Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spaceman
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:17 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
 |
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
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
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:h5ednYDgrq_gg-HVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:JYSdnd99rtLFYebVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com
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.
No, all parts of a freefalling object in a locally uniform
gravitational field respond identically to the field, so
there is no relative acceleration between components of
the clock.
Who cares about "in the clock only".
I am talking about acceleration effects wrt outside the
frame dingbat.
|
That's what GPS corrections are for, dingbat! They
correct for the position and velocity of the clock!
Having the clock in freefall is a bonus because it
simplifies the "mechanics" of the clock, which is
where this all started. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:24 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:9NednTLY3egiheHVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com
On the ground I experience 1 g constantly.
In acceleration of freefall I do not feel the 1 g at all
yet it is accelerating me.
You call that "equal"?
On the ground I feel the pressure on my feet,
Falling I feel no such pressure.
Again. not equal.
Check my reply to Harry about the nuclear resonance and such
also.
Standing on the ground you feel 1g worth of force on all
parts of your body. If you were in a spaceship accelerating
at 1g and you were standing on its deck, you would again
feel 1g worth of force on all parts of your body.
|
Greg,
So you still say the atom is immune to g-force changes
and you still have no clue how clocks work especially
atomic clocks and still have no clue about classical mechanics
and the effects associated with resonant frequencies and
acceleration.
Nice for you.
Bad for "your" science.
Malfunctioning clocks do not time things well Greg.
I feel sorry for you when you splat into a planet
that was not there yet.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:25 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:D9SdncFnoPesg-HVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
That's silly. That would mean that clock rates would
differ depending upon the path they took to their
final orbits. That is not the case; GPS corrections
depend only upon the current orbital radius and velocity.
That is because they are set after they take the dang path
up to there moron.
|
That's still silly. Not every clock is in a circular
orbit. Their paths are *always* different one from
another. Yet the correction continue to be for
position and velocity. Why do you just make stuff like
that up and state it as fact without first checking your
"facts"?
| Quote: |
Natural clocks like radioactive particles can be centrifuged
to very, very high g-forces in varying times. It doesn't
affect their decay rates -- only their relative velocity
does.
LOL
So wrong it is not even funny.
|
Really? You mean, you just get to say so and it is so?
Cough up a reference, oh knowledgeable one.
| Quote: |
the g-force changes are what causes the malfunction,
the speed changes going through different g-force changes
cause the variance in such malfunctions.
No. That is empirically false.
No, it is not.
You love to say that "emperically" word even when
when things never were emperically done like such.
|
Really? You've done a litererature search and can't
find a single example of a paper describing an experiment
wherein accelerated isotopic decay rates are compared
with rest samples? What internet are *you* using? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:26 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:xYSdnTeV0-D7guHVnZ2dnUVZ_hzinZ2d@comcast.com
resonant frequency of an imbalanced spin.
Do you know that actually changes with accelerations?
Do you know that is what is "being counted"
I am bummed that not one person has any classical mechanics
smarts here at all.
No, it is not. It is a hyperfine quantum transition
which has essentially no direct counterpart in
classical mechanics.
|
You can say that all you want, it only proves
you never learned classical mechanics at all.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:iuCdnTp_dfH2u-HVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:9NednTLY3egiheHVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com
On the ground I experience 1 g constantly.
In acceleration of freefall I do not feel the 1 g at all
yet it is accelerating me.
You call that "equal"?
On the ground I feel the pressure on my feet,
Falling I feel no such pressure.
Again. not equal.
Check my reply to Harry about the nuclear resonance and such
also.
Standing on the ground you feel 1g worth of force on all
parts of your body. If you were in a spaceship accelerating
at 1g and you were standing on its deck, you would again
feel 1g worth of force on all parts of your body.
Greg,
So you still say the atom is immune to g-force changes
and you still have no clue how clocks work especially
atomic clocks and still have no clue about classical mechanics
and the effects associated with resonant frequencies and
acceleration.
|
I was attempting to correct your apparent misunderstanding
of the equivalence prnciple. Why you choose to ignore that
and imagine I was saying something else can only remain a
mystery known only to you.
Atomic clocks are designed to eliminate the effects of
g-forces by measuring the desired quantities while the
atoms are in freefall, so no g-forces are experienced
by them during the critical measurements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:05 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:tsidnZILyIRlu-HVnZ2dnUVZ_hninZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:xYSdnTeV0-D7guHVnZ2dnUVZ_hzinZ2d@comcast.com
resonant frequency of an imbalanced spin.
Do you know that actually changes with accelerations?
Do you know that is what is "being counted"
I am bummed that not one person has any classical mechanics
smarts here at all.
No, it is not. It is a hyperfine quantum transition
which has essentially no direct counterpart in
classical mechanics.
You can say that all you want, it only proves
you never learned classical mechanics at all.
|
Methinks it speaks more to your apprently complete
ignorance of quantum theory and the makeup of atoms.
More cogs and belts, no doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:tpidnRZxuPduueHVnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com
| 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.
Hint: accelerations (g-forces) do change the relativistic mass.
|
Perhaps you'd like to expand upon that notion. I'm
curious to see what it is you think happens to mass
when it's measured at rest in a gravitational field
at different potentials. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Albertito
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 14, 4:27 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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
|
Let's quantify the effect of gravity on an
orbiting atomic clock that runs based on an
atomic fountain.
At altitude h from the Earth's surface, gravity
is g' = GM/(r+h)^2, where r is the radius of
the Earth. This means an atomic fontain at h
only needs to toss atoms upward a high d' in order
to eliminate the effects of the Earth's gravity on
the frequency. On the Earth's surface that fontain's
high would be d > d', because of g = GM/r^2 > g'.
So, what does it mean a lower d'< d? In an atomic
fontain, atoms are cyclically laser cooled to temperatures
near absolute zero. If d'<d, then the fontain cycle is
shortened, so the atoms are not as cooler as for d, their
mean minimal temperature T' is slightly higher than that T
at d. Resonance frequency f, temperature T and distance d
are also related. We can simply states that resonance
frequency f'at altitude h and the frequency f at Earth's
surface are related as,
f' = f*Exp(V/c^2),
where V is the difference in potential,
The potential at altitude h is
V_h = -GM/(r+h)
and the potential at Earth's surface is
V_s = -GM/r
So, the difference is
V = V_h - V_s = -GM/(r+h) + GM/r,
V = GM /(r^2/h + r).
Then
f'= f*Exp(GM /c^2(r^2/h + r)),
the higher h wrt r, the higher the resonance
frequency f'. Eventually if h -->oo wrt r, then
f' --> f Exp(GM/rc^2).
This is the correction that GR's supporters claim to be
due to relativistic time corrections on GPS' atomic clocks,
that is an atomic clock at stationary altitude h' runs
faster than a clock at the Earth's surface. The dispute
is on the origin, not in the fact it runs faster.
A cesium atom yields a resonance frequency of f = 9192631770 Hz
at Earth's surface. At an altitude of h = 20200 km, with earth's
radius r = 6400 km, it yields
f' = f*Exp(GM /c^2(r^2/h + r)) =
= 9.19263177483756 x 10^9 Hz.
This means a shift of z = (f' - f)/f = 5.26243 x 10^(-10)
or about 45 microseconds/day. It is in good agreement with
what GR predicts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS
But, what GR's supporters don't want to know is that frequency
shift z is due to a local increment of the resonance frequency
(should we call it a malfunction of the atomic clock?). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 15, 9:31 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:17 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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?
The g-force changes (both acceleration and the good old center of Gravity)
acceleration changes the tick rate and distance away from center fo Gravity
also changes the tick rate.
|
OK, so why do two particles traveling through the *same* beampipe and
so have the same g-forces encountered, have *different* time
dilations?
| Quote: |
Both reasons follow the actual clocks readings.
A clock will "tick" faster further away from center of G,
and a clock will tick slower when accelerated.
Both are changes in G-forces as the initial cause.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 15, 4:43 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 10:54 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Jerry wrote:
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.
resonant frequency of an imbalanced spin.
