Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spaceman
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
 |
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity
to get it's most accurate reading.
They actually have a "fountain" almost like a water fountain
only it is forcing a very tiny ball or atoms upward and it has to use
gravity to return down and be counted as one second.
If you actually take the silly thing and flip it upside down,
It is as good as any pendulum clock of yesteryear.
It simply won't work right.
Isn't that funny?
Want to read about it also.
http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
Do the cesium clocks on the GPS satellite
vehicles use a fountain?
|
Not sure and probably not the same,
but something in the same sort of form must be going on.
and cesium atoms are not immune to gravitational
effects so fountain or not, the atom will still be subject
to g forces.
Unless cesium is immune to g-forces like some
special alien spaceship would be.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 10:21 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity
to get it's most accurate reading.
They actually have a "fountain" almost like a water fountain
only it is forcing a very tiny ball or atoms upward and it has to
use gravity to return down and be counted as one second.
If you actually take the silly thing and flip it upside down,
It is as good as any pendulum clock of yesteryear.
It simply won't work right.
Isn't that funny?
Want to read about it also.
http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
Do the cesium clocks on the GPS satellite
vehicles use a fountain?
Not sure and probably not the same,
but something in the same sort of form must be going on.
and cesium atoms are not immune to gravitational
effects so fountain or not, the atom will still be subject
to g forces.
Unless cesium is immune to g-forces like some
special alien spaceship would be.
:)
Already discussed. Time dilation appears in cases where the atoms are
moving and not moving and both are in the *same* gravitational field,
and so the "g-forces" are not responsible for the time dilation.
|
Not moving (at rest)on a curved path and moving along a curved path are
a difference in g-forces.
the faster the motion in the curved path, the larger change in g-force.
Again, PD thinks the atom is immune to g-forces and for some
silly reason he thinks an orbit is an inertial path, even though
it has a 90 degree -g-force and a forward motion keeping it in orbit.
Someday you might get it PD, but you need to actually think about it
instead of just worship the wrong thoughts about it.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 10:50 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:21 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity
to get it's most accurate reading.
They actually have a "fountain" almost like a water fountain
only it is forcing a very tiny ball or atoms upward and it has to
use gravity to return down and be counted as one second.
If you actually take the silly thing and flip it upside down,
It is as good as any pendulum clock of yesteryear.
It simply won't work right.
Isn't that funny?
Want to read about it also.
http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
Do the cesium clocks on the GPS satellite
vehicles use a fountain?
Not sure and probably not the same,
but something in the same sort of form must be going on.
and cesium atoms are not immune to gravitational
effects so fountain or not, the atom will still be subject
to g forces.
Unless cesium is immune to g-forces like some
special alien spaceship would be.
:)
Already discussed. Time dilation appears in cases where the atoms
are moving and not moving and both are in the *same* gravitational
field, and so the "g-forces" are not responsible for the time
dilation.
Not moving (at rest)on a curved path and moving along a curved path
are a difference in g-forces.
I wasn't talking about a curved path, Spaceman. I was referring to
*straight* line motion, both under the *identical* terrestrial
gravitational field.
|
Now PD proves he does not understand that a truly straight line motion can
not stay in the same "terrestrial gravitational field".
A truly straight path would have to cross into higher or lower gravitational
potentials.
Sheesh
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 11:36 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:50 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:21 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity
to get it's most accurate reading.
They actually have a "fountain" almost like a water fountain
only it is forcing a very tiny ball or atoms upward and it has
to use gravity to return down and be counted as one second.
If you actually take the silly thing and flip it upside down,
It is as good as any pendulum clock of yesteryear.
It simply won't work right.
Isn't that funny?
Want to read about it also.
http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
Do the cesium clocks on the GPS satellite
vehicles use a fountain?
Not sure and probably not the same,
but something in the same sort of form must be going on.
and cesium atoms are not immune to gravitational
effects so fountain or not, the atom will still be subject
to g forces.
Unless cesium is immune to g-forces like some
special alien spaceship would be.
:)
Already discussed. Time dilation appears in cases where the atoms
are moving and not moving and both are in the *same* gravitational
field, and so the "g-forces" are not responsible for the time
dilation.
Not moving (at rest)on a curved path and moving along a curved path
are a difference in g-forces.
I wasn't talking about a curved path, Spaceman. I was referring to
*straight* line motion, both under the *identical* terrestrial
gravitational field.
Now PD proves he does not understand that a truly straight line
motion can not stay in the same "terrestrial gravitational field".
A truly straight path would have to cross into higher or lower
gravitational potentials.
Sheesh
Nice try, Spaceman!
But the time dilation for *different* speeds in the same channel,
through the *identical* gravitational profile, follows the
expectations of SR. That is, you get what SR predicts for speeds of
0.5c, 0.8c, 0.9c, and 0.99c, even though they are in in the very same
beampipe through the same variation in gravitational field.
|
What "beampipe" are you talking about PD?
Any truly straight line can not be in the same gravitational force
from beginning to end.
and...
Why don't you get that I am not saying the predictions are wrong
at all. I am merely saying that the actual changes that the clocks
are showing are not caused by this stupid ass spacetime cause you
worship like an Easter bunny.
The actual cause is the same cause that makes pendulum clocks
goof up too. A g-force change.
Sheesh
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Uncle Ben wrote:
| Quote: |
I'll go for one more round.
The cluster is certainly subject to gravity, but it is precisely
because of that that the cluster is sent up gently and allowed to fall
freely while the atoms interact with photons. The free fall cancels
the effect of gravity. That's why they throw them up and let them
fall.
|
If it truly "cancelled gravity", it would not be falling at all.
Why don't you get that?
When it falls in freefall is accelerating.
acceleration is a g-force event.
Or do you think when you fall, you do not accelerate at all?
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Uncle Ben" <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:49c345b9-a636-49ff-a5b1-092d547f2de0@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 11:16 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Jul 13, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
You see, the basic atomic clock actually has to use gravity
to get it's most accurate reading.
They actually have a "fountain" almost like a water fountain
only it is forcing a very tiny ball or atoms upward and it has to use
gravity to return down and be counted as one second.
If you actually take the silly thing and flip it upside down,
It is as good as any pendulum clock of yesteryear.
It simply won't work right.
Isn't that funny?
Want to read about it also.http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
Check out the sentence that shows up just
above the graphic
So,
Everyone..
laugh at the time changing rate morons of relativity
that tell me the clock did not malfunction,
since .. they really are clueless about a simple
clock malfunction when g-forces are changed around
them.
LOL
Laugh loud and proud!
HA HA HAHA HA HAHA
Maybe if they yell at NIST enough and pay
them a pretty penny, NIST will remove that
factual point made on the website.
Or just maybe NIST will be smarter than them
and allow science to finally drop this time travel bullshit.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
I guess all that stuff about cesium and state changes in the atoms is
a diversion, right?
A diversion about the fact that it is still subject to gravitational
effects
the same as any other mass in motion being counted such as a pendulum?
Yes..
It is a nice diversion.
:)
Do you think a tiny atom cluster falls differently than a billion atoms
in gravity?
Do you think the cesium atom is immune to gravity?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
I'll go for one more round.
=====================
And then you'll fuck off?
I'm curious.... why are you anti-physicists so stupid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Uncle Ben" <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:ca10b08c-0a46-4030-a190-9c8af90fbe89@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 1:01 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Uncle Ben wrote:
I'll go for one more round.
The cluster is certainly subject to gravity, but it is precisely
because of that that the cluster is sent up gently and allowed to fall
freely while the atoms interact with photons. The free fall cancels
the effect of gravity. That's why they throw them up and let them
fall.
If it truly "cancelled gravity", it would not be falling at all.
Why don't you get that?
When it falls in freefall is accelerating.
acceleration is a g-force event.
Or do you think when you fall, you do not accelerate at all?
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
|
Yes, speaking loosely, acceleration is a g-force event. So is being
in a gravitational field. But in this case these two cancel each
other. That is the point.
Have you ever seen video of astronaut training in which they are in an
airplane that is carefully following a parabolic arc that imitates the
path of a projectile falling freely? The guys are floating around in
the plane as it there is no gravity. Note the "as if." Yes, there is
still gravity at work, but there is also the acceleration at work.
And they cancel each other.
That's my last word. The Samuel Johnson quote still applies: "I have
given you an argument, sir, but I cannot give you an understanding."
Uncle Ben
Haven't got much staying power, have you, you pompous arse? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
No, you're right. A straight beampipe starts at one elevation and goes
to a different one. But you missed what I just said. Particles going
through the same beampipe at *different* speeds get *different* time
dilations, even though they are going through the *same* variation in
the gravitational field.
|
The variation in the differential changes would of course make
different changes in any clock doing such speeds.
| Quote: |
Please understand cause and effect. If you
have two objects that exhibit DIFFERENT effects and they are subject
to the SAME influence, then the influence cannot possibly be the cause
of the effect.
|
Different speeds, is not the "same influence" PD.
| Quote: |
Then you'll have to explain why traveling through the SAME beampipe,
through the SAME variation in gravitational field, can produce
DIFFERENT time dilations.
|
Different speeds are not the "same variation change"
And even relativity gets that right most of the time.
