How slow do atomic clocks have to be moved apart so as not to notice?

On Jan 6, 8:26 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 1/6/12 1/6/12 6:37 PM, train wrote:

Clock sync is a major point of discussion in this forum. Moving clock
B relative to A and bringing it to rest again changes the rate of the
clock B so that now there is a time difference between A and B,
according to SRT

Well, that is poorly stated, but does contain a kernel of truth.

No, clock synchronization is not the issue. The issue at hand is to
synchronize the calendar time which is the accumulation or the
integration of the clock. Any clock rate difference can easily be
identified and corrected through an offset which is purely a software
solution. shrug

Consider two clocks, A and B, that are synchronized and at rest in an inertial
frame. If one takes a third clock, C, synchronizes it with A and then moves it
to B, in principle C and B will not display the same time.

What principle is that? The SR crap? Calling SR stuff principles may
come back to choke you. shrug

How large the
difference is, and whether it is measurable, depends on the speed with which it
moved, the distance between A and B in that frame, and the resolution and
accuracy of the clocks.

That is assuming SR is correct. Excuse Him. “valid”. shrug

Real experiments similar to that have been performed with airplanes,
automobiles, and oscillations of individual atoms acting as clocks...

And these experiments show that the absolute frame of reference must
exist if tossed out the nonsense of SR. shrug

Mind you that the most essential gospel of SR --- the mutual time
dilation --- has never been observed. So much for relative
simultaneity. As long as this mutual time dilation cannot be
verified, there is no support for relative simultaneity. Would you
not agree? shrug

On 1/8/12 1:46 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:


Mind you that the most essential gospel of SR --- the mutual time
dilation --- has never been observed.

That's bull****, Koobee

So much for relative
simultaneity. As long as this mutual time dilation cannot be
verified, there is no support for relative simultaneity. Would you
not agree?shrug


Synchronization of Clocks
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...es/clocks1.gif
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...es/clocks2.gif
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section11.html

On Jan 8, 10:57 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/8/12 1:46 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Mind you that the most essential gospel of SR --- the mutual time
dilation --- has never been observed.

That's bull****, Koobee

No, it is not. The truth remains that this MUTUAL TIME DILATION HAS
NEVER BEEN OBSERVED as predicted by SR. The excuse that Tom gave was
that it is technically very challenging to conduct experiment to prove
so, and thus it can be ignore to continue to claim the validity of
SR. That is bull****, and that is not what science is all about.
shrug

So much for relative
simultaneity. As long as this mutual time dilation cannot be
verified, there is no support for relative simultaneity. Would you
not agree? shrug

[usual crap snipped]

Dog owners in the US have to pick up the crap from their best
friends. He does expect the same for Sam to pick up his own poop.
shrug

On 1/8/12 11:58 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 8, 10:57 am, Sam wrote:
On 1/8/12 1:46 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Mind you that the most essential gospel of SR --- the mutual time
dilation --- has never been observed.

That's bull****, Koobee

No, it is not. The truth remains that this MUTUAL TIME DILATION HAS
NEVER BEEN OBSERVED as predicted by SR. The excuse that Tom gave was
that it is technically very challenging to conduct experiment to prove
so, and thus it can be ignore to continue to claim the validity of
SR. That is bull****, and that is not what science is all about.
shrug

So much for relative
simultaneity. As long as this mutual time dilation cannot be
verified, there is no support for relative simultaneity. Would you
not agree?shrug

[usual crap snipped]

Dog owners in the US have to pick up the crap from their best
friends. He does expect the same for Sam to pick up his own poop.
shrug



Around a year ago, PD pointed out that mutual time dilation has
been observed using the real clocks of particle decay rates in
asymmetric nucleus-nucleus collisions. Perhaps PD will cite a
paper for you [to choke on] Koobee.

On Jan 8, 10:28 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/8/12 11:58 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

The truth remains that this MUTUAL TIME DILATION HAS
NEVER BEEN OBSERVED as predicted by SR. The excuse that Tom gave was
that it is technically very challenging to conduct experiment to prove
so, and thus it can be ignore to continue to claim the validity of
SR. That is bull****, and that is not what science is all about.
shrug

Around a year ago, PD pointed out that mutual time dilation has
been observed using the real clocks of particle decay rates in
asymmetric nucleus-nucleus collisions. Perhaps PD will cite a
paper for you [to choke on] Koobee.

PD is known as a crackpot despite being a physics professor in the
past. The man does not even understand Snell’s law and basic calculus
stuff. He has failed to understand what the Galilean and the Lorentz
transforms are all about. shrug

So, Tom has conceded that the mutual time dilation has never been
observed because of technical challenges. In the meantime, PD has
claimed the twins’ paradox has been verified in experiments. Yes, a
claim that a paradox has been verified to exist. Which self-styled
physicist do you believe since Sam, the moron, possesses no brain able
to think for itself? Fvcking sad, no? shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 10:28 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/8/12 11:58 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

The truth remains that this MUTUAL TIME DILATION HAS
NEVER BEEN OBSERVED as predicted by SR. The excuse that Tom gave was
that it is technically very challenging to conduct experiment to prove
so, and thus it can be ignore to continue to claim the validity of
SR. That is bull****, and that is not what science is all about.
shrug

Around a year ago, PD pointed out that mutual time dilation has
been observed using the real clocks of particle decay rates in
asymmetric nucleus-nucleus collisions. Perhaps PD will cite a
paper for you [to choke on] Koobee.

PD is known as a crackpot despite being a physics professor in the
past. The man does not even understand Snell’s law and basic calculus
stuff. He has failed to understand what the Galilean and the Lorentz
transforms are all about. shrug

_____________________________________________
Incorrect. If you have evidence of this, you should post it. You haven't.

So, Tom has conceded that the mutual time dilation has never been
observed because of technical challenges. In the meantime, PD has
claimed the twins’ paradox has been verified in experiments. Yes, a
claim that a paradox has been verified to exist. Which self-styled
physicist do you believe since Sam, the moron, possesses no brain able
to think for itself? Fvcking sad, no? shrug

_____________________________________________
So, do we choose between your theories and those of mainstream physics? What
is your theory anyway? What would happen (in your opinion) if the the twins
paradox was attempted for real? Would the travelling twin return younger,
older or the same age as the stay at home twin? Does your theory make any
different predictions to those of SR? What are they?

Lets hear your theory, and see if it is worth anything at all, or if it is a
piece of ****. Specifically, lets see if it makes better predictions than
does SR, which is the relevant test in the scientific method.

Over to you.

On 1/9/12 12:45 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

So, Tom has conceded that the mutual time dilation has never been
observed because of technical challenges. In the meantime, PD has
claimed the twins’ paradox has been verified in experiments. Yes, a
claim that a paradox has been verified to exist. Which self-styled
physicist do you believe since Sam, the moron, possesses no brain able
to think for itself? Fvcking sad, no?shrug

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...l#Twin_paradox

5. Tests of the “Twin Paradox”

The so-called “twin paradox” occurs when two clocks are synchronized, separated, and rejoined. If one clock remains in an inertial frame, then the other must be accelerated sometime during its journey, and it displays less elapsed proper time than the inertial clock. This is a “paradox” only in that it appears to be inconsistent but is not.

Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal).
Science Vol. 177 pg 166–170 (1972) (experiment).
They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR predictions to well within their experimental resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25 ns). By using four cesium-beam atomic clocks they greatly reduced their systematic errors due to clock drift.

Criticised in: A. G. Kelly, “Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks”, Inst. Engineers Ireland Monograph No. 3 (February 1996), http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm. His criticism does not stand up, as he does not understand the properties of the atomic clocks and the way the four clocks were reduced to a single “paper” clock. The simple averages he advocates are not nearly as accurate as the paper clock used in the final paper—that was the whole point of flying four clocks (they call this “correlated rate change”; this technique is used by all standards organizations today to minimize the deficiencies of atomic clocks).

Also commented on in Schlegel, AJP 42, pg 183 (1974). He identifies the East–West time difference as the Sagnac effect, notes that this is independent of the clock's velocity relative to the (rotating) Earth, and proposes a coordinate system in which it is treated just like the international date line (for use in highly accurate time transfer around the world); while correct, this has been superceded by the ECI coordinate system of the GPS.

Here is a brief description of a repetition in the UK (2005): http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/metromnia_issue18.pdf (Page 2)

Vessot et al., “A Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Space-borne Clock”, Gel. Rel. Grav., 10, (1979) 181–204.
“Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space borne Hydrogen Maser”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 2081–2084.
They flew a hydrogen maser in a Scout rocket up into space and back (not recovered). Gravitational effects are important, as are the velocity effects of SR. This experiment is also known as “Gravity Probe A”.

C. Alley, “Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses,” in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pg 363–427.
They flew atomic clocks in airplanes that remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which flew to Greenland and back.

Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301.
Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1–79 (1979).
They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest: Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et al., JETP 40, pg 811 (1974); Bardin et al., Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984). Also a test of the clock hypotheses (below).

The Clock Hypothesis

The clock hypothesis states that the tick rate of a clock when measured in an inertial frame depends only upon its velocity relative to that frame, and is independent of its acceleration or higher derivatives. The experiment of Bailey et al. referenced above stored muons in a magnetic storage ring and measured their lifetime. While being stored in the ring they were subject to a proper acceleration of approximately 1018 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s2). The observed agreement between the lifetime of the stored muons with that of muons with the same energy moving inertially confirms the clock hypothesis for accelerations of that magnitude.

Sherwin, “Some Recent Experimental Tests of the 'Clock Paradox'”, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 1 (1960), pg 17.
He discusses some Mössbauer experiments that show that the rate of a clock is independent of acceleration (~1016 g) and depends only upon velocity.

On 1/9/12 1/9/12 - 2:10 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
So, Tom has conceded that the mutual time dilation has never been
observed because of technical challenges.

DIRECTLY observed. As PD has pointed out, some particle experiments can be
interpreted to have demonstrated it indirectly.


In the meantime, PD has
claimed the twins’ paradox has been verified in experiments.

This is not merely a "claim", it is a fact. The measurements of Bailey et al
[reference in the FAQ], when combined with measurements of muon lifetime at
rest, are a direct implementation of the twin scenario, and quite clearly show
that the traveling twin (muon going around a storage ring at ~0.9999 c)
experiences less elapsed proper time than the stay-at-home twin (muon decaying
at rest). There are others using macroscopic clocks (Hafele and Keating, Vessot
et al, Alley et al),

Look up the meaning of "paradox" -- it does not mean inconsistent.


[... too Koobee Wublee]
Over to you.

Good luck with that -- the rest of us have found it impossible to engage him in
intelligent discussion.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| On 1/9/12 1/9/12 - 2:10 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
| So, Tom has conceded that the mutual time dilation has never been
| observed because of technical challenges.
|
| DIRECTLY observed. As PD has pointed out, some particle experiments can be
| interpreted to have demonstrated it indirectly.
|
|
| In the meantime, PD has
| claimed the twins’ paradox has been verified in experiments.
|
| This is not merely a "claim", it is a fact. The measurements of Bailey et
al
| [reference in the FAQ], when combined with measurements of muon lifetime
at
| rest, are a direct implementation of the twin scenario, and quite clearly
show
| that the traveling twin (muon going around a storage ring at ~0.9999 c)

The speed is 0.9994c, you LYING *******.

On Jan 9, 8:15 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
peter webb wrote:

So, Tom has conceded that the mutual time dilation has never been
observed because of technical challenges.

DIRECTLY observed. As PD has pointed out, some particle experiments can be
interpreted to have demonstrated it indirectly.

So, is Tom using PD as a front man? If PD takes a fall, Tom can just
simply distant himself. If PD is right, Tom can join in to collect
the glory. shrug

In the meantime, PD has
claimed the twins’ paradox has been verified in experiments.

This is not merely a "claim", it is a fact. The measurements of Bailey et al
[reference in the FAQ], when combined with measurements of muon lifetime at
rest, are a direct implementation of the twin scenario, and quite clearly show
that the traveling twin (muon going around a storage ring at ~0.9999 c)
experiences less elapsed proper time than the stay-at-home twin (muon decaying
at rest). There are others using macroscopic clocks (Hafele and Keating, Vessot
et al, Alley et al),

It looks like Tom is confusing with one-way observation of time
dilation with mutual time dilation again. Why? Is it because no one
can ever come up with an experiment to support this mutual time
dilation? It is a paradox. shrug

Look up the meaning of "paradox" -- it does not mean inconsistent.