Do you know that actually changes with accelerations?
Do you know that is what is "being counted"
I am bummed that not one person has any classical mechanics
smarts here at all.
Ooops.. of course they don't this is the relativity group!
LOL
Not so long ago, you were grateful because I was the only person
who understood the confusion you were having distinguishing
between the difficulty of -achieving- ultrahigh vacuums with the
pressure difference that exists between the inside and outside of
a vacuum chamber.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/004d1c5cf3787549
I spent considerable time carefully crafting an answer that
focused on the single point that you seemed to be obsessed with,
(freefall vs. gravitational potential changes), leaving out tons
of detail that I figured would only confuse you at this point
(for example, laser cooling... what does the puffball of cesium
atoms lasting for a whole second imply about the temperature of
atoms in the puffball, and what does that imply about doppler
shift and the sharpness of the spectral lines) and what happens?
It's obvious that you didn't spend more than ten seconds reading
my answer, and certainly you didn't follow up on any of the
links nor looked at the diagrams, nor gave my answer any thought
at all.
You're not worth wasting my time on. Goodbye.
Jerry- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Jerry, you have discovered a fact that many of us have discovered
independently. Welcome to the club!
Uncle Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 15, 10:30 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
OK, so why do two particles traveling through the *same* beampipe and
so have the same g-forces encountered, have *different* time
dilations?
Speed differences causing the different g-force changes
to the frequency count
|
Ah, so why does SPEED through the g-force changes produce different
time dilations?
| Quote: |
What is the frequency rate of a car going over 50 hills
and down 50 hills within one minute.
What is the frequency rate of a car going over 50 hills
and down 50 hills within one hour.
Same path (beampipe)
Same g-forces encountered
yet a different time frame during the whole thing..
Different "tick" rates.
The speed caused the g-force changes to change thier
rate of change.
Sheesh PD.
Wake up.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 15, 11:59 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 15, 10:30 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
OK, so why do two particles traveling through the *same* beampipe
and so have the same g-forces encountered, have *different* time
dilations?
Speed differences causing the different g-force changes
to the frequency count
Ah, so why does SPEED through the g-force changes produce different
time dilations?
Look at what I just posted to you below.
The speed affects the frequency outcome.
|
What frequency outcome? There is one hill in a straight pipe. Whether
it is done fast or done slow, there is still only one hill. So if you
have clocks that is ticking, say, 1000 times a second, and you send
clocks through this pipe with one hill through at different speeds,
please show how the time dilation (the change of that 1000 times a
second) is related to how fast the clock encounters the one hill.
Preferably, show a little formula that shows *how much* encountering
that one hill at different speeds will change the frequency.
| Quote: |
What is the frequency rate of a car going over 50 hills
and down 50 hills within one minute.
What is the frequency rate of a car going over 50 hills
and down 50 hills within one hour.
Same path (beampipe)
Same g-forces encountered
yet a different time frame during the whole thing..
Different "tick" rates.
The speed caused the g-force changes to change thier
rate of change.
Sheesh PD.
Wake up.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 11:17 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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?
|
The g-force changes (both acceleration and the good old center of Gravity)
acceleration changes the tick rate and distance away from center fo Gravity
also changes the tick rate.
Both reasons follow the actual clocks readings.
A clock will "tick" faster further away from center of G,
and a clock will tick slower when accelerated.
Both are changes in G-forces as the initial cause.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Uncle Ben wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 11:27 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
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
I know all about it.
Please check on Newtons laws and tell me
why an atom is immune to g-force changes at all
and while you are at it find out why a resonant object
will change frequency under acceleration.
Think about it huh?
And I mean think about it not using your ROM memory
you have achieved from relativity.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
If you know all about it, and yet you don't understand why an object
in free fall behaves as if were in zero gravity, then I can't help you
any further, Jim.
|
If you do not undertand that an object in freefall is not inertial
and has an acceleration change, than it is you that is not thinking
about understanding what I state that acceleration is one cause
of a clock malfunction, including an acceleration in freefall.
--
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
