Discussion:
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase.
kenseto
2008-06-13 13:43:10 UTC
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase:
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.

This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME. This, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.

On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock. This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.

It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.

The correct SR interpretation of TIME should be as follows:
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.

These new interpretations of TIME gives a viable explanation why the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio in all frames
as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.

This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are valid in
all environments, including gravity. A Paper on IRT entitled "Improved
Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
2008-06-13 13:59:32 UTC
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
FIRST mistake.
This is not an SR definition. This is a HUMAN BEINGS definition.
If we all carry the same type of clock, then we all use it to measure
something we *call* time.
SR has something to say about what we will find when we all
measure how long a certain well-defined process takes while using
our own personal clocks.
Post by kenseto
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames.
SECOND mistake.
This definition implies that a clock second CAN represent a
DIFFERENT amount of time (duration) in different frames.

This is where your personal wild goose starts.

Dirk Vdm
Albertito
2008-06-13 14:10:15 UTC
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
FIRST mistake.
This is not an SR definition. This is a HUMAN BEINGS definition.
If we all carry the same type of clock, then we all use it to measure
something we *call* time.
SR has something to say about what we will find when we all
measure how long a certain well-defined process takes while using
our own personal clocks.
Post by kenseto
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames.
SECOND mistake.
This definition implies that a clock second CAN represent a
DIFFERENT amount of time (duration) in different frames.
This is where your personal wild goose starts.
Dirk Vdm
___ ____ ____ ___ _ _ _ ______ __
/ _ \| _ \| _ \_ _| \ | | / \ | _ \ \ / /
| | | | |_) | | | | || \| | / _ \ | |_) \ V /
| |_| | _ <| |_| | || |\ |/ ___ \| _ < | |
\___/|_| \_\____/___|_| \_/_/ \_\_| \_\|_|
_ _ ____ ____ _____ ____ ____ _ ____ _____
| | | | _ \| _ \| ____| _ \ / ___| / \ / ___|| ____|
| | | | |_) | |_) | _| | |_) | | / _ \ \___ \| _|
| |_| | __/| __/| |___| _ <| |___ / ___ \ ___) | |___
\___/|_| |_| |_____|_| \_\\____/_/ \_\____/|_____|
__ _____ _ _ _ _ ___ _____ ____ _____
\ \ / /_ _| | | | | \ | |/ _ \_ _| | __ )| ____|
\ \ /\ / / | || | | | | \| | | | || | | _ \| _|
\ V V / | || |___| |___ | |\ | |_| || | | |_) | |___
\_/\_/ |___|_____|_____| |_| \_|\___/ |_| |____/|_____|
____ _ _ _____ _____ ___ ____ ___ _____ _ _ _____ _
/ ___|| | | | ___| ___|_ _/ ___|_ _| ____| \ | |_ _| |
\___ \| | | | |_ | |_ | | | | || _| | \| | | | | |
___) | |_| | _| | _| | | |___ | || |___| |\ | | | |_|
|____/ \___/|_| |_| |___\____|___|_____|_| \_| |_| (_)
Spaceman
2008-06-13 14:18:17 UTC
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
SECOND mistake.
This definition implies that a clock second CAN represent a
DIFFERENT amount of time (duration) in different frames.
Univserse to Dirk,
Come in Dirk
Are you actually thinking at all?
clocks CAN and DO represent different amounts of
periodic count rates in different frames. (It is called time dilation)
Sheesh!
It is simple too,
The clock malfunctions and shows a different time on the
face than the other clock does. and even more stupid,
if they did not have such a physical problem, there would be no
DUH! and....
Sheesh again!
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Y.Porat
2008-06-18 04:31:33 UTC
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
FIRST mistake.
This is not an SR definition. This is a HUMAN BEINGS definition.
If we all carry the same type of clock, then we all use it to measure
something we *call* time.
SR has something to say about what we will find when we all
measure how long a certain well-defined process takes while using
our own personal clocks.
Post by kenseto
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames.
SECOND mistake.
This definition implies that a clock second CAN represent a
DIFFERENT amount of time (duration) in different frames.
This is where your personal wild goose starts.
Dirk Vdm
-------------
Dirky
you are making some progress at last !!
probably due to my explanations

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Spaceman
2008-06-18 04:40:35 UTC
Post by Y.Porat
-------------
Dirky
you are making some progress at last !!
probably due to my explanations
It is amazing that some people can not tell
that if the clocks did not have the same time
when they came back together, than one clock
"did not" keep the proper rate of the "second"
It is really sad that such an old historical fact
about clocks changing rates has been ignored
all over again.
But, the good thing is,
They are sitting there repeating history,
while others that find out the clock had the problem,
and it was not "time" slowing,
will be marching forward in science.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Y.Porat
2008-06-18 09:46:05 UTC
Post by Spaceman
Post by Y.Porat
-------------
Dirky
you are making some progress at last !!
probably due to my explanations
It is amazing that some people can not tell
that if the clocks did not have the same time
when they came back together, than one clock
"did not" keep the proper rate of the "second"
It is really sad that such an old historical fact
about clocks changing rates has been ignored
all over again.
But, the good thing is,
They are sitting there repeating history,
while others that find out the clock had the problem,
and it was not "time" slowing,
will be marching forward in science.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
----------------------
again you are making sense !!!
time is a human invention
and is nothing but
motion comparison
2
the real physical phenomenon is
as i saied
that it becomes more and more difficult
compared to the reference moving entity
that ***stays outside*** your examined moving
(accelerated ) frame
2
it is possible that in the experiment of the two clocks
the very movement has some real efefct
on the accelerated clock
THAT IS COMPOSED OF MATTER !!
may be for instance, the gravitation force
is the cause that acts on the moving clock
in the gravitational field ???!!!
(not on 'time' but on the material of the clock
even if it is an Atomic clock ???!!!
the Atomic clock has electrons and Protons
that its motion might be affected ??!!!

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------
Sue...
2008-06-18 10:37:03 UTC
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Spaceman
Post by Y.Porat
-------------
Dirky
you are making some progress at last !!
probably due to my explanations
It is amazing that some people can not tell
that if the clocks did not have the same time
when they came back together, than one clock
"did not" keep the proper rate of the "second"
It is really sad that such an old historical fact
about clocks changing rates has been ignored
all over again.
But, the good thing is,
They are sitting there repeating history,
while others that find out the clock had the problem,
and it was not "time" slowing,
will be marching forward in science.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
----------------------
again you are making sense !!!
time is a human invention
and is nothing but
motion comparison
2
the real physical phenomenon is
as i saied
that it becomes more and more difficult
compared to the reference moving entity
that ***stays outside*** your examined moving
(accelerated ) frame
===============
Post by Y.Porat
2
it is possible that in the experiment of the two clocks
the very movement has some real efefct
on the accelerated clock
THAT IS COMPOSED OF MATTER !!
may be for instance, the gravitation force
is the cause that acts on the moving clock
in the gravitational field ???!!!
(not on 'time' but on the material of the clock
even if it is an Atomic clock ???!!!
the Atomic clock has electrons and Protons
that its motion might be affected ??!!!
Near a planet, of course. But as a demonstration of inertia
a fair interpretation takes a very simple form.

If 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving toward the clock
and 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving away from the
clock, can there be any resultant gravito-inertial force on any part
of the clock ?

Not according to the relativity principle.

<< "All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments."

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment
which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different
inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the
same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result
in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of
physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

<<
As Einstein said:
"The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it
involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without
acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we
know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by
the fact that it moves without acceleration." >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm

Sue...
Post by Y.Porat
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------
Y.Porat
2008-06-18 14:45:05 UTC
Post by Sue...
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Spaceman
Post by Y.Porat
-------------
Dirky
you are making some progress at last !!
probably due to my explanations
It is amazing that some people can not tell
that if the clocks did not have the same time
when they came back together, than one clock
"did not" keep the proper rate of the "second"
It is really sad that such an old historical fact
about clocks changing rates has been ignored
all over again.
But, the good thing is,
They are sitting there repeating history,
while others that find out the clock had the problem,
and it was not "time" slowing,
will be marching forward in science.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
----------------------
again you are making sense !!!
time is a human invention
and is nothing but
motion comparison
2
the real physical phenomenon is
as i saied
that it becomes more and more difficult
compared to the reference moving entity
that ***stays outside*** your examined moving
(accelerated ) frame
===============
Post by Y.Porat
2
it is possible that in the experiment of the two clocks
the very movement has some real efefct
on the accelerated clock
THAT IS COMPOSED OF MATTER !!
may be for instance, the gravitation force
is the cause that acts on the moving clock
in the gravitational field ???!!!
(not on 'time' but on the material of the clock
even if it is an Atomic clock ???!!!
the Atomic clock has electrons and Protons
that its motion might be affected ??!!!
Near a planet, of course. But as a demonstration of inertia
a fair interpretation takes a very simple form.
If 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving toward the clock
and 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving away from the
clock, can there be any resultant gravito-inertial force on any part
of the clock ?
Not according to the relativity principle.
-------------------------
'where did you find in the history of the clock
relativity experiments, the example you brought
abut 'half of mass of universe' etc ??

so what is its relevance to our discussion
--------------
Post by Sue...
<< "All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments."
but my idea is about **combined frames** !!
not net single frames
----------------
Post by Sue...
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment
which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different
inertial frames.
may be according to the existing theory
but may be it is not a comprehensive one ??

By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the
Post by Sue...
same form in all inertial frames.
me as well do not stick **only **to the Newtonian
theory !!
-----------

Einstein generalized this result
Post by Sue...
in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of
physics take the same form in all inertial frames.
but how about mixed frames ie
one frame that will include *two* frames ??
--------------
Post by Sue...
Post by Y.Porat
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
<<
"The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it
involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without
acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we
know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by
the fact that it moves without acceleration." >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
-----------------------
so
isnt there a possibility to establish as a said
a frame that will include two or more frames in it ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Sue...
2008-06-18 15:37:27 UTC
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Sue...
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Spaceman
Post by Y.Porat
-------------
Dirky
you are making some progress at last !!
probably due to my explanations
It is amazing that some people can not tell
that if the clocks did not have the same time
when they came back together, than one clock
"did not" keep the proper rate of the "second"
It is really sad that such an old historical fact
about clocks changing rates has been ignored
all over again.
But, the good thing is,
They are sitting there repeating history,
while others that find out the clock had the problem,
and it was not "time" slowing,
will be marching forward in science.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
----------------------
again you are making sense !!!
time is a human invention
and is nothing but
motion comparison
2
the real physical phenomenon is
as i saied
that it becomes more and more difficult
compared to the reference moving entity
that ***stays outside*** your examined moving
(accelerated ) frame
===============
Post by Y.Porat
2
it is possible that in the experiment of the two clocks
the very movement has some real efefct
on the accelerated clock
THAT IS COMPOSED OF MATTER !!
may be for instance, the gravitation force
is the cause that acts on the moving clock
in the gravitational field ???!!!
(not on 'time' but on the material of the clock
even if it is an Atomic clock ???!!!
the Atomic clock has electrons and Protons
that its motion might be affected ??!!!
Near a planet, of course. But as a demonstration of inertia
a fair interpretation takes a very simple form.
If 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving toward the clock
and 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving away from the
clock, can there be any resultant gravito-inertial force on any part
of the clock ?
Not according to the relativity principle.
-------------------------
'where did you find in the history of the clock
relativity experiments, the example you brought
abut 'half of mass of universe' etc ??
You can find it walking across a large
*homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be
moving away from you. Half the cars will be moving
toward you. Ignore the distant cars because
their field is attenuated by 1/r^2.

Can you sense the gravito-inertial field of an approaching
car if an idential car is receeding at the same
rate?
Post by Y.Porat
so what is its relevance to our discussion
--------------
If you can demonstrate that the attractive force
of the cars moving away from you is not matched
by the attractive force the cars moving toward you
then I suppose you can advance an argument against
the principle of relativity.
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Sue...
<< "All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments."
but my idea is about **combined frames** !!
not net single frames
----------------
Post by Sue...
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment
which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different
inertial frames.
may be according to the existing theory
but may be it is not a comprehensive one ??
By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the
Post by Sue...
same form in all inertial frames.
me as well do not stick **only **to the Newtonian
theory !!
-----------
Einstein generalized this result
Post by Sue...
in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of
physics take the same form in all inertial frames.
but how about mixed frames ie
one frame that will include *two* frames ??
--------------
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Sue...
<<
"The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it
involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without
acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we
know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by
the fact that it moves without acceleration." >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
Post by Y.Porat
Post by Sue...
-----------------------
so
isnt there a possibility to establish as a said
a frame that will include two or more frames in it ??
The walker establishes one frame. The parking lot establishes another
frame.
What would we represent with additional frames ?
Post by Y.Porat
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Spaceman
2008-06-18 19:50:59 UTC
Post by Sue...
You can find it walking across a large
*homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be
moving away from you. Half the cars will be moving
toward you. Ignore the distant cars because
their field is attenuated by 1/r^2.
Can you sense the gravito-inertial field of an approaching
car if an idential car is receeding at the same
rate?
yes, you could
the car moving towards you would make you sense the need
to jump out of the way.
:)
Post by Sue...
If you can demonstrate that the attractive force
of the cars moving away from you is not matched
by the attractive force the cars moving toward you
then I suppose you can advance an argument against
the principle of relativity.
If you had enough mass you would be dragged toward the car
that is heading towards you simply because the G would be getting stronger
from that car and your mass would have stopped you from moving
fast enough to stay within the car moving aways gravity effect.
So???.
:)
Post by Sue...
The walker establishes one frame. The parking lot establishes another
frame.
What would we represent with additional frames ?
A frame that contained both from a further view away.
In short,
thinking out of the box for each time you need to.
think out and look in or

you are just stuck in the box completely.
:)
--
James M Drsicoll Jr
Spaceman
Sue...
2008-06-18 20:38:37 UTC
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
You can find it walking across a large
*homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be
moving away from you. Half the cars will be moving
toward you. Ignore the distant cars because
their field is attenuated by 1/r^2.
Can you sense the gravito-inertial field of an approaching
car if an idential car is receeding at the same
rate?
yes, you could
the car moving towards you would make you sense the need
to jump out of the way.
:)
Cars are a bit small but your inner ear *does* have
an appropriate mechanism for more massive objects.

If your remark is not in jest, then you are alluding
to a violation of the relativity principle.
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
If you can demonstrate that the attractive force
of the cars moving away from you is not matched
by the attractive force the cars moving toward you
then I suppose you can advance an argument against
the principle of relativity.
If you had enough mass you would be dragged toward the car
that is heading towards you simply because the G would be getting stronger
from that car and your mass would have stopped you from moving
fast enough to stay within the car moving aways gravity effect.
So???.
:)
An increase in the walker's (or better roller skater's)
mass causes an increase in the forces from behind as well

Is

m1 * m2

the same as

m2 * m1

?

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
The walker establishes one frame. The parking lot establishes another
frame.
What would we represent with additional frames ?
A frame that contained both from a further view away.
In short,
thinking out of the box for each time you need to.
think out and look in or
you are just stuck in the box completely.
:)
The box that has the product of masses (Mm)
in it is quite comfortable. What is your
alternative for gravitational force between
two masses?

Sue...
Post by Spaceman
--
James M Drsicoll Jr
Spaceman
p***@gmail.com
2008-06-18 21:25:42 UTC
Post by Sue...
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
You can find it walking across a large
*homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be
moving away from you. Half the cars will be moving
toward you. Ignore the distant cars because
their field is attenuated by 1/r^2.
Can you sense the gravito-inertial field of an approaching
car if an idential car is receeding at the same
rate?
yes, you could
the car moving towards you would make you sense the need
to jump out of the way.
:)
Cars are a bit small but your inner ear *does* have
an appropriate mechanism for more massive objects.
If your remark is not in jest, then you are alluding
to a violation of the relativity principle.
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
If you can demonstrate that the attractive force
of the cars moving away from you is not matched
by the attractive force the cars moving toward you
then I suppose you can advance an argument against
the principle of relativity.
If you had enough mass you would be dragged toward the car
that is heading towards you simply because the G would be getting stronger
from that car and your mass would have stopped you from moving
fast enough to stay within the car moving aways gravity effect.
So???.
:)
An increase in the walker's (or better roller skater's)
mass causes an increase in the forces from behind as well
Is
m1 * m2
the same as
m2 * m1
?
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
The walker establishes one frame. The parking lot establishes another
frame.
What would we represent with additional frames ?
A frame that contained both from a further view away.
In short,
thinking out of the box for each time you need to.
think out and look in or
you are just stuck in the box completely.
:)
The box that has the product of masses (Mm)
in it is quite comfortable. What is your
alternative for gravitational force between
two masses?
Sue...
Post by Spaceman
--
James M Drsicoll Jr
Spaceman
Citing Arthur Clarke 2001:

"Oh my God.....it's full of trolls...."

Miguel Rios
Spaceman
2008-06-18 21:26:42 UTC
Post by Sue...
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
You can find it walking across a large
*homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be
moving away from you. Half the cars will be moving
toward you. Ignore the distant cars because
their field is attenuated by 1/r^2.
Can you sense the gravito-inertial field of an approaching
car if an idential car is receeding at the same
rate?
yes, you could
the car moving towards you would make you sense the need
to jump out of the way.
:)
Cars are a bit small but your inner ear *does* have
an appropriate mechanism for more massive objects.
If your remark is not in jest, then you are alluding
to a violation of the relativity principle.
Why not, it violated newton I am hearing.
what makes it invulnerable to fact?
the funny thing is it violated newton by using rubber rulers
and malfunctioning clocks.
silly relativity.
Great for "observation" but will only get you splatted
against a planet that could care lesss about what you think it's
Post by Sue...
Post by Spaceman
If you had enough mass you would be dragged toward the car
that is heading towards you simply because the G would be getting stronger
from that car and your mass would have stopped you from moving
fast enough to stay within the car moving aways gravity effect.
So???.
:)
An increase in the walker's (or better roller skater's)
mass causes an increase in the forces from behind as well
Is
m1 * m2
the same as
m2 * m1
the increase in mass slows the forces propagation time.
It takes a bit more time to yank the higher mass from it's rest spot.
:)
Post by Sue...
The box that has the product of masses (Mm)
in it is quite comfortable. What is your
alternative for gravitational force between
two masses?
Alternative?
none for the gravity equations themselves..
but....
I want to find a physical cause for it .
not that stupid ass mathematical "space-time"
bullshit cause that relativity has, lacking "physical cause"
completely.

space is lack of objects or space where objects are
and time is a periodic counting method
If such is a physical cause..
it sure lacks the physical part.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Sue...
2008-06-18 22:36:12 UTC
[...]
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
You can find it walking across a large
*homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be
moving away from you. Half the cars will be moving
toward you. Ignore the distant cars because
their field is attenuated by 1/r^2.
Can you sense the gravito-inertial field of an approaching
car if an idential car is receeding at the same
rate?
yes, you could
the car moving towards you would make you sense the need
to jump out of the way.
:)
Cars are a bit small but your inner ear *does* have
an appropriate mechanism for more massive objects.
If your remark is not in jest, then you are alluding
to a violation of the relativity principle.
Why not, it violated newton I am hearing.
what makes it invulnerable to fact?
the funny thing is it violated newton by using rubber rulers
and malfunctioning clocks.
silly relativity.
Great for "observation" but will only get you splatted
against a planet that could care lesss about what you think it's
Post by Sue...
Post by Spaceman
If you had enough mass you would be dragged toward the car
that is heading towards you simply because the G would be getting stronger
from that car and your mass would have stopped you from moving
fast enough to stay within the car moving aways gravity effect.
So???.
:)
An increase in the walker's (or better roller skater's)
mass causes an increase in the forces from behind as well
Is
m1 * m2
the same as
m2 * m1
the increase in mass slows the forces propagation time.
It takes a bit more time to yank the higher mass from it's rest spot.
So... Anvils fall faster or slower than feathers?
Hint:
When you increase the mass, you increse the
generator of the force. ( in all directions ) ;-)
Post by Spaceman
:)
Post by Sue...
The box that has the product of masses (Mm)
in it is quite comfortable. What is your
alternative for gravitational force between
two masses?
Alternative?
none for the gravity equations themselves..
Then it looks like you are stuck with feathers
and anvils that fall together and you need
Post by Spaceman
but....
I want to find a physical cause for it .
not that stupid ass mathematical "space-time"
bullshit cause that relativity has, lacking "physical cause"
completely.
Here is a plausible mechanism that doesn't get much
applause from the black hole community.

THE ORIGIN OF GRAVITY
C.P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Post by Spaceman
space is lack of objects or space where objects are
and time is a periodic counting method
If such is a physical cause..
it sure lacks the physical part.
You are not the first to notice that.

<< Already Newton recognized that the

law of inertia is unsatisfactory

in a context so far unmentioned in this

exposition, namely that it gives no

real cause for the special physical

position of the states of motion of the

inertial frames relative to all other

states of motion. It makes the observable

material bodies responsible for the

gravitational behaviour of a material

point, yet indicates no material cause

for the inertial behaviour of the material

point but devises the cause for it

(absolute space or inertial ether). This

it is unsatisfactory. For this reason

E. Mach demanded a modification of the

law of inertia in the sense that the

inertia should be interpreted as an

acceleration resistance of the bodies

against one another and not against "space".

This interpretation governs the expectation

that accelerated bodies have concordant

accelerating action in the same

sense on other bodies (acceleration induction).

This interpretation is even more

plausible according to general relativity

which eliminates the distinction between

inertial and gravitational effects.

It amounts to stipulating that, apart

from the arbitrariness governed by the

free choice of coordinates, the

gm v -field shall be completely determined

by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured

in general relativity by the circumstance

that acceleration induction in accordance

with the gravitational field equations really

exists, although of such slight intensity

that direct detection by mechanical experiments

is out of the question. >>

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html

Sue...
Post by Spaceman
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Spaceman
2008-06-18 23:02:44 UTC
Post by Sue...
So... Anvils fall faster or slower than feathers?
When you increase the mass, you increse the
generator of the force. ( in all directions ) ;-)
Hint, to move an object.
the larger mass will accelerate slower
especially with the same force on both.
So,
If you have 2 magnets one moving toward and
one moving away.
Try the same with a static electric field and
a ping pong ball if you want..
and you have a heavy iron chunk of metal evenly in
between at first..
what will happen.
Mass wants to stay still.
Remember that really old physics stuff?
:)
Post by Sue...
Then it looks like you are stuck with feathers
and anvils that fall together and you need
No
you need to start thinking of old physics like above that
you must have forgot with all the rubber ruler stuff
you really should flush that stuff so you can actually
think on your own all over again.
:)
BTW:
Mass would rather stay still, and the larger the
mass, the harder it is to move it at all so
again, the "coming toward you gravity" will win.
:)
Post by Sue...
Here is a plausible mechanism that doesn't get much
applause from the black hole community.
Black holes as in rubber ruler world?

Or in a mass so large that gravity is so great,
vibrations can not occur to cause nor reflect light?
Post by Sue...
THE ORIGIN OF GRAVITY
C.P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Post by Spaceman
space is lack of objects or space where objects are
and time is a periodic counting method
If such is a physical cause..
it sure lacks the physical part.
You are not the first to notice that.
I know.
I just like to fight for it against the fools that
think they have "physical" causes at all.
apparently they were not taught what a physical cause it
at all.
:)
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html

Poor guy..
He was so smart and yet so stupid at the same time.
As I said.
Try the magnets. or
Try with static electric fields
start balanced, then move one field or magnet away
while moving the other towards...
the object heading towards.. always wins..
unless all were in "one frame of uniform motion".
:)
Sue...
2008-06-19 04:01:11 UTC
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
So... Anvils fall faster or slower than feathers?
When you increase the mass, you increse the
generator of the force. ( in all directions ) ;-)
Hint, to move an object.
the larger mass will accelerate slower
especially with the same force on both.
So,
If you have 2 magnets one moving toward and
one moving away.
Try the same with a static electric field and
a ping pong ball if you want..
and you have a heavy iron chunk of metal evenly in
between at first..
what will happen.
Mass wants to stay still.
Remember that really old physics stuff?
I don't remember magnets having a
1:1 inertial coupling nor a attenuation
of 1/r^2.
Post by Spaceman
:)
Post by Sue...
Then it looks like you are stuck with feathers
and anvils that fall together and you need
No
you need to start thinking of old physics like above that
you must have forgot with all the rubber ruler stuff
you really should flush that stuff so you can actually
think on your own all over again.
Where have I mentioned a rubber ruler ?

If you are four hours from London, it probably
means you have an aeroplane, not a rubber ruler.
Post by Spaceman
:)
Mass would rather stay still, and the larger the
mass, the harder it is to move it at all so
again, the "coming toward you gravity" will win.
How does mass know when it is still ?
Post by Spaceman
:)
Post by Sue...
Here is a plausible mechanism that doesn't get much
applause from the black hole community.
Black holes as in rubber ruler world?
Or in a mass so large that gravity is so great,
vibrations can not occur to cause nor reflect light?
Post by Sue...
THE ORIGIN OF GRAVITY
C.P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
BTW the older versions might be easier reading
with more classical and less quantum treatment.
(not sure where they are archived)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
Post by Spaceman
space is lack of objects or space where objects are
and time is a periodic counting method
If such is a physical cause..
it sure lacks the physical part.
You are not the first to notice that.
I know.
I just like to fight for it against the fools that
think they have "physical" causes at all.
apparently they were not taught what a physical cause it
at all.
You need a few more arrows in your quiver if you
like to fight. (And they need to diminish by
1/r^2 rather than 1/r^3 or your maths are
bogus out of starting gate.)
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le...
Post by Spaceman
Poor guy..
He was so smart and yet so stupid at the same time.
As I said.
Try the magnets. or
Try with static electric fields
start balanced, then move one field or magnet away
while moving the other towards...
the object heading towards.. always wins..
unless all were in "one frame of uniform motion".
You can try it yourself:
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm

Sue...
Spaceman
2008-06-19 04:19:30 UTC
Post by Sue...
I don't remember magnets having a
1:1 inertial coupling nor a attenuation
of 1/r^2.
I used magnets because I did not have 2 planets handy to let
you borrow.
Sheesh!
Post by Sue...
Where have I mentioned a rubber ruler ?
If you are four hours from London, it probably
means you have an aeroplane, not a rubber ruler.
You mentioned relativity, that is saying rubber ruler
basically.
Too bad you don't get it.
Post by Sue...
How does mass know when it is still ?
to itself it is always still.
otherwise, it like to be that way unless it is
being moved by something.
You really did forget all that old physics stuff?
Or you just never learned it right and got that
milled diploma maybe?
Post by Sue...
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
BTW the older versions might be easier reading
with more classical and less quantum treatment.
(not sure where they are archived)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
all nice space-time rubber ruler crap.
too bad it all lacks "physical causes" for anything.
Post by Sue...
You need a few more arrows in your quiver if you
like to fight. (And they need to diminish by
1/r^2 rather than 1/r^3 or your maths are
bogus out of starting gate.)
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le...
a link for no reason at all,
Wooopeee!
Post by Sue...
Post by Spaceman
Poor guy..
He was so smart and yet so stupid at the same time.
As I said.
Try the magnets. or
Try with static electric fields
start balanced, then move one field or magnet away
while moving the other towards...
the object heading towards.. always wins..
unless all were in "one frame of uniform motion".
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Try what?
A broken math page that forgets that more
mass takes more force to move so the heading toward
you planet always wins the gravity tug of war?
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Sue...
2008-06-19 05:08:37 UTC
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
I don't remember magnets having a
1:1 inertial coupling nor a attenuation
of 1/r^2.
I used magnets because I did not have 2 planets handy to let
you borrow.
Sheesh!
Call the maintenance department and ask them to
put bigger doors on your lab so you can get

or

<<the standard procedure for deriving the
Van der Waals forces, along with an electrokinetic
coupling, provides the only presently known derivation of a
1/r attractive potential between coupled dipoles,
or oscillating charges. >>
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
Where have I mentioned a rubber ruler ?
If you are four hours from London, it probably
means you have an aeroplane, not a rubber ruler.
You mentioned relativity, that is saying rubber ruler
basically.
Too bad you don't get it.
The laws of physics are the same today, tomorrow
at my house, at your house, on the ISS and on
the lorry that delivers freeze dried melons to
the ISS. Fundamental quantities are conserved.

Agree?

If so, you'll also accecpt <<

* the invariance of physical systems with
respect to spatial translation (in other words,
that the laws of physics do not vary with
locations in space) gives the law of conservation
of linear momentum;

* invariance with respect to rotation gives the
law of conservation of angular momentum;

* invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications

Will you dispute:

<<All inertial frames are totally equivalent for
the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental
sense between different inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

???
Post by Spaceman
Post by Sue...
How does mass know when it is still ?
to itself it is always still.
otherwise, it like to be that way unless it is
being moved by something.
You really did forget all that old physics stuff?
Or you just never learned it right and got that
milled diploma maybe?
All matter has radiating fields so it is
never "to itself"
Pay the Red Queen $200, do not pass go shine the Hatters shoes and knock off the nonsense. Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 BTW the older versions might be easier reading with more classical and less quantum treatment. (not sure where they are archived) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity all nice space-time rubber ruler crap. too bad it all lacks "physical causes" for anything. Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... You need a few more arrows in your quiver if you like to fight. (And they need to diminish by 1/r^2 rather than 1/r^3 or your maths are bogus out of starting gate.) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le... a link for no reason at all, They decay in the Google truncator and become unclickable unless refreshed. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html Post by Spaceman Wooopeee! Wooopee indeed. Clickable links are easy to supress if they bother you. Polite responses are also easy to supress. Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... Post by Spaceman Poor guy.. He was so smart and yet so stupid at the same time. As I said. Try the magnets. or Try with static electric fields start balanced, then move one field or magnet away while moving the other towards... the object heading towards.. always wins.. unless all were in "one frame of uniform motion". http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm Post by Spaceman Try what? A broken math page that forgets that more mass takes more force to move so the heading toward you planet always wins the gravity tug of war? LOL <<Here are examples of other physical problems that MD-GRAPE can accelerate : * Molecular Dynamics : it calculates any forces specified by the user, but existing libraries handle the Coulomb and van der Waals forces, and in addition to all of the real-space operations involved with the Ewald method. * Plasma Physics (charged particle interactions) * Self-gravitating systems, including cosmology, galaxies, and planets * Hydrodynamics (using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics or the particle-vortex method) And any other problem involving interparticle forces... >> http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/index.html Sue... Post by Spaceman -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Spaceman 2008-06-19 14:07:00 UTC Permalink Post by Sue... Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... I don't remember magnets having a 1:1 inertial coupling nor a attenuation of 1/r^2. I used magnets because I did not have 2 planets handy to let you borrow. Sheesh! Call the maintenance department and ask them to put bigger doors on your lab so you can get planets on your bench. I said, I don't have the planets, I never said I don't have the room. It would be nice if you actualyl read what is stated. but of course, rubber ruler worshippers always have trouble with reading what is actually stated, unless it matches the rubber ruler bible they are brainwashed by. Post by Sue... <<the standard procedure for deriving the Van der Waals forces, along with an electrokinetic coupling, provides the only presently known derivation of a 1/r attractive potential between coupled dipoles, or oscillating charges. >> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 So, you think math proves that a larger mass will not take longer to start moving with the same force on either large or small mass? That is pretty sad. Post by Sue... The laws of physics are the same today, tomorrow at my house, at your house, on the ISS and on the lorry that delivers freeze dried melons to the ISS. Fundamental quantities are conserved. Agree? If so, you'll also accecpt << * the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum; * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law of conservation of angular momentum; * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications <<All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Oh, I see, you are pulling the old fundamental shit but still using "rubber rulers" and "malfunctioning clocks" as fundemental standards. LOL Poor thing. You truly like "no physical" cause stuff huh? Post by Sue... All matter has radiating fields so it is never "to itself" any matter is "itself" and anything IT has, is to itself, Why are you so asleep? Sheesh! Post by Sue... Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html I consider them a mass of smaller physical particles. (like a cloud so to say) Post by Sue... Wooopee indeed. Clickable links are easy to supress if they bother you. Polite responses are also easy to supress. Links that are just a note to Einstein are not "thinking" for yourself. That is what I asked you to do, but you keep proving you can not do that. Post by Sue... <<Here are examples of other physical problems that MD-GRAPE can * Molecular Dynamics : it calculates any forces specified by the user, but existing libraries handle the Coulomb and van der Waals forces, and in addition to all of the real-space operations involved with the Ewald method. * Plasma Physics (charged particle interactions) * Self-gravitating systems, including cosmology, galaxies, and planets * Hydrodynamics (using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics or the particle-vortex method) And any other problem involving interparticle forces... >> http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/index.html rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks and all measurements infected by lightspeed. Totally useless. curved straight lines in the long run, Pure bullshit is all it is about "illusions" of what would happen. Did you try the magnets on a chunk of iron? No.. I can tell. Poor Sue, Won't even do an experiment at all. Afraid to knock down her house of cards. LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman p***@gmail.com 2008-06-19 15:14:15 UTC Permalink Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... I don't remember magnets having a 1:1 inertial coupling nor a attenuation of 1/r^2. I used magnets because I did not have 2 planets handy to let you borrow. Sheesh! Call the maintenance department and ask them to put bigger doors on your lab so you can get planets on your bench. I said, I don't have the planets, I never said I don't have the room. It would be nice if you actualyl read what is stated. but of course, rubber ruler worshippers always have trouble with reading what is actually stated, unless it matches the rubber ruler bible they are brainwashed by. Post by Sue... <<the standard procedure for deriving the Van der Waals forces, along with an electrokinetic coupling, provides the only presently known derivation of a 1/r attractive potential between coupled dipoles, or oscillating charges. >> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 So, you think math proves that a larger mass will not take longer to start moving with the same force on either large or small mass? That is pretty sad. Post by Sue... The laws of physics are the same today, tomorrow at my house, at your house, on the ISS and on the lorry that delivers freeze dried melons to the ISS. Fundamental quantities are conserved. Agree? If so, you'll also accecpt << * the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum; * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law of conservation of angular momentum; * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications <<All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Oh, I see, you are pulling the old fundamental shit but still using "rubber rulers" and "malfunctioning clocks" as fundemental standards. LOL Poor thing. You truly like "no physical" cause stuff huh? Post by Sue... All matter has radiating fields so it is never "to itself" any matter is "itself" and anything IT has, is to itself, Why are you so asleep? Sheesh! Post by Sue... Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html I consider them a mass of smaller physical particles. (like a cloud so to say) Post by Sue... Wooopee indeed. Clickable links are easy to supress if they bother you. Polite responses are also easy to supress. Links that are just a note to Einstein are not "thinking" for yourself. That is what I asked you to do, but you keep proving you can not do that. Post by Sue... <<Here are examples of other physical problems that MD-GRAPE can * Molecular Dynamics : it calculates any forces specified by the user, but existing libraries handle the Coulomb and van der Waals forces, and in addition to all of the real-space operations involved with the Ewald method. * Plasma Physics (charged particle interactions) * Self-gravitating systems, including cosmology, galaxies, and planets * Hydrodynamics (using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics or the particle-vortex method) And any other problem involving interparticle forces... >> http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/index.html rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks and all measurements infected by lightspeed. Totally useless. curved straight lines in the long run, Pure bullshit is all it is about "illusions" of what would happen. Did you try the magnets on a chunk of iron? No.. I can tell. Poor Sue, Won't even do an experiment at all. Afraid to knock down her house of cards. LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Real fun watching a Clockwork Orange ruberized troll fighting a Parkinsonian troll (her fingers hit the wrong internet pages providing irrelevant information). Miguel Rios Sue... 2008-06-19 17:29:59 UTC Permalink Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html Post by Spaceman I consider them a mass of smaller physical particles. (like a cloud so to say) Do you have any evidence of the smaller particles? Are electrons un-physical if you don't have such evidence? Sue... [...] Post by Spaceman -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Spaceman 2008-06-19 18:46:13 UTC Permalink Post by Sue... Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html Post by Spaceman I consider them a mass of smaller physical particles. (like a cloud so to say) Do you have any evidence of the smaller particles? Are electrons un-physical if you don't have such evidence? They act just like pressure differentials in gases. so. that is "kinda" evidence. What do you think they are made of? non physicals? Sue... 2008-06-19 20:08:23 UTC Permalink Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html Post by Spaceman I consider them a mass of smaller physical particles. (like a cloud so to say) Do you have any evidence of the smaller particles? Are electrons un-physical if you don't have such evidence? They act just like pressure differentials in gases. so. that is "kinda" evidence. What do you think they are made of? non physicals? I think they are the absence of a positron. http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/mbitu/electron-positron.htm ...But the more you treat leptons as real and the less you treat Newton's inertial ether as real the less need you'll have for "rubber rulers". Sue... Spaceman 2008-06-20 03:13:13 UTC Permalink Post by Sue... Post by Spaceman On Jun 19, 10:07 am, "Spaceman" Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html Post by Spaceman I consider them a mass of smaller physical particles. (like a cloud so to say) Do you have any evidence of the smaller particles? Are electrons un-physical if you don't have such evidence? They act just like pressure differentials in gases. so. that is "kinda" evidence. What do you think they are made of? non physicals? I think they are the absence of a positron. http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/mbitu/electron-positron.htm So you think the electron is just space? absense of something means "nothing in place of it" doesn't it? all that smashing up stuff to see how it works.. That is a shame really. We will never find out what an electron is "made of" by smashing it into something at all. I wish I could find out how things were made by smashing them up at super high speeds.. but ... it does not work that way in my world. :) Post by Sue... ...But the more you treat leptons as real and the less you treat Newton's inertial ether as real the less need you'll have for "rubber rulers". Well, that will be pretty hard because Newton has the mechanical locked up pretty well. But getting rid of the rubber rulers is the first step to anything better. right now as it is, we have a meter that is sadly based upon a speed. That is a gigantic joke to science right away. and with a clock that malfunctions are OK, we lost science completely and that is where all the time travel and wormhole and bullshit comes from Remove the rubber ruler and fix the clocks. It is what we did a long time ago. and sadly, we need to do it again. :) Sue... 2008-06-20 10:27:58 UTC Permalink Post by Sue... Post by Spaceman On Jun 19, 10:07 am, "Spaceman" Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html Post by Spaceman I consider them a mass of smaller physical particles. (like a cloud so to say) Do you have any evidence of the smaller particles? Are electrons un-physical if you don't have such evidence? They act just like pressure differentials in gases. so. that is "kinda" evidence. What do you think they are made of? non physicals? I think they are the absence of a positron. http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/mbitu/el... So you think the electron is just space? absense of something means "nothing in place of it" doesn't it? all that smashing up stuff to see how it works.. That is a shame really. We will never find out what an electron is "made of" by smashing it into something at all. I wish I could find out how things were made by smashing them up at super high speeds.. but ... it does not work that way in my world. If you think you can descrbe a fundamental particle as a collection of composite particles you should first try using the floor plan of a house to explain the structural properties of a brick. :) Post by Sue... ...But the more you treat leptons as real and the less you treat Newton's inertial ether as real the less need you'll have for "rubber rulers". Well, that will be pretty hard because Newton has the mechanical locked up pretty well. Then you don't know Newton very well and you have made that apparent in this thread. Even he knew the instant communication he assumed was a problem but he had no better alternative. But getting rid of the rubber rulers is the first step to anything better. right now as it is, we have a meter that is sadly based upon a speed. That is a gigantic joke to science right away. and with a clock that malfunctions are OK, we lost science completely and that is where all the time travel and wormhole and bullshit comes from Remove the rubber ruler and fix the clocks. It is what we did a long time ago. and sadly, we need to do it again. I gave you an EM course that doesn't use "rubber rulers" and funny clocks. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html Excuse me now, but it is pearl feeding time down at the swine house and it is my favorite chore. :o) Sue... :) kenseto 2008-06-20 01:27:53 UTC Permalink Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... Post by Spaceman Post by Sue... I don't remember magnets having a 1:1 inertial coupling nor a attenuation of 1/r^2. I used magnets because I did not have 2 planets handy to let you borrow. Sheesh! Call the maintenance department and ask them to put bigger doors on your lab so you can get planets on your bench. I said, I don't have the planets, I never said I don't have the room. It would be nice if you actualyl read what is stated. but of course, rubber ruler worshippers always have trouble with reading what is actually stated, unless it matches the rubber ruler bible they are brainwashed by. Post by Sue... <<the standard procedure for deriving the Van der Waals forces, along with an electrokinetic coupling, provides the only presently known derivation of a 1/r attractive potential between coupled dipoles, or oscillating charges. >> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 So, you think math proves that a larger mass will not take longer to start moving with the same force on either large or small mass? That is pretty sad. Post by Sue... The laws of physics are the same today, tomorrow at my house, at your house, on the ISS and on the lorry that delivers freeze dried melons to the ISS. Â Fundamental quantities are conserved. Agree? If so, Â you'll also Â accecpt << Â Â * the invariance of physical systems with Â Â Â respect to spatial translation (in other words, Â Â Â that the laws of physics do not vary with Â Â Â locations in space) gives the law of conservation Â Â Â of linear momentum; Â Â * invariance with respect to rotation gives the Â Â Â law of conservation of angular momentum; Â Â * invariance with respect to time translation Â Â Â gives the well known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications <<All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Oh, I see, you are pulling the old fundamental shit but still using "rubber rulers" and "malfunctioning clocks" as fundemental standards. LOL Poor thing. You truly like "no physical" cause stuff huh? Post by Sue... All matter has radiating fields so it is never "to itself" any matter is "itself" and anything IT has, is to itself, Why are you so asleep? Sheesh! Post by Sue... Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html I consider them a mass of smaller physical particles. (like a cloud so to say) Post by Sue... Wooopee indeed. Clickable links are easy to supress if they bother you. Â Polite responses are also easy to supress. Links that are just a note to Einstein are not "thinking" for yourself. That is what I asked you to do, but you keep proving you can not do that. Post by Sue... <<Here are examples of other physical problems that MD-GRAPE can Â Â * Molecular Dynamics : it calculates any forces Â Â Â specified by the user, but existing libraries handle Â Â Â the Coulomb and van der Waals forces, and in addition Â Â Â to all of the real-space operations involved with the Ewald method. Â Â * Plasma Physics (charged particle interactions) Â Â * Self-gravitating systems, including Â Â Â cosmology, galaxies, and planets Â Â * Hydrodynamics (using Smoothed Particle Â Â Â Hydrodynamics or the particle-vortex method) And any other problem involving interparticle forces... >> http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/index.html rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks and all measurements infected by lightspeed. Totally useless. curved straight lines in the long run, Pure bullshit is all it is about "illusions" of what would happen. Did you try the magnets on a chunk of iron? No.. I can tell. Poor Sue, Won't even do an experiment at all. Afraid to knock down her house of cards. LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Spaceman, Sue is a computer. Spaceman 2008-06-20 03:16:23 UTC Permalink Post by kenseto Spaceman, Sue is a computer. Good, then hopefully I can re-program it a bit to make her see the "rubber ruler faults" If she truly is a computer that uses logic, then she should be able to see how making a meter based upon a speed is just plain stupid. and trying to use malfunctioning clocks to time stuff is also just plain stupid. :) Imagine if some super space dragsters used internal clocks to see who won.. the faster one would lose every time.. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Spaceman 2008-06-18 19:36:30 UTC Permalink Post by Sue... If 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving toward the clock and 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving away from the clock, can there be any resultant gravito-inertial force on any part of the clock ? Where is that happening? nowhere.. Or do you have a special clock set up in an unknown spot of the universe? Post by Sue... In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html but Einstein forgot that clocks can goof up so he fiddled and fiddled and instead of causes, he found mathamatical proof of how we see the world using light. The greatest illusional theory so far. Spaceman 2008-06-18 12:59:10 UTC Permalink Post by Y.Porat Post by Spaceman Post by Y.Porat ------------- Dirky you are making some progress at last !! probably due to my explanations It is amazing that some people can not tell that if the clocks did not have the same time when they came back together, than one clock "did not" keep the proper rate of the "second" It is really sad that such an old historical fact about clocks changing rates has been ignored all over again. But, the good thing is, They are sitting there repeating history, while others that find out the clock had the problem, and it was not "time" slowing, will be marching forward in science. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman ---------------------- again you are making sense !!! time is a human invention and is nothing but motion comparison 2 the real physical phenomenon is as i saied that it becomes more and more difficult to add velocity to your moving mass compared to the reference moving entity that ***stays outside*** your examined moving (accelerated ) frame 2 it is possible that in the experiment of the two clocks the very movement has some real efefct on the accelerated clock THAT IS COMPOSED OF MATTER !! may be for instance, the gravitation force is the cause that acts on the moving clock in the gravitational field ???!!! It is, It is also the oldest know problem with a clock and only fools won't see that the clocks are "screwing" up. and.. It is also a change in kinetic energy of the ticker the mass of the ticker gains more kinetic energy as it moves and it also changes such when any g-force on it is changed. Post by Y.Porat (not on 'time' but on the material of the clock even if it is an Atomic clock ???!!! Yes, It is a physical problem with the clock. It is freaking crazy that these morons have no clue about how a clock has to work and just refuse to look simply because they have a warped theory already.. You would think some of these guys think they are Einstein himself fighting so hard for the theories that are crap for finding physical causes. Post by Y.Porat the Atomic clock has electrons and Protons that its motion might be affected ??!!! Yup good old Newtonian stuff still getting in the way. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Spaceman 2008-06-18 19:31:25 UTC Permalink Post by Y.Porat again you are making sense !!! time is a human invention and is nothing but motion comparison 2 the real physical phenomenon is as i saied that it becomes more and more difficult to add velocity to your moving mass compared to the reference moving entity that ***stays outside*** your examined moving (accelerated ) frame 2 it is possible that in the experiment of the two clocks the very movement has some real efefct on the accelerated clock THAT IS COMPOSED OF MATTER !! may be for instance, the gravitation force is the cause that acts on the moving clock in the gravitational field ???!!! (not on 'time' but on the material of the clock even if it is an Atomic clock ???!!! the Atomic clock has electrons and Protons that its motion might be affected ??!!! The clock is goofing up (Malfunctioning) from any g-force changes. It is the oldest problem with clocks. Only silly rubber ruler people ignore such a simple fact and keep repeating history. ;) Eric Gisse 2008-06-13 15:07:16 UTC Permalink On Jun 13, 5:43Â am, kenseto <***@erinet.com> wrote: [...] Should we celebrate when you reach 15 years of arguing about SR even though you still clearly have no idea what you are talking about? Dirk Van de moortel 2008-06-13 15:53:17 UTC Permalink Post by Eric Gisse [...] Should we celebrate when you reach 15 years of arguing about SR even though you still clearly have no idea what you are talking about? Ken Seto, the Wild Goose King: Loading Image... Dirk Vdm k***@yahoo.co.uk 2008-06-13 22:49:21 UTC Permalink Post by kenseto TIME (duration) is what the clock measures. This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock second is an interval of universal TIME. This, in turn, leads to the assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at different rates when they are in different frames. On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second in the observed B clock. This means that a clock second is not an interval of universal TIME. It appears that SR is making contradictory claims. 1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames. 2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time at the frame of the clock. 3. A clock second in different frames will represent different interval of absolute time. 4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically. These new interpretations of TIME gives a viable explanation why the speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio in all frames Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of relativity called: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. A Paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto I would feel much better if the theory was published in a journal rather than a vanity press book! K. kenseto 2008-06-14 13:34:22 UTC Permalink Post by k***@yahoo.co.uk Post by kenseto TIME (duration) is what the clock measures. This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock second is an interval of universal TIME. This, in turn, Â leads to the assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at different rates when they are in different frames. On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second in the observed B clock. Â This means that a clock second is not an interval of universal TIME. It appears that SR is making contradictory claims. 1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames. 2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time at the frame of the clock. 3. A clock second in different frames will represent different interval of absolute time. 4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically. These new interpretations of TIME gives a viable explanation why the speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio in all frames Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of relativity called: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. A Paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto I would feel much better if the theory was published in a journal rather than a vanity press book! So are you saying that you can't think for yourself???? Robert J. Kolker 2008-06-14 13:34:00 UTC Permalink kenseto wrote:> Post by kenseto So are you saying that you can't think for yourself???? What he means is that your work should be checked for errors by competent professionals. Have your theories been thoroughly tested experimentally. If not, you are just blowing smoke. Experimental test is the hallmark of valid science. Bob Kolker Dono 2008-06-14 05:56:18 UTC Permalink 1. It appears that SR is making contradictory claims. 2. IRT includes SRT as a subset. Ken Shito Shito, If IRT indeed includes SR as a subset and if Sr is indeed self- contradictory as you claim, this means that IRT is self- contradictory :-) jem 2008-06-14 12:37:53 UTC Permalink Post by kenseto TIME (duration) is what the clock measures. This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock second is an interval of universal TIME. What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that a clock second is a universal interval of time. Post by kenseto This, in turn, leads to the assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at different rates when they are in different frames. Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch to characterize it as "time is flexible". Post by kenseto On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second in the observed B clock. And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in motion relative to A). Post by kenseto This means that a clock second is not an interval of universal TIME. It appears that SR is making contradictory claims. It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above, certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a universal interval of time - in fact they require it. Post by kenseto 1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames. 2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time at the frame of the clock. 3. A clock second in different frames will represent different interval of absolute time. 4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically. That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/ interpretation. In fact, it's the LET interpretation. [snip Setoland fantasy] kenseto 2008-06-14 14:09:41 UTC Permalink Post by jem Post by kenseto TIME (duration) is what the clock measures. This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. Â This means that a clock second is an interval of universal TIME. What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that a clock second is a universal interval of time. By "standard clock" do you mean the observer's clock? In that case how is it become a standard since every observer can claim that his clock is the standard clock and at the same time the flow of clock seconds through every observer's clock is at different rates. Also what do you mean a clock second is a universal interval of time? Do you mean that the passage of a clock second in A's frame corresponds to the passage of a clock second in B's frame?? Post by jem Post by kenseto This, in turn, Â leads to the assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at different rates when they are in different frames. Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch to characterize it as "time is flexible". If a clock second is an interval of universal time then time must be flexible (the passage of clock seconds) in order for two clocks in relative motion to accumulate different clock seconds. Post by jem Post by kenseto On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second in the observed B clock. And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in motion relative to A). Post by kenseto This means that a clock second is not an interval of universal TIME. It appears that SR is making contradictory claims. It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above, certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a universal interval of time - in fact they require it. You definition that a clock second is a universal interval of time needs to be defined more clearly. Do you mean that a clock second will have the same duration in all frames? In other words the time (duration) required to complete a transition by the Cs atom is the same in all frames? If that is what you mean then I disagree. Post by jem Post by kenseto 1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames. 2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time at the frame of the clock. 3. A clock second in different frames will represent different interval of absolute time. 4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically. That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/ interpretation. Â In fact, it's the LET interpretation. No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. Ken Seto Post by jem [snip Setoland fantasy] Spirit of Truth 2008-06-16 03:57:01 UTC Permalink "kenseto" <***@erinet.com> wrote in message news:8de446e4-381d-49e9-b250-***@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. Ken Seto ...................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................... Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train experiement)? Please review. Thanks! Spirit of Truth Spaceman 2008-06-16 04:29:37 UTC Permalink Post by kenseto No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. Ken Seto ............................................................................ .......................... ............................................................................ .......................... Post by kenseto Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train experiement)? If it uses absolute time, it would have to get rid of the lack of it, since absolute time can make things happen simultaneously very easily. (or as close to technically possible at least) :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman kenseto 2008-06-16 12:50:33 UTC Permalink Post by kenseto No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. Ken Seto ...........................................................................Â­........................... ...........................................................................Â­........................... Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train experiement)? Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows: 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train frame. 2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train. 3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur simultaneously in the train as follows: The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously at time 0.5L*gamma/c. Ken Seto Bryan Olson 2008-06-16 18:30:37 UTC Permalink Post by kenseto Post by kenseto No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. Ken Seto ...........................................................................Â­........................... ...........................................................................Â­........................... Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train experiement)? 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train frame. 2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train. 3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously at time 0.5L*gamma/c. Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed observer before reaching the train-rinding observer. Light from the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer before reaching the track-fixed observer. Ken Seto's theory has light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which doesn't work. Theory flushed. -- --Bryan Spaceman 2008-06-16 18:53:58 UTC Permalink Post by Bryan Olson Post by kenseto Post by kenseto No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. Ken Seto ...........................................................................Â­ ........................... ...........................................................................Â­ ........................... Post by Bryan Olson Post by kenseto Post by kenseto Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train experiement)? 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train frame. 2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train. 3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously at time 0.5L*gamma/c. Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed observer before reaching the train-rinding observer. Light from the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer before reaching the track-fixed observer. Ken Seto's theory has light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which doesn't work. Theory flushed. Then you better flush Relativity too, It says lightspeed is constant, the only way Ken could be wrong is if lightspeed is not constant. LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Bryan Olson 2008-06-16 19:13:37 UTC Permalink Post by Spaceman Post by Bryan Olson Post by kenseto 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train frame. 2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train. 3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously at time 0.5L*gamma/c. Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed observer before reaching the train-rinding observer. Light from the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer before reaching the track-fixed observer. Ken Seto's theory has light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which doesn't work. Theory flushed. Then you better flush Relativity too, Relativity has no such contradictions. Post by Spaceman It says lightspeed is constant, the only way Ken could be wrong is if lightspeed is not constant. LOL You guys are a hoot. -- --Bryan Spaceman 2008-06-16 19:20:33 UTC Permalink Post by Bryan Olson Post by Spaceman Post by Bryan Olson Post by kenseto 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train frame. 2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train. 3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously at time 0.5L*gamma/c. Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed observer before reaching the train-rinding observer. Light from the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer before reaching the track-fixed observer. Ken Seto's theory has light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which doesn't work. Theory flushed. Then you better flush Relativity too, Relativity has no such contradictions. LOL typicle brainwashed response. simultaniety is not impossible. You really should try to walk and chew gum simultaneously some day. It is possible for some. LOL Post by Bryan Olson Post by Spaceman It says lightspeed is constant, the only way Ken could be wrong is if lightspeed is not constant. LOL You guys are a hoot. Actually, it is the brainwashed rubber ruler land that is "real" hoot. Do you also think "time changes" when a clock goofs up? ROFLOL -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman kenseto 2008-06-17 14:09:36 UTC Permalink Post by Bryan Olson Post by Spaceman Post by Bryan Olson Post by kenseto 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train frame. 2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train. 3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously at time 0.5L*gamma/c. Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed observer before reaching the train-rinding observer. Light from the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer before reaching the track-fixed observer. Ken Seto's theory has light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which doesn't work. Theory flushed. Then you better flush Relativity too, Relativity has no such contradictions. Post by Spaceman It says lightspeed is constant, the only way Ken could be wrong is if lightspeed is not constant. LOL You guys are a hoot. You are a runt of the SRians. Definition for a runt of the SRians: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto bz 2008-06-17 08:38:11 UTC Permalink Post by Spaceman Then you better flush Relativity too, It says light-speed is constant, No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both _measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as simultaneous. As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer. As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the front strike must pass the moving observer before it can reach the stationary observer. This forces a 'non simultaneous' judgement on the moving observer while the track side observer sees the strikes as simultaneous. If the strikes are 'simultaneous' in the track frame, taking place as the observers pass, then the moving observer must see the strike on the engine before he sees the strike on the rear of the train. There IS one way that both observers could see the flashes at the same time. If the train carried it's own lightning machine that, in the trains frame, fired a flash at the front and rear of the train at the right time for the flashes to appear "simultaneously" just as the train passed the track side observer, both observers would see the flashes as simultaneous. To do this, at some point _before_ the observers pass, a signal must be triggered that will fire the flashes at right time so that the flashes arrive at 'the observers coincide' point at the exact instant that the observers are next to each other. In other words, the trigger to the flashes must give the signal time to travel from one end of the train to the other end. In other words a signal must travel from center of train, half the length of the train, to each end, and then the flash must travel half the length of the train. In this case, the observers will see the flashes as simultaneous because the observers are in the same place when the flashes arrive. They won't agree, however, on _when_ the flashes were triggered. Did you ever understand that the earth's axial tilt makes the seasons? -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+***@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap Sue... 2008-06-17 11:14:21 UTC Permalink Post by bz Post by Spaceman Then you better flush Relativity too, It says light-speed is constant, No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both _measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as simultaneous. If a pair of lightninig flashes causes the midpoint collision, of a pair of light-projectiles, the launching is simultaneous as defined in Einstein's papers. The theory defines what is simultaneous. <<By measuring along the rails, the connecting line AB should be measured up and an observer placed at the mid-point M of the distance AB. This observer should be supplied with an arrangement (e.g. two mirrors inclined at 90Â°) which allows him visually to observe both places A and B at the same time. If the observer perceives the two flashes of lightning at the same time, then they are simultaneous. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html Unfortunately, the theory then extrapolates with a faulty model of light propagation producing some equations that seem correct for special cases, and others that are patently absurd. <<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply that the Academy recognised the particle nature of light? The Nobel Committee says that Einstein had found that the energy exchange between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv . As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta (in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the law that an electron emitted from a substance by monochromatic light with the frequency has to have a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however, found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange. The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology, photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on which the prize decision rested only in connection with emission and absorption processes. The Committee says that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >> http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html Sue... Post by bz As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer. As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the front strike must pass the moving observer before it can reach the stationary observer. This forces a 'non simultaneous' judgement on the moving observer while the track side observer sees the strikes as simultaneous. If the strikes are 'simultaneous' in the track frame, taking place as the observers pass, then the moving observer must see the strike on the engine before he sees the strike on the rear of the train. There IS one way that both observers could see the flashes at the same time. If the train carried it's own lightning machine that, in the trains frame, fired a flash at the front and rear of the train at the right time for the flashes to appear "simultaneously" just as the train passed the track side observer, both observers would see the flashes as simultaneous. To do this, at some point _before_ the observers pass, a signal must be triggered that will fire the flashes at right time so that the flashes arrive at 'the observers coincide' point at the exact instant that the observers are next to each other. In other words, the trigger to the flashes must give the signal time to travel from one end of the train to the other end. In other words a signal must travel from center of train, half the length of the train, to each end, and then the flash must travel half the length of the train. In this case, the observers will see the flashes as simultaneous because the observers are in the same place when the flashes arrive. They won't agree, however, on _when_ the flashes were triggered. Did you ever understand that the earth's axial tilt makes the seasons? -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. Spaceman 2008-06-17 14:30:22 UTC Permalink Post by bz Post by Spaceman Then you better flush Relativity too, It says light-speed is constant, No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both _measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as simultaneous. bz, you don't get it. In the inertial frame it can be "simultaneous" and if not, then lightspeed is not constant. In the exact middle of a vacuum filled room a light is turned on, which wall would it hit first? north, south, east, or west? If lightspeed is constant, it hits all walls simultaneously. If it does not do such. lightspeed is not constant. From another frame of course it would not be simultaneous but that is simply because of the different distances of each light wrt the other frames observer. (the "non simultaneus" the other frame sees is merely an illusion of the distance.) go to the frame and you would find out the light hit equally. Post by bz As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer. again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous. Post by bz There IS one way that both observers could see the flashes at the same time. If the train carried it's own lightning machine that, in the trains frame, fired a flash at the front and rear of the train at the right time for the flashes to appear "simultaneously" just as the train passed the track side observer, both observers would see the flashes as simultaneous. Actually there is no way all observers could see the light flashes as simultaneous unless all were lined up on one axis that both lights are equal distance from all. Post by bz Did you ever understand that the earth's axial tilt makes the seasons? Did you ever understand how they are not needed just to make seasons? And it just makes seasons shift and enhance. Probably not.. -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Sue... 2008-06-17 15:15:02 UTC Permalink On Jun 17, 10:30 am, "Spaceman" <***@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: [...] Post by Spaceman Actually there is no way all observers could see the light flashes as simultaneous unless all were lined up on one axis that both lights are equal distance from all. A moving media model permits both observers to see two flashes, one simultaneous and one skewed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment Einstein's so-called "thought experiment" has insufficient detail about the dielectric structure of the paths to produce any real-world prediction. Its basis is a propagation model that, to this day, has not been demonstrated to exist. ~Wave and particle light~ http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html So the aerodynamics of a frog's wings have about the same relevance to real world physics. Sue... Post by Spaceman Post by bz Did you ever understand that the earth's axial tilt makes the seasons? Did you ever understand how they are not needed just to make seasons? And it just makes seasons shift and enhance. Probably not.. -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Bryan Olson 2008-06-17 22:35:00 UTC Permalink Post by Sue... [...] Post by Spaceman Actually there is no way all observers could see the light flashes as simultaneous unless all were lined up on one axis that both lights are equal distance from all. A moving media model permits both observers to see two flashes, one simultaneous and one skewed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment Einstein's so-called "thought experiment" has insufficient detail about the dielectric structure of the paths to produce any real-world prediction. Irrelevant, then wrong. It's a vacuum. Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of light (and indeed every other process) to a rigid reference- body (co-ordinate system). As such a system let us again choose our embankment. We shall imagine the air above it to have been removed. [http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html] Post by Sue... Its basis is a propagation model that, to this day, has not been demonstrated to exist. Except for many novel and correct predictions. Post by Sue... ~Wave and particle light~ http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html So the aerodynamics of a frog's wings have about the same relevance to real world physics. Sue's references are, once again, irrelevant the issue. -- --Bryan bz 2008-06-17 16:13:43 UTC Permalink Post by Spaceman Post by bz Post by Spaceman Then you better flush Relativity too, It says light-speed is constant, No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both _measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as simultaneous. bz, you don't get it. In the inertial frame it can be "simultaneous" and if not, then lightspeed is not constant. Both the train and the track constitute [approximately] inertial frames. Observers in either frame [according to SR] will measure the speed of light to be c. This fact [experimentally verified to the level of accuracy of all equipment available] is due to [according to SR] "apparent" changes in the length of rulers and the rate of time as measured by clocks so that measurement of the speed of the SAME ray of light, when made from two iFoRs that are in motion wrt each other, will both yield the identical value for the speed of the 'ray' of light. Post by Spaceman In the exact middle of a vacuum filled room a light is turned on, which wall would it hit first? north, south, east, or west? If it is in the exact middle of a perfectly square room, it hits the center of each of the six walls at the same instant. Post by Spaceman If lightspeed is constant, it hits all walls simultaneously. If it does not do such. lightspeed is not constant. Right. Post by Spaceman From another frame of course it would not be simultaneous but that is simply because of the different distances of each light wrt the other frames observer. How do you know when the light hits the wall? Put a photocell in the center of each wall? Run the [equal length] cables from the photocells to a scope that displays all 6 traces. That works fine for "in the room's FoR" measurement [even though it is really a two way measurement of the speed of light]. Post by Spaceman (the "non simultaneous" the other frame sees is merely an illusion of the distance.) It is a matter of space-time perspective. It is NOT the kind of 'illusion' that optical illusions consist of. It is a '4-D illusion'. It has to do with the fact that in 'our' frame of reference, both the source and the walls are in motion. Light traveling toward the 'front wall' must travel further in our FoR, so it arrives after the light that travels toward the 'back wall'. Oh, which wall the light hits first doesn't depend on the distance between US and the wall, nor whether the room is approaching us or going away from us. Post by Spaceman go to the frame and you would find out the light hit equally. of course. Post by Spaceman Post by bz As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer. again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous. Einstein added the second frame, second observer and accounted for the distant change. Post by Spaceman Post by bz There IS one way that both observers could see the flashes at the same time. If the train carried it's own lightning machine that, in the trains frame, fired a flash at the front and rear of the train at the right time for the flashes to appear "simultaneously" just as the train passed the track side observer, both observers would see the flashes as simultaneous. Actually there is no way all observers could see the light flashes as simultaneous unless all were lined up on one axis that both lights are equal distance from all. That is exactly the condition I set up. That axis passes through track side and train board observers at the instant they are adjacent to each other. The conditions I set forth would have both the train and track observers seeing the flashes as simultaneous. The 'magic' is worked by making sure that they are 'at the same place' at the instant that the flashes arrive. The trigger to fire the flashes, however, would occur at different times on the track side and train observer's clocks. The trackside observer says that the front flash must have been fired after the back flash in order for them to arrive at his location at the same time. He also observed that the front flash is red shifted and the back is blue shifted due to the doppler effect. The observer on the train, of course, sees no doppler shift and thinks the flashes were triggered at the same time. Post by Spaceman Post by bz Did you ever understand that the earth's axial tilt makes the seasons? Did you ever understand how they are not needed just to make seasons? It would NOT be needed if our orbit were much more eccentric. But our orbit is very close to a circle. The fact that the earth is closest to the sun in the middle of 'our' [the northern hemisphere] winter is ample proof that the orbital eccentricity has no great 'seasonal effects'. Post by Spaceman And it just makes seasons shift and enhance. Probably not.. You really need to make a model to get an idea of the perspective and relative effects of the tilt and variation in distance from the sun. We are talking about something that makes a 100% difference in solar illumination [at the poles] where the difference is huge vs a very small (3.4%) difference in distance from the sun. You still haven't taken that 3 inch diameter ball[earth model] and the 8.4 meter ball[sun model], 896 meters away [average sun-earth distance model] and then 912 meters and 881 meters [furthest and nearest approach models]. You would quickly see that a 24 degree tilt in the axis of rotation makes a big difference in illumination, whereas the small difference in earth-sun distance makes very little difference. Try it. You can't see any difference in size of the 8.4 meter diameter sun model when you move from 912 meters away to 881 meters away from it. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+***@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap Sue... 2008-06-17 18:55:26 UTC Permalink Post by bz Post by Spaceman Post by bz Post by Spaceman Then you better flush Relativity too, It says light-speed is constant, No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both _measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as simultaneous. bz, you don't get it. In the inertial frame it can be "simultaneous" and if not, then lightspeed is not constant. Both the train and the track constitute [approximately] inertial frames. Observers in either frame [according to SR] will measure the speed of light to be c. This fact [experimentally verified to the level of accuracy of all equipment available] is due to [according to SR] "apparent" changes in the length of rulers and the rate of time as measured by clocks so that measurement of the speed of the SAME ray of light, when made from two iFoRs that are in motion wrt each other, will both yield the identical value for the speed of the 'ray' of light. I can change the flux of near luminal cosmic particles and my rulers don't seem to pay any attention. Can you post a picture of your rulers shrinking and expanding and whatnot when you shield them from cosmic particles? :o) Post by bz Post by Spaceman In the exact middle of a vacuum filled room a light is turned on, which wall would it hit first? north, south, east, or west? If it is in the exact middle of a perfectly square room, it hits the center of each of the six walls at the same instant. If gas is moving through the room as gas moves past a railcar, that won't be the case. The thought experiment is ambiguous in this regard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html Post by bz Post by Spaceman If lightspeed is constant, it hits all walls simultaneously. If it does not do such. lightspeed is not constant. Right. Post by Spaceman From another frame of course it would not be simultaneous but that is simply because of the different distances of each light wrt the other frames observer. How do you know when the light hits the wall? Put a photocell in the center of each wall? Run the [equal length] cables from the photocells to a scope that displays all 6 traces. That works fine for "in the room's FoR" measurement [even though it is really a two way measurement of the speed of light]. Whether the dielectric is moving or not, the constancy of "c" can be confirmed between the inertial frames of reference. << According to electromagnetic theory, the speed of propagation of a light wave through a vacuum is c= (equation 1323) where$\epsilon_0$and$\mu_0$are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments must yield the same values for$\epsilon_0$and$\mu_0\$ in all inertial frames.
Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