Let’s check what Wikipedia has to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

Quote: “... a paradox is a logical statement or group of statements
that lead to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies
logic or reason.”

Thus, no experiment can support a paradox. Any claim that a paradox
is directly or indirectly observed is a lie. If a logical statement
leads to a paradox, that logical statement must and can only be
wrong. shrug

[crap snipped]

Good luck with that -- the rest of us have found it impossible to engage him in
intelligent discussion.

It sounds like it is time to describe the stages of accepting a
paradox. So, here we go.

Each resolution to the twins’ paradox comes in four stages. How long
each stage lasts depends on how tasty this resolution with its
hypnotic appetite is. The stages a

**** Desperation

It must be very heart breaking for the Einstein Dingleberries to watch
their beloved SR getting **** canned. shrug

**** Hope

This is more like false hope because the Einstein Dingleberries just
cannot walk away from that pile of crap called SR. shrug

**** Zealot

Every day wishing for this false hope is going to trig the mind to
believe in a false resolution. It does not matter how ****ed up or
stupid the resolution is. As soon as the Einstein Dingleberries sink
their teeth into this resolution, it is impossible to separate them
from SR. Waiting for rapture is very much the only mental activity
left. shrug

**** Awakening

After a while, the scientist in their id will be finally knocking on
their consciousness. They will start to realize just how fvcking
stupid they were with such zeal in their faith. shrug

**** Desperation

And the cycle begins. So, for the recap, we have gone through at
least three such cycles so far. shrug

**** Acceleration

This crap was first proposed by Born by equating any acceleration with
gravitational acceleration, and thus it inherits the nature of
gravitational time dilation. To this day, there is not a piece of
mathematical analysis that supports this resolution, and no single
experiment has shown acceleration manifests time dilation. shrug

**** Diagram

Some idiots thought the twins’ paradox can be resolved by drawing a
few lines in their so-called spacetime diagram. This resolution seems
to have the least amount of survival time. There are almost no idiots
following this cult anymore. shrug

**** MathemaGics

Given the time transform of the Lorentz transform, the twins’ paradox
actually involves two different set of the Lorentz transforms. The
first set describes observers 1 and 2 observing 3.

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s13] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** dt1 = time flow rate of 1
** [v12] = velocity of 2 as observed by 1
** [s13] = displacement vector of 3 as observed by 1
** All others self-explanatory

The other set of the Lorentz transform is where 1 and 2 are observing
4:

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s24] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Since there only two observers and each observer behaving as the
observed, these two sets of the Lorentz transform above must be
reduced with 3 and 4 merged appropriately into 1 and 2. So, taking
one equation from each transform, we have

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Then, it is easy to merge 3 into 2 and 4 into 1 from the two equations
above.

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s22] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s11] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Or

** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** d[s11] = d[s22] = 0

Since the two equations above cannot possibly co-exist, the twins’
paradox becomes very real. However, the self-styled physicists
possess no analytical skills. In this matheMagic show, they have
demonstrated a lack of understanding in the Lorentz transform (as well
as the Galilean transform). To reduce the Lorentz transform from two
observers (1 and 2) and one observed (3 or 4) into just two observers
(1 and 2) where each observer is observing the other, they decide to
favor either 1 or 2 by using the same transform. Following through
the mathemaGics, the Lorentz transform becomes:

** dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s22] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s12] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Or

** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v12] = - [v21]

And thus avoiding the paradox through mathemaGics.

**** Pathlength

The latest crap to the resolution of the twins’ paradox calls out for
the mythical substance called proper time. Although the scripture of
SR dealing with this proper time went back since the time of Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of aging in proper
time nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the twins’ paradox.
Some self-styled physicists are beginning to realize how ****ing
stupid they have been by accepting this nonsense. shrug

**** Conclusion

So, realizing all resolutions so far are just hopeless, the self-
styled physicists either ignore the twins’ paradox or go back to one
of these resolutions. Jumping from resolution to another seems not to
be getting old for these idiots. Fvcking sad, no? shrug

The whole episode of SR and GR can be summarized as follows.

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

shrug