Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
Author Message
Bew
science forum beginner

Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 33

Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:26 pm    Post subject: "The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"

"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"

A while ago a program was presented on NOVA in which a physicist
described an experiment. In this experiment he used two identical atomic
clocks and transported one of them around the world in a jet aircraft. He
observed that the transported clock recorded less elapsed time than the
identical clock that remained in place. He concluded from this that time
slowed down as a result of the aircraft's velocity. He asserted that "as far
as he was concerned, time is what clocks measure". It is the purpose of this
posting to examine the validity of his belief.

Suppose we consider an experiment in which we measure the price of
gasoline in two different locations (reference frame #1 and reference frame
#2) using the units of measurement existing at those locations and denoted
as dollars and gallons in both. In reference frame #1 we observe that
gasoline costs \$1/gallon and in reference frame #2 we also observe that
gasoline costs \$1/gallon. We can assert from this that the price of gasoline
is "a constant" (1\$/gallon) between those locations that, for this example,
are only 10 miles apart. Can we rigorously assert that the price of gasoline
does not change ("is constant"} between those locations? The answer is that
we cannot without further information. Suppose one of the locations was in
Windsor, Ontario, Canada and the other location is across the river in
Detroit, Michigan, USA? At the Canadian location, the price of gasoline
would be measured in terms of Canadian dollars and Imperial Gallons while at
the US location; the price of gasoline would be measured in US gallons and
US dollars. Since the Imperial Gallon is 25% larger than the US gallon, the
price of gasoline, while being "a constant" (invariant) between those
locations, would not be "constant" between them except for the case where
the Canadian dollar was worth 1.25 US dollars. In this experiment, in order
to draw a legitimate conclusion it is necessary to take in consideration the
relative sizes of the units of measurement for fluid and money at the two
locations (reference frames) even though they have the same names.

The same requirement is incumbent on an experimenter who is making
measurements between reference frames (elevation or velocity). Before we can
draw any conclusion as to what is actually occurring between two reference
frames which differ in elevation or velocity, we must first determine how
the appropriate units of measurement are affected by the difference in
is no different than the technique used by land surveyors when they correct
their measurements of distance for the effects of ambient temperature on
their steel tapes. I would assert that the science of physics should be at
least as rigorous as the more mundane field of land surveying.) The
information needed to make the corrections for reference frames that differ
in velocity were provided in 1903 by Fitzgerald, Larmor, and Lorentz and are
collectively known as the Lorentz Transformations. The resultant theory was
denoted as the Lorentz Transformation-Aether Theory. Using these
transformations, one finds that the effects of velocity are quite reasonable
in terms of classical Newtonian Physics, THERE IS NO MYSTERY. In 1905 Dr.
Einstein derived Special Relativity using mathematics applied to accepted
physical laws. If one examines both theories one finds that they are
actually the same theory since one may be derived from the other, with the
Aether Relativity Theory being a special case solution of STR in which one
of the infinite number of solutions that STR allows between the limits of
+/- C represents the Aether but we are prevented from measuring that
velocity with respect to it by the Lorentz Transformations and the velocity
limit on communications imposed by the velocity of light.

When one examines the atomic clock experiment one must decide between
one of two interpretations. One must consider the possibility of whether
that velocity of the trip caused the moving clock to speed up during one
part of its trip around the world and to slow up on the part so that the
total elapsed time was consistent with the observation. The other
interpretation was that the velocity made the rate of passage of time itself
change due to its movement through space-time. In order to distinguish
between the possibilities, it is necessary only necessary to consider the
effects of a change in reference frame occurring when the observations are
made and these observations are made at the same location and at the same
velocity reference and, as a result, we must conclude that it was not time
which slowed during the trip, it was the speed of
the clock. (This conclusion may be made easier to accept when one recognizes
that the experiment could have been set up, in principle, in a form akin the
auto speed tests on the Bonneville Salt Flats in which the clock travels at
a constant rate of speed and in a straight line in one direction and then is
stopped and reversed indirection and returns to its starting point along the
same straight line. All of the measurements would be made by identical
clocks with the time required to turn the vehicle around subtracted from the
time difference. Spacetime is not involved in this analysis.) Since all of
the measurements of the actual experiment were made at the same location and
velocity reference frame, the actual elapsed time must have been the same
for both clocks one must conclude that it was the moving clock that slowed
its speed and not a reduction of the actual passage of time.

The physicists assertion that "time is what clocks measure" is naive.
"Time is what clocks measure after the assumed speed of the clock has been
corrected for the change in size of the units of measurement for time
resulting from velocity". (In other words, changing the velocity of the
clock caused its scale factor to change. there are sound and easily
understood physical reason as why this occurs.) Larmor was intelligent
enough to provide the necessary correction factor (the Lorentz
Transformation for Time and Dr. Einstein was considerate enough to derive it
rigorously from basic principles.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ (1997);
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
 The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:13 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Conservation of Info. and Generation of Info. give "Systems" Zim Olson Math 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:53 pm "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde New Theories 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde Particle 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Obs... Tde Relativity 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm