Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:00:04 -0400, Randy Poe wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:12:31 GMT, HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:

On 22 Jul 2003 06:58:53 -0700, (Randy Poe) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
Do you think rods actually change length when they are moved apart.

No. Do you think that relativity predicts that a rod changes
length when translated in position?

You people keep repeating that but you don't practice what you preach.
You say rods don't physically change but clocks apparently DO.
You are very inconsistent Randy.

I said that if you stay in the rest frame of the rod, the rod will not
change length just by moving it around.

The same is true of clocks. If you stay in the rest frame of the
clock, you will not change its tick rate.

Where is the inconsistency?

This has nothing to do with frames. The fact is NO physical change occurs in
rods or clocks due to their movement.


Perhaps you've forgotten key words like "reference frame"
and "relative velocity".

I can take a meter rod anywhere in the universe and be confident that any
lengths I measure with it are the same as those back on Earth.

Sure, so long as you keep it in your rest frame.

Notice that. You apparently missed it.

I did NOT miss it. It is irrelevant.
The rod is physically identical to what it was on Earth. That's my point.
How can you keep arguing about that.

Nope. As Lorentz noted, the astronomical evidence is that
distances change when the rulers are in relative motion
to the observer, in an amount predicted by the Lorentz
transformation.

Bull. That is purely an observational effect.

Yes, one that will be repeated in any attempt to determine the rod's
length.

I'm not trying to determine the rod's length. I know it hasn't changed. I want
to use it to measure lengths anywhere iin the universe at any speed.
I canbe 100% confident that it is no different from what it was on earth.


Similarly, the change in clock tick rates when a clock is in relative
motion is "just an observational effect" that will be observed in all
measurements, such as lining up the moving clock's ticks with those of
a clock in your rest frame.

If is at rest wrt me I can measure its rate exactly. The is no 'observational
effect'.


- Randy


Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:29:23 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .

Some physical factor(s) cause the clocks to change rates when relieve
of
gravitation self-compression. That is all there is to it. What those
factors
are, I don't know. If it so hapens that the FR correction turns out to
be
similar to the real one then so be it. Maybe there is a physical
connection
after all.

I have pointed out to you before, and with this same link, that the
cesium
atoms in a cesium beam clock are in FREE FALL as they cross the Ramsey
cavity. Therefore there can be no "gravitation self-compression."
http://www.aero.org/publications/cro..._sidebar1.html

Free fall equals a weightless state. Ask any astronaut. The cesium atoms
within the Ramsey cavity are just as weightless on Earth as they are in
space. They do not feel gravitational stress.

The situation is different with a rubidium glass cell oscillator. The
atoms
in the glass cell are NOT in free fall.

Your hypothesis would predict that rubidium glass cell oscillators in
space
require a different correction factor than cesium beam clocks. Both
rubidium
and cesium clocks are used in the GPS system, the rubidium clocks because
they are cheap and have superior short-term stability, while cesium beam
clocks have superior long-term stability.

It is observed that cesium beam clocks and rubidium glass cell
oscillators
require EXACTLY THE SAME CORRECTION, which is equal to the relativistic
prediction. Therefore your hypothesis is disproven.

Minor Crank


Crank, no matter what you say, there is no doubt that the orbiting clocks
have
physically changed. That is what is observed. I make no claims as to why.

In other words, you are unable to counter my logical arguments with anything
of substance.

Minor Crank

This has nothing to do with frames. The fact is NO physical change occurs in
rods or clocks due to their movement.

this is, technically, correct. The clocks/rods don't change - the space they're
embedded in does. You do understand what is meant by "frame", yes? Two items
are in the same reference frame if they're not moving relative to each other
(regardless of the distance between them). If you take clock A, set it to the
same time as clock B and accelerate it to .5c, while B remains still here on
Earth, and then deaccelerate it at Alpha Centauri - it will measure identical
ticks here and there. HOWEVER: following its acceleration, until it's
deaccelerated again at its destination, it will run slow. One tick of clock A
at Alpha Centauri will equal one tick of B here, but they will NOT read the
same time. It's the acceleration that's the key. Likewise, measuring stick A
will measure the same at Alpha Centauri as B will here - so long as they're
both still relative to each other. However A will appear to be shorter while
it's moving.

Crank, no matter what you say, there is no doubt that the orbiting clocks
have physically changed. That is what is observed. I make no claims as to why.


Acceleration. When an object is accelerating it's removed from the common
reference frame. A gravitational field counts as acceleration, so time flows
differently on the surface of neutron stars and near black holes. And it's not
really the clocks themselves that change so much as the space they're embedded
in.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:15:06 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:

"Minor Crank" wrote in message
news:LjnTa.111539$OZ2.22059@rwcrnsc54...