Usually refered to as "relative" mass.
A 1 kg mass moving at 20 meters per second has a different
relative mass than a 1 kg mass moving at any different speed
than 20 meters per second.
Therefore, you do not have the "same" relative mass at all
when you have different speeds at all.
C,mon PD, that is relativity 101.
(some of the actually correct stuff in relativity)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Uncle Ben wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 1:01 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
I'll go for one more round.
The cluster is certainly subject to gravity, but it is precisely
because of that that the cluster is sent up gently and allowed to
fall freely while the atoms interact with photons. The free fall
cancels the effect of gravity. That's why they throw them up and
let them fall.
If it truly "cancelled gravity", it would not be falling at all.
Why don't you get that?
When it falls in freefall is accelerating.
acceleration is a g-force event.
Or do you think when you fall, you do not accelerate at all?
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Yes, speaking loosely, acceleration is a g-force event. So is being
in a gravitational field. But in this case these two cancel each
other. That is the point.
Have you ever seen video of astronaut training in which they are in an
airplane that is carefully following a parabolic arc that imitates the
path of a projectile falling freely? The guys are floating around in
the plane as it there is no gravity. Note the "as if." Yes, there is
still gravity at work, but there is also the acceleration at work.
And they cancel each other.
|
So you admit the "atom" in freefall, will not fall inside the clock
that is also in freefall.
Maybe it is you that should think about that.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:DoGdnbYVrev-EubVnZ2dnUVZ_h3inZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Uncle Ben wrote:
Yes, speaking loosely, acceleration is a g-force event. So is being
in a gravitational field. But in this case these two cancel each
other. That is the point.
Have you ever seen video of astronaut training in which they are in
an airplane that is carefully following a parabolic arc that
imitates the path of a projectile falling freely? The guys are
floating around in the plane as it there is no gravity. Note the
"as if." Yes, there is still gravity at work, but there is also the
acceleration at work. And they cancel each other.
So you admit the "atom" in freefall, will not fall inside the clock
that is also in freefall.
|
That would be excellent. Then the microwave cavity could be
reduced to a much smaller size and the overall complexity of
the clock reduced considerably. A freefall environment is an
excellent place to build accurate clocks, as it is completely
isolated from the effects of changing gravity or vibrations
in the environment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:21 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 9:29 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Uncle Ben wrote:
You have to specify the frame of reference. If the atom is in
freefall and the clock is in freefall, then the atom will not fall
with respect to the clock. Notice the "with respect to the clock"
phrase; the clock defines a frame of reference.
Earth also establishes a frame of reference; the atom still falls
with respect to the earth.
But it does not fall wrt the clock and that is what is doing the
counting.
I really don't see what is so hard to understand about the simple
fact that the clock is malfunctioning.
Sheesh
But the point is that according to Einstein, both the gravity of the
earth and the acceleration of the atoms have effects of the rate of
clocks. In the case of free fall, they happen to have equal and
opposite effects on the rate of clocks.
Falling = acceleration
Where is the equal and opposite effect of acceleration that cancels that
falling part?
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
|
We got into a bit of confusion when we were talking about the clock
and the atoms, Jim. The atoms ARE the clock. The rest of the
apparatus is just a way to read the clock. The following is from
memory, but I think it is pretty close to the truth:
The way the apparatus reads the clock is to send in light by laser
tunable within a narrow range and find the frequency of light at which
the cesium atoms absorb it. Suppose the frequency was thought to be
1234567898 cycles per sec according to the calibration of the light
source, which comes from a set of other atomic clocks.
But since some time in the 1960's maybe, the second has been defined
as the time it takes cesium light to go through a certain number of
cycles. I don't remember the number, but we can make up a number just
for illustration.
The definition of a second is, let's say 1234567890 cycles of the
cesium light. Then we know that our time measurement is of one second
is less by 8 cycles of time. Our clocks are a little too fast. So we
correct the rate of our clocks by subtracting 8 cycles worth of cesium
from them per second. That is how an atomic clock works.
The theory of General Relativity says that if a clock is in a
gravitational field it will run slower than if it is not. Worse than
that, the absorption spectrum of an atom is broadend by gravity. That
makes it harder to read the exact frequency of the cesium light. We
want to get rid of that gravitational effect.
To understand why the freely falling atoms are freed from the effects
of gravity by being in free fall, we rely on Einstein's equivalence
principle. You can read about it online. It is why the astronauts
train the way they do in an airplane when they intend to go into outer
speace, simulating lack of gravity by falling freely.
I tried to illusgtrate the equivalence principle for you with my story
about the Empire State Building. It means that physics is the same
whether you are in a field of gravity or you are accelerated. If you
can't detect any gravity, then you may be out in space, or you may be
on earth but freely falling.
I haven't tried, but I think wikipedia may have an article on the
equivalence principle.
I'll check after finishing this post and let you know where I find the
info if not wikipedia.
Cheers,
Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:25 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 10:21 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 9:29 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
You have to specify the frame of reference. If the atom is in
freefall and the clock is in freefall, then the atom will not fall
with respect to the clock. Notice the "with respect to the clock"
phrase; the clock defines a frame of reference.
Earth also establishes a frame of reference; the atom still falls
with respect to the earth.
But it does not fall wrt the clock and that is what is doing the
counting.
I really don't see what is so hard to understand about the simple
fact that the clock is malfunctioning.
Sheesh
But the point is that according to Einstein, both the gravity of the
earth and the acceleration of the atoms have effects of the rate of
clocks. In the case of free fall, they happen to have equal and
opposite effects on the rate of clocks.
Falling = acceleration
Where is the equal and opposite effect of acceleration that cancels that
falling part?
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
We got into a bit of confusion when we were talking about the clock
and the atoms, Jim. The atoms ARE the clock. The rest of the
apparatus is just a way to read the clock. The following is from
memory, but I think it is pretty close to the truth:
The way the apparatus reads the clock is to send in light by laser
tunable within a narrow range and find the frequency of light at which
the cesium atoms absorb it. Suppose the frequency was thought to be
1234567898 cycles per sec according to the calibration of the light
source, which comes from a set of other atomic clocks.
But since some time in the 1960's maybe, the second has been defined
as the time it takes cesium light to go through a certain number of
cycles. I don't remember the number, but we can make up a number just
for illustration.
The definition of a second is, let's say 1234567890 cycles of the
cesium light. Then we know that our time measurement is of one second
is less by 8 cycles of time. Our clocks are a little too fast. So we
correct the rate of our clocks by subtracting 8 cycles worth of cesium
from them per second. That is how an atomic clock works.
The theory of General Relativity says that if a clock is in a
gravitational field it will run slower than if it is not. Worse than
that, the absorption spectrum of an atom is broadend by gravity. That
makes it harder to read the exact frequency of the cesium light. We
want to get rid of that gravitational effect.
To understand why the freely falling atoms are freed from the effects
of gravity by being in free fall, we rely on Einstein's equivalence
principle. You can read about it online. It is why the astronauts
train the way they do in an airplane when they intend to go into outer
speace, simulating lack of gravity by falling freely.
I tried to illusgtrate the equivalence principle for you with my story
about the Empire State Building. It means that physics is the same
whether you are in a field of gravity or you are accelerated. If you
can't detect any gravity, then you may be out in space, or you may be
on earth but freely falling.
I haven't tried, but I think wikipedia may have an article on the
equivalence principle.
I'll check after finishing this post and let you know where I find the
info if not wikipedia.
Cheers,
Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Yes, Jim, there is a Wikipedia article about the Equivalence
Principle. Here is how they lead into the article and its URL:
The equivalence principle is one of the fundamental background
concepts of the General Theory of Relativity. For the overall context,
see General relativity ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:14 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 8:24 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
That would be excellent. Then the microwave cavity could be
reduced to a much smaller size and the overall complexity of
the clock reduced considerably. A freefall environment is an
excellent place to build accurate clocks, as it is completely
isolated from the effects of changing gravity or vibrations
in the environment.
No, that would be stupid.
Freefall is an accelerated fram.
Again. you really don't get that huh?
You like to ignore the acceleration rate of freefall huh?
And if you had even the slightest clue, you would know
as you fall during freefall you change gravitational potentials
as you fall.
So that would not be a good zero g-force place at all
because you are actually changing the g's constantly.
accelerating and moving down through different potentials
the whole time.
Sheesh!
|
------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter Whether you speak of an "old fashioned" cesium
beam clock or a fountain clock, the cesium atoms being monitored
are ALWAYS in freefall.
In the case of a conventional cesium beam clock, you can think of
the cesium atoms as being "thrown" across the Ramsey cavity
(microwave cavity) and, as they traverse the microwave cavity
away from the the magnetic fields of the A- and B-magnets, they
follow a VERY shallow parabolic trajectory.
Take a look at the illustration in the following link:
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2000/02_sidebar1.html
Note that the freely falling cesium atoms as they cross the
Ramsey cavity do not experience more than a very tiny
gravitational potential change.
------------------------------------------
In the case of a fountain clock, the atoms are gently lobbed
up and down through the microwave cavity. They move MUCH more
slowly than the cesium atoms crossing the Ramsey cavity of a
conventional cesium beam clock, and as a result the cesium atoms
can be much more accurately tuned.
Take a look at the illustration in the following link:
http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
The microwave cavity in a fountain clock is only a few cm in
length, so the gravitational potential changes that the cesium
atoms experience as they fall through the cavity are relatively
insignificant.
No attempt is made to monitor the cesium atoms throughout their
ENTIRE trajectory. As you rightly point out, there would be a
significant difference in the measured resonant frequencies at
the bottom and the top of the trajectory, and the clock designers
are a lot smarter than to attempt such a foolish notion.
Basically, the microwaves in the cavity are generated by a highly
stable oscillator, and once every second, this oscillator is
re-tuned as the puff of cesium atoms crosses the microwave cavity.
Jerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:03 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 8:20 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 12:37 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
No, you're right. A straight beampipe starts at one elevation and
goes to a different one. But you missed what I just said. Particles
going through the same beampipe at *different* speeds get
*different* time dilations, even though they are going through the
*same* variation in the gravitational field.
The variation in the differential changes would of course make
different changes in any clock doing such speeds.
Please understand cause and effect. If you
have two objects that exhibit DIFFERENT effects and they are subject
to the SAME influence, then the influence cannot possibly be the
cause of the effect.
Different speeds, is not the "same influence" PD.
Yes, but you don't think that different speeds are what's responsible.
You think g-forces are responsible for time dilation.
G-force changes are what causes such. the speed will just cause
the g-force change to occur faster or slower.
If you move fast through different gravitational potentials,
you will simply get a higher rate of change.
|
Explain how. I've already mentioned an empirical result: Particles
traveling through the *same* pipe through the *same* changes in g-
forces at different speeds exhibit *different* time dilation. Now if
the amount of time dilation is caused by the amount of g-forces or the
amount of changes of g-forces, here you've got two different outcomes
for the same g-force conditions. So explain the *different* outcomes.
| Quote: |
Here you have different particles with different speeds but the *same*
variation in g-forces, and they have *different* time dilations.
You have different variations because you have different time frame
for each g-force potential change.
|
And why does that matter? How does this work, Spaceman?
| Quote: |
Please put the beer down and try to think coherently.
I don't drink, I think you need to put the hard stuff away,
or maybe whatever you are smoking or popping.
|
Don't drink, don't smoke, don't pop.
| Quote: |
Different speeds are not the "same variation change"
And even relativity gets that right most of the time.
Usually refered to as "relative" mass.
Are you *sure* that's what it's called? Try again.
What do you think relative mass is called?
|
I told you already. You seemed to have missed it.
| Quote: |
Right, but you don't think relativistic mass (an SR prediction) is
what's responsible. You think g-forces are.
the g-force changes are what causes the malfunction,
the speed changes going through different g-force changes
cause the variance in such malfunctions.
|
OK, so it appears you can't decide between the time dilation being due
to g-forces or due to relativistic mass. And you've explained nothing
about how *either* of them produces time dilation. And why is it the
same size effect observed for a cesium clock as it is for a muon half-
life clock? Do the g-forces affect both those clocks in *exactly* the
same way? Why? Do g-forces affect a quartz wristwatch and a pendulum
in exactly the same way?
| Quote: |
Sheesh PD.
I have explained this to you.
It is sad you still can't get such basics about clock
malfunctions.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:40 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 11:17 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
OK, so it appears you can't decide between the time dilation being due
to g-forces or due to relativistic mass.
Saying such a statement proves that you will never think
on your own.
|
Hey, I'm just trying to clear up what YOU'RE saying, since you've
given two different accounts. If you can't tolerate people asking
questions about your claims, then what makes you ask questions of
theirs?
| Quote: |
Hint: accelerations (g-forces) do change the relativistic mass.
You are a rubber ruler clueless dingleberry forever.
I will have to just ignore you PD.
You don't even want a clue.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
