Scientific Forums


 

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


> Ok, Another Try: Planetary Clock Contradiction, Synchronized with Atomic Clocks
Quantum_Conundrum
Posted: Dec 15 2012, 12:38 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1934
Joined: 30-April 07

Positive Feedback: 30.43%
Feedback Score: -123


We have a ship.

We have two atomic clocks which are synchronized, with the initial time being 0000Z on the morning of January 1 2013, one of them is placed on the ship.

From Wikipedia:
QUOTE

...A 20 year round trip for him (5 years accelerating, 5 decelerating, twice each) will land him back on Earth having traveled for 335 Earth years and a distance of 331 light years.[27] ... ... This same time dilation is why a muon traveling close to c is observed to travel much further than c times its half-life (when at rest).[28]



Now they started with synchronized atomic clocks, and they started with Earth orbit being the same minute, second, and hour of the same day, which is obvious, since the ship left Earth at that time.

So we've started out with both atomic clocks being synchronized with one another, and both atomic clocks being synchronized with the Earth's orbit, with 0000z January 1, 2013 all being synchronized.

If the ship has a pair of telescopes with cameras trained on the Earth and Sun, how many ORBITS will the ship's instruments observe during the 20 year round trip?


How do you reconcile this when the crew member returns to Earth, reporting his findings on the Earth, and finds 335 years has passed without use of a time machine or worm hole? Further, he has two videos, one centered on the Sun and one centered on the Earth, showing that he observed a different number of planetary orbits (or else observed the Earth orbiting much faster)?


How can space and time be continuous if that is supposedly true?

How massive would the Sun need to be to allow the Earth to orbit 20 times in one reference frame, while orbiting 335 times in the other frame?!

Even more absurdly, if we define which direction the ship flies in, the length of the Earth orbits will be different (apparently). If he flies up 90 degrees above the orbital plane it will caused different effects, because the length contraction will be in a different axis compared to flying in the same plane as the orbital plane.


How can it be that Relativity predicts that flying around in a space ship will actually change the length of the solar year compared to one of the atomic clocks year, and that further, the telescopes on-board teh ship will actually see the Earth orbiting the Sun at a totally different speed...therefore computing a different mass for the Sun (since orbital parameters of a planet are determined by it's mass)...


If you like, we can even add a third camera which will observe Mercury, and a 4th one which will observe Mars, etc, that way we have additional controls, so that we know our cameras are not making a mistake, because we can use the know resonant properties of the planet's orbits as a control to prevent error in measurement.

This post has been edited by Quantum_Conundrum on Dec 15 2012, 12:39 AM
Top
Capracus
Posted: Dec 17 2012, 04:46 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5374
Joined: 5-October 06

Positive Feedback: 75.56%
Feedback Score: 41


Electronic transition frequency.
Top
Undeterminable
Posted: Dec 23 2012, 06:20 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 23-December 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


To solve this problem I will take the reference frame of the returning ship. At my current relativistic speed a year of my atomic clock is near 20/335 times slower than on earth's clock.

I see the earth going more that 16 times faster. (Relative to me than the sun.)

So why do I not think the sun is heaver than it really is to correct for earth's speed.?

Because I see the blue shift in the suns absorption lines, (I assume the camera pointing at the sun has a spectrometer) and I can calculate my speed relative to the sun.

From there you work it backwards.

If you want I will give you the approximate math, but if you do not understand relativity then you will not understand why it all works out.

Remember EVERYTHING is relative.
Top
Quantum_Conundrum
Posted: Dec 30 2012, 05:01 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1934
Joined: 30-April 07

Positive Feedback: 30.43%
Feedback Score: -123


QUOTE (Undeterminable @ Dec 23 2012, 01:20 PM)
To solve this problem I will take the reference frame of the returning ship. At my current relativistic speed a year of my atomic clock is near 20/335 times slower than on earth's clock.

I see the earth going more that 16 times faster. (Relative to me than the sun.)

So why do I not think the sun is heaver than it really is to correct for earth's speed.?

Because I see the blue shift in the suns absorption lines, (I assume the camera pointing at the sun has a spectrometer) and I can calculate my speed relative to the sun.

From there you work it backwards.

If you want I will give you the approximate math, but if you do not understand relativity then you will not understand why it all works out.

Remember EVERYTHING is relative.

The mass is not arbitrary.

Since all observers, in what will become two seperate reference frames start with all the same knowledge, nothing is relative.

The relativity theory requires the Sun's mass to inflate by 16 times, and the EArth as well.

You see, the second postulate of Relativity is that the laws of physics must be the same for all reference frames.

If that is the case, then the law of gravity must be the same, but if the planets and moons are orbiting 16 times faster, the only way that can be true is if the Sun and planets are 16 times more massive.


Do you seriously believe that a space ship could burn a finite, relatively small amount of fuel for a few years, and thereby increase the mass of the entire solar system by a factor of 16?!

There's a reason nobody else answered this one, because it's stumped them for real and they don't know what to do about it.


Red or blue shift is irrelevant.

When the ship is moving away there is red shift, and the Sun is predicted to be 16 times as massive.

When the ship is moving towards, there is blue shift, and the Sun is predicted by the formula to be 16 times as massive.
Top
Robittybob1
  Posted: Dec 30 2012, 05:46 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


How would you explain it? Obviously the altered mass is not a sensible solution?
Top
Undeterminable
Posted: Jan 2 2013, 12:47 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 23-December 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


The blue shift in frequency allows you to account for the effects of relativity when doing the mass equation. Because you are using the light coming from the planet/sun and not there actual current positions.

Top
Undeterminable
Posted: Jan 3 2013, 07:06 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 23-December 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


I think I miss read you, and you miss read Einstein.

"The relativity theory requires the Sun's mass to inflate by 16 times, and the EArth as well."

That mass dilatation in Einstein equation is inertial mass and not the same mass as gravitational mass. Gravitational mass is a product of atomic structure and has nothing to do with observation or relativistic speeds.

The dilatation of inertial mass is to fix the error in the kinetic energy equation.
Top

Topic Options

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


 

Terms of use