As usual, Henri, you are totally wrong. On pages 8-9 of the GLONASS
Interface Control Document, we read the following: "To compensate
relativistic effects, the nominal value of the frequency, as observed
at
satellite, is biased from 5.0 MHz by relative value Df/f = -4.36*10^-10
or
Df = -2.18*10 ^-3 Hz that is equal to 4.99999999782 MHz (the value is
given for nominal orbital height 19100 km)."
http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~leick/...es/glonass.pdf

That's not the original Russian system.

Can you back up your assertion? No?

All you provide is vague handwaving. I provide officially documented facts.

Minor Crank

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:20:18 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:29:23 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .

Some physical factor(s) cause the clocks to change rates when relieve
of
gravitation self-compression. That is all there is to it. What those
factors
are, I don't know. If it so hapens that the FR correction turns out to
be
similar to the real one then so be it. Maybe there is a physical
connection
after all.

I have pointed out to you before, and with this same link, that the
cesium
atoms in a cesium beam clock are in FREE FALL as they cross the Ramsey
cavity. Therefore there can be no "gravitation self-compression."
http://www.aero.org/publications/cro..._sidebar1.html

Free fall equals a weightless state. Ask any astronaut. The cesium atoms
within the Ramsey cavity are just as weightless on Earth as they are in
space. They do not feel gravitational stress.

The situation is different with a rubidium glass cell oscillator. The
atoms
in the glass cell are NOT in free fall.

Your hypothesis would predict that rubidium glass cell oscillators in
space
require a different correction factor than cesium beam clocks. Both
rubidium
and cesium clocks are used in the GPS system, the rubidium clocks because
they are cheap and have superior short-term stability, while cesium beam
clocks have superior long-term stability.

It is observed that cesium beam clocks and rubidium glass cell
oscillators
require EXACTLY THE SAME CORRECTION, which is equal to the relativistic
prediction. Therefore your hypothesis is disproven.

Minor Crank


Crank, no matter what you say, there is no doubt that the orbiting clocks
have
physically changed. That is what is observed. I make no claims as to why.

In other words, you are unable to counter my logical arguments with anything
of substance.

The plain fact that the orbiting clocks are observed to have changed their
rates is overwhelmingly substantial Crank.

What more can I say?
It is established fact that the orbiting clock rates have changed.



Minor Crank




Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...

The plain fact that the orbiting clocks are observed to have changed their
rates is overwhelmingly substantial Crank.

What more can I say?
It is established fact that the orbiting clock rates have changed.

It is an established fact that the observed effects are fully in accordance
with the predictions of general relativity, and not the predictions (if any)
of Henri Wilson.

I have established that your alternative explanation requires that rubidium
glass cell oscillators and cesium beam clocks show differing changes in rate
when lifted into orbit, and thus is not in accordance with observation.

General relativity has passed all critical tests made of it to date.
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/jour...e4/2001-4will/

Minor Crank

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:19:41 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .

The plain fact that the orbiting clocks are observed to have changed their
rates is overwhelmingly substantial Crank.

What more can I say?
It is established fact that the orbiting clock rates have changed.

It is an established fact that the observed effects are fully in accordance
with the predictions of general relativity, and not the predictions (if any)
of Henri Wilson.

I have established that your alternative explanation requires that rubidium
glass cell oscillators and cesium beam clocks show differing changes in rate
when lifted into orbit, and thus is not in accordance with observation.

General relativity has passed all critical tests made of it to date.

So has Wilsonian mechanics.

Crank, do you really think a maths theory can affect physical attributes?
The orbiting clocks are known to have changed their rates. If different clocks
change by different amounts then that proves conclusively that GR is wrong.


http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/jour...e4/2001-4will/

Minor Crank



Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:19:41 GMT, "Minor Crank"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .

The plain fact that the orbiting clocks are observed to have changed
their
rates is overwhelmingly substantial Crank.

What more can I say?
It is established fact that the orbiting clock rates have changed.

It is an established fact that the observed effects are fully in
accordance
with the predictions of general relativity, and not the predictions (if
any)
of Henri Wilson.

I have established that your alternative explanation requires that
rubidium
glass cell oscillators and cesium beam clocks show differing changes in
rate
when lifted into orbit, and thus is not in accordance with observation.

General relativity has passed all critical tests made of it to date.

So has Wilsonian mechanics.

Crank, do you really think a maths theory can affect physical attributes?
The orbiting clocks are known to have changed their rates. If different
clocks
change by different amounts then that proves conclusively that GR is
wrong.

And YOUR theory has been CONCLUSIVELY falsified.

Minor Crank

Amazing, I thought that I would learn something in this discuss group
but I find it is extremely childish and very petty even the so called
discuss forums for under 18 is way more interesting, entertaining, and
the wit, fussing, and all around general discussions no matter what the
topic is way above the subject matter I have read through out most of
this group. in other words GET A LIFE AND GROW UP!! And maybe get back
to the topic of sci-astro. I had a question about a astro. nature but I
am sure now it wouldn't be welcome here.