Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:01 pm
Only pesky for those who don't pay attention to what they've been told:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
You guys get your stories straight.Hence, it’s clear that there are many conflicting opinions about the resolution of the Twin Paradox among “mainstream”, relativist professors.
Many think that experiment results have confirmed the NPTD prediction and, hence, the Twin Paradox is a dead issue. However, this is an erroneous conclusion.
Don't let them intimidate you: Only fools will believe that the transformed time is the same as the time within the reference frame from which it is transformed. It is so obviously nonsensical that it is difficult to believe that there are persons alive who can read and write, and who can state this without being embarrassed.DeltaV wrote:I'm not a statistician, so I can't help you there.
You can find mavericks anywhere, especially when the orthodoxy is as counter-intuitive as SR.DeltaV wrote:Here's part of what they told you.You guys get your stories straight.Hence, it’s clear that there are many conflicting opinions about the resolution of the Twin Paradox among “mainstream”, relativist professors.
And some more.Many think that experiment results have confirmed the NPTD prediction and, hence, the Twin Paradox is a dead issue. However, this is an erroneous conclusion.
Just to be clear, the physicists on the list are not disputing the physical evidence that the clocks move at different rates. They're disputing the conclusion that the Twins Paradox has been solved so they can get some funding. Obviously, it has not been solved. If Johan wants to fund them, I say go right ahead, but no real physicist would doubt the evidence is conclusive the clocks move at different rates--at least not since the advent of GPS.DeltaV wrote:Many think that experiment results have confirmed the NPTD prediction and, hence, the Twin Paradox is a dead issue. However, this is an erroneous conclusion.
Yes, but if your clock was built to measure ticks on the basis of muon lifetimes, it would have recorded fewer ticks and less time. And, as best anyone can tell, this true for the clock no matter what time-counting mechanism it actually uses. It's hard to interpret this as anything other than time dilation per the Twins Paradox -- one clock is older than the other in every measurable meaning of the word "older." (At least, so far...)Within the FOR of the laboratory the moving muons within the ring are indeed observed to decay SLOWER. But what you are measuring is the TRANSFORMED lifetimes of the muons. Although this proves that time dilation has a real effect, a clock moving with the muons will measure the same lifetimes for the muons trapped within the storage ring, than another clock stationary within the laboratory will measure for muons within the laboratory which are NOT moving: This is so since the physics, within the reference frame moving with the muons, is the same as the physics for stationary muons within the laboratory.
That is surely wrong. Consider, the GPS clocks oscillate with v relative to earth surface clocks continuously. The errors in synchonisation with earth clocks are a fixed time difference, but the effects of time dilation are cumulative. So it is true the clocks must be more accurate than the time dilation (which they are) but otherwise the fact that they are only near the earth surface rather than exactly on it becoems irrelevant over a long measuring period.DeltaV wrote:Again, no one here is denying that observed times get warped.
Your repeated reference to GPS compensation is meaningless, since no one has actually brought the GPS clocks back to earth and compared them to lab clocks.
These subtle nonlinear effects no doubt exist and result in measurement error. Do you know what the GPS measurement error is? And how much smaller than SR time dilation effect it is? I will await your figures.Even if this was done it would be meaningless, due to all of the subtle, unmodeled, nonlinear effects that would affect the clock rates.
You have Kelly writing one paper pointing out that the precision is less than is acheived from one clock. And this is answered by somone saying that 4 clocks were used to get round this, that it provides MUCH better accuracy, that it is a technique used as standard to increase accuracy by metrologists. I don't notice Kelly or anyone else coming back to refute this, which sounds like a more informed view.
The same holds true for the complex, precision clocks taken on bumpy airplane rides though turbulence, vibration and other accelerations, temperature and pressure variations, varying magnetic, electrostatic and gravitational fields, cosmic rays, etc.
It is not an insinuation. You have just stated it as fact.Your continual insinuation that we are denying the reality of changes in the observed times is also becoming annoying.
That is however not a fact. All the changes in which the two clocks stay in roughly the same place, or return to the same place, e.g. GPS, planes, relate to intrinsic differences in elapsd time. Obviously.Those time changes are due to scale changes only, do not represent intrinsic dynamics and will be different for different observers.
DeltaV you have not been paying attention.The idea that two clocks in two different inertial frames actually run at different rates blows the basic premise of SR out of the water, so let's hear about your SR replacement theory.