on the surface of Mars will differ from an atomic clock on the surface of the Earth by 0.49 milliseconds per day. Edited June 19, 2008 by D H Misplaced decimal point
mooeypoo Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Yes Sir! Read up. We proved your assumptions, method, and claims WRONG. That proves the math is based on flawed logic, and hence is wrong as well. In essence, we already showed why the numbers are wrong. Define Blue? The color blue, like the color of the forum's symbol. Like the color of the sky, only a bit darker. Visibly blue and ONLY blue, hence not just 'containing' blue, just blue. I claim that when you look at the sun you see it blue. when you take a picture of the sun through a satellite in High Definition, it is blue, only blue, and nothing but blue. No other color in it. Prove me wrong.
Motor Daddy Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 (edited) Read up. We proved your assumptions, method, and claims WRONG. That proves the math is based on flawed logic, and hence is wrong as well. In essence, we already showed why the numbers are wrong. The math is based on flawed logic? So now the way I calculated the acceleration, velocity, distance, and time are wrong? Show me the correct math. Show me the correct numbers! You haven't shown anything except that clocks change their rate when accelerated. Big deal, clocks get faster and slower when accelerated. I never disagreed with that. The color blue, like the color of the forum's symbol. Like the color of the sky, only a bit darker. Visibly blue and ONLY blue, hence not just 'containing' blue, just blue. I claim that when you look at the sun you see it blue. when you take a picture of the sun through a satellite in High Definition, it is blue, only blue, and nothing but blue. No other color in it. Prove me wrong. How can I prove you wrong when I agree with you? Show me the numbers of the example! Yes, they would. This has been verified repeatedly over the last hundred years. Perfectly synchronized clocks will start to differ when the clocks start moving with respect to one another. Atomic clocks have been flown on airplanes and fly today on GPS satellites. Your GPS receiver would not be nearly so accurate if the relativistic effects on timing were not known, modeled, and observed. If two clocks are synchronized, and then later are shown to be out of sync, something happened, to one or both of the clocks. One or both of the clocks ran faster or slower to get out of sync. It's not even debatable! Edited June 19, 2008 by Motor Daddy multiple post merged
D H Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 If two clocks are synchronized, and then later are shown to be out of sync, something happened, to one or both of the clocks. One or both of the clocks ran faster or slower to get out of sync. It's not even debatable! Correct. The clocks started moving relative to one another. Your mistake is interpreting this as meaning one of the clocks is wrong. What is wrong is your thinking. That clocks do vary has been tested repeatedly. If you have a GPS, you are relying on relativistic effects. The atomic clocks on the GPS satellites measure time differently than do atomic clocks. An atomic clock flown on an airplane will measure time differently than a clock that remains stationary on the surface of the Earth. Even two stationary atomic clocks at two different altitudes on the surface of the Earth will measure time differently from one another. That is what is not debatable.
Motor Daddy Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 Correct. The clocks started moving relative to one another. Your mistake is interpreting this as meaning one of the clocks is wrong. What is wrong is your thinking. That clocks do vary has been tested repeatedly. If you have a GPS, you are relying on relativistic effects. The atomic clocks on the GPS satellites measure time differently than do atomic clocks. An atomic clock flown on an airplane will measure time differently than a clock that remains stationary on the surface of the Earth. Even two stationary atomic clocks at two different altitudes on the surface of the Earth will measure time differently from one another. That is what is not debatable. Why do you insist on telling me over and over that clocks change their rate? That is irrelevant to duration? Do you understand what duration is? It has NOTHING TO DO WITH A CLOCK! Clocks just measure the duration. If the clocks are accurate they will ALWAYS measure the duration the same, and NOT go out of sync. Going out of sync is a sign of inaccuracy!
D H Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Duration is what clocks measure. It has everything to do with a clock.
Motor Daddy Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 Duration is what clocks measure. It has everything to do with a clock. Duration occurs whether you measure it or not! No clocks required!
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 If it cannot be measured, what relevance does it have? You might say there's an absolute duration, but there's no way for us to determine what it is. We're dependent on clocks. The absolute duration is irrelevant to our physics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
mooeypoo Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Duration is not a phenomenon, it's a definition of the measurement of the phenomenon. Time "movement" "occures" whether you measure it or not. Duration cannot "occur". It's not a phenomena. Duration is the result of the measurement between time intervals. ~moo
D H Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 Motor, you can continue to show your ignorance by spouting nonsense, or you can educate yourself. Until you have educated yourself, I am finished with you. Klaynos gave a link to short paper on the Lorentz transformations in this post. Modern physics has shown that some very counterintuitive things happen in the real world. Relativity is one of those very counterintuitive things. It is also a fact.
Motor Daddy Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 If it cannot be measured, what relevance does it have? You might say there's an absolute duration, but there's no way for us to determine what it is. We're dependent on clocks. The absolute duration is irrelevant to our physics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html Did I say it couldn't be measured? Where?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 I said it cannot be measured, because if I have a device that measures "real" seconds its results will vary depending on the reference frame.
Motor Daddy Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 (edited) Duration is not a phenomenon, it's a definition of the measurement of the phenomenon. Time "movement" "occures" whether you measure it or not. Duration cannot "occur". It's not a phenomena. Duration is the result of the measurement between time intervals. ~moo No, you're wrong. We measure motion as a ratio against other motion, the second being 1, and all motion measured against that 1. I said it cannot be measured, because if I have a device that measures "real" seconds its results will vary depending on the reference frame. You measure a second, and when that second has elapsed, the entire universe has also elapsed a second. Edited June 19, 2008 by Motor Daddy multiple post merged
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 You measure a second, and when that second has elapsed, the entire universe has also elapsed a second. But another guy at a different part of the universe with an entirely identical second-measuring-device would say his second was different than yours. That's just the way it works. Please go and read up on special relativity and the experiments performed to validate it.
mooeypoo Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 No, you're wrong. We measure motion as a ratio against other motion, the second being 1, and all motion measured against that 1. You measure a second, and when that second has elapsed, the entire universe has also elapsed a second. You're doing it again, the sun is blue. I think you should read and abide by DH's suggestion. Let me remind you: Motor, you can continue to show your ignorance by spouting nonsense, or you can educate yourself. Until you have educated yourself, I am finished with you. Klaynos gave a link to short paper on the Lorentz transformations in this post. Modern physics has shown that some very counterintuitive things happen in the real world. Relativity is one of those very counterintuitive things. It is also a fact. Ignoring facts don't make the facts go away. It just presents you as ignorant of the facts. ~moo
Motor Daddy Posted June 19, 2008 Author Posted June 19, 2008 But another guy at a different part of the universe with an entirely identical second-measuring-device would say his second was different than yours. That's just the way it works. Please go and read up on special relativity and the experiments performed to validate it. A second is a second. If another guy at a different part of the universe measures a different duration and calls it a second he is sadly mistaken. He obviously doesn't know what the duration of a second really is! The duration of a second is the same duration for anyone in the universe. The duration has elapsed for the entire universe.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 19, 2008 Posted June 19, 2008 That is demonstrably wrong. Read this link: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now