[...]

For the macroatomic case of the thought experiment, the inertial
frames of reference has nothing to do with the light path.

<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation
will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric
and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>

That would not have been a convincing argument against Newton's
inertial ether in Einstein's time but it seems more than adaquate
today where most physicists are well versed in electromagnetism.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html

Sue...
Post by bz
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
Bryan Olson
2008-06-17 22:47:22 UTC
Post by Spaceman
Post by bz
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
--
--Bryan
kenseto
2008-06-17 23:31:25 UTC
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by Spaceman
Post by bz
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts. Is there no limit to your stupidity???

Ken Seto
p***@gmail.com
2008-06-18 00:00:44 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by Spaceman
Post by bz
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts. Is there no limit to your stupidity???
Ken Seto
For Christ sake...read Einstein's paper clown and learn what SR really
says...What a joke you are!.
Oh...I forgot..., my bad, you are bigger than Einstein right?

Miguel Rios
Bryan Olson
2008-06-18 00:24:35 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by Spaceman
Post by bz
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts.
No Ken, I did not say that. Just because *your* theory comes
out contradictory doesn't mean that no consistent theory can
describe light moving at the same speed in all inertial frames.
--
--Bryan
kenseto
2008-06-18 02:29:45 UTC
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by Spaceman
Post by bz
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts.
No Ken, I did not say that. Just because *your* theory comes
out contradictory doesn't mean that no consistent theory can
describe light moving at the same speed in all inertial frames.
Hey idiot....you said: "the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer". This assertion means that the speed of light in the track
frame is not isotropic. Isotropy means that the observer is NOT moving
wrt the light fronts.
p***@gmail.com
2008-06-18 12:05:00 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by Spaceman
Post by bz
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts.
No Ken, I did not say that. Just because *your* theory comes
out contradictory doesn't mean that no consistent theory can
describe light moving at the same speed in all inertial frames.
Hey idiot....you said: "the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer". This assertion means that the speed of light in the track
frame is not isotropic. Isotropy means that the observer is NOT moving
wrt the light fronts.
Wow...the clown says "This assertion means that the speed of light in
the track frame is not isotropic"....and then drops the following
rock:
"Isotropy means that the observer is NOT moving wrt the light
fronts".....Wow.
It should be clear by now that this guy is smarter than Einstein.

Miguel Rios
Bryan Olson
2008-06-19 21:53:07 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by Spaceman
Post by bz
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts.
No Ken, I did not say that. Just because *your* theory comes
out contradictory doesn't mean that no consistent theory can
describe light moving at the same speed in all inertial frames.
Hey idiot....you said: "the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer". This assertion means that the speed of light in the track
frame is not isotropic. Isotropy means that the observer is NOT moving
wrt the light fronts.
No, that's not what isotropic means. I looked it up.

SR is consistent. Seto-theory, not so much.
--
--Bryan
kenseto
2008-06-20 01:26:10 UTC
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by Spaceman
Post by bz
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts.
No Ken, I did not say that. Just because *your* theory comes
out contradictory doesn't mean that no consistent theory can
describe light moving at the same speed in all inertial frames.
Hey idiot....you said: "the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer". This assertion means that the speed of light in the track
frame is not isotropic. Isotropy means that the observer is NOT moving
wrt the light fronts.
No, that's not what isotropic means. I looked it up.
SR is consistent. Seto-theory, not so much.
Hey idiot what did it say when you look it up? If the observer is
moving wrt the light fronts generated from equal distance from the
observer how can the light front be arrive simultaneously and
isotropically to the observer.

Ken Seto
Bryan Olson
2008-06-20 05:08:39 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by Spaceman
Post by bz
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must
pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer.
again, you are adding the second frame observer and not accounting
for the distance change that makes the light non simultaneous.
Wrong. We consider the track-fixed observer stationary, and the
train-rider moving away from the light front, or we consider the
rider stationary, and the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer
Sr says that the speed of light is isotropic in the train and track
frame. What you said here is that the speed of light is not isotropic
in the train frame because the train observer is moving wrt the light
fronts.
No Ken, I did not say that. Just because *your* theory comes
out contradictory doesn't mean that no consistent theory can
describe light moving at the same speed in all inertial frames.
Hey idiot....you said: "the track-fixed observer moving toward the
light-front. Either way, light from the rear strike must pass
the track-fixed observer before it can reach the train-riding
observer". This assertion means that the speed of light in the track
frame is not isotropic. Isotropy means that the observer is NOT moving
wrt the light fronts.
No, that's not what isotropic means. I looked it up.
SR is consistent. Seto-theory, not so much.
Hey idiot what did it say when you look it up?
Same thing various sources would say if you Googled them.
Post by kenseto
If the observer is
moving wrt the light fronts generated from equal distance from the
observer how can the light front be arrive simultaneously and
isotropically to the observer.
I don't really follow the question there, but here's how it
works according to SR:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

Unlike Seto theory, SR comes out consistent. It does have to
abandon the notion of universal time.
--
--Bryan
kenseto
2008-06-17 14:41:21 UTC
Post by bz
Post by Spaceman
Then you better flush Relativity too,
It says light-speed is constant,
No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both
_measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That
does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as simultaneous.
Yes it does. At the time the strikes occur simultaneously both the
terain observer and the track observer are at equal distance from the
strikes. The strikes must arrive to both observers simultaneously to
maintian the isotropy of the speed of light in both frames. The train
observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous at a later time because
the light path length in the train frame is longer.
Post by bz
As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must pass
the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer. As Bryan
correctly points out, the light from the front strike must pass the moving
observer before it can reach the stationary observer. This forces a 'non
simultaneous' judgement on the moving observer while the track side
observer sees the strikes as simultaneous.
If the strikes are 'simultaneous' in the track frame, taking place as the
observers pass, then the moving observer must see the strike on the engine
before he sees the strike on the rear of the train.
This conclusion is based on the erroneous model for the propagation of
light from the track observer's point of view. The train observer must
reach his own conclusion whether the strikes are simultaneous.

Ken Seto
bz
2008-06-17 12:05:31 UTC
Post by Spaceman
Then you better flush Relativity too,
It says light-speed is constant,
No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both
_measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That
does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as simultaneous.

As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must pass
the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer. As Bryan
correctly points out, the light from the front strike must pass the moving
observer before it can reach the stationary observer. This forces a 'non
simultaneous' judgement on the moving observer while the track side
observer sees the strikes as simultaneous.

If the strikes are 'simultaneous' in the track frame, taking place as the
observers pass, then the moving observer must see the strike on the engine
before he sees the strike on the rear of the train.

There IS one way that both observers could see the flashes at the same
time. If the train carried it's own lightning machine that, in the trains
frame, fired a flash at the front and rear of the train at the right time
for the flashes to appear "simultaneously" just as the train passed the
track side observer, both observers would see the flashes as simultaneous.

To do this, at some point _before_ the observers pass, a signal must be
triggered that will fire the flashes at right time so that the flashes
arrive at 'the observers coincide' point at the exact instant that the
observers are next to each other.

In other words, the trigger to the flashes must give the signal time to
travel from one end of the train to the other end. In other words a signal
must travel from center of train, half the length of the train, to each
end, and then the flash must travel half the length of the train. In this
case, the observers will see the flashes as simultaneous because the
observers are in the same place when the flashes arrive. They won't agree,
however, on _when_ the flashes were triggered.

Did you ever understand that the earth's axial tilt makes the seasons?
--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+***@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
kenseto
2008-06-17 14:03:57 UTC
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by kenseto
No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation
says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the
ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is
the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast.
Ken Seto
...........................................................................Â­Â­...........................
...........................................................................Â­Â­...........................
Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train
experiement)?
1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train
frame.
2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at
time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train.
3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur
The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma
Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously
at time 0.5L*gamma/c.
Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed
observer before reaching the train-rinding observer.
Sure that's why the light fronts takes a longer time of 0.5L*gamma/c
seconds to reach the train observer simultaneously.
Post by Bryan Olson
Light from
the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer
before reaching the track-fixed observer.
No...this naive assertion is wrong. The speed of light is isotropic in
the train. That means that the light fronts must arrive at the train
observer simultaneously to maintain the isotropy of the speed of light
in the train.
Post by Bryan Olson
Ken Seto's theory has
light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which
doesn't work. Theory flushed.

Ken Seto
Bryan Olson
2008-06-17 21:19:37 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train
frame.
2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at
time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train.
3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur
The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma
Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously
at time 0.5L*gamma/c.
Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed
observer before reaching the train-rinding observer.
Sure that's why the light fronts takes a longer time of 0.5L*gamma/c
seconds to reach the train observer simultaneously.
Post by Bryan Olson
Light from
the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer
before reaching the track-fixed observer.
No...this naive assertion is wrong.
What could be going on in your head? Between the times when
the light starts from the front of the train to the time it
reaches the track-fixed observer, the train riding observer
is between the two locations. How does the light get from
one place to another without passing a point in between?
Post by kenseto
The speed of light is isotropic in
the train. That means that the light fronts must arrive at the train
observer simultaneously to maintain the isotropy of the speed of light
in the train.
While the paths of the observers the arrivals of the lights
from the front and rear cannot be simultaneous for both
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Ken Seto's theory has
light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which
doesn't work. Theory flushed.
Same thing, over and over. They say they've found some refutation
of relativity, then show that they'd get a big red X in sophomore
physics.
--
--Bryan
kenseto
2008-06-17 23:52:48 UTC
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train
frame.
2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at
time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train.
3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur
The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma
Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously
at time 0.5L*gamma/c.
Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed
observer before reaching the train-rinding observer.
Sure that's why the light fronts takes a longer time of 0.5L*gamma/c
seconds to reach the train observer simultaneously.
Post by Bryan Olson
Light from
the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer
before reaching the track-fixed observer.
No...this naive assertion is wrong.
What could be going on in your head? Between the times when
the light starts from the front of the train to the time it
reaches the track-fixed observer, the train riding observer
is between the two locations. How does the light get from
one place to another without passing a point in between?
Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light
spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations. For
the track observer the spheres meet simultaneously at time 0.5L/c. For
the train observer the light spheres meet at a later time of
0.5L*gamma/c.
Your naive concept how light propagate is laughable.
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
The speed of light is isotropic in
the train. That means that the light fronts must arrive at the train
observer simultaneously to maintain the isotropy of the speed of light
in the train.
While the paths of the observers the arrivals of the lights
from the front and rear cannot be simultaneous for both
No ....light does not propagate as you described above. It appears
that it is your naive understanding of physics is the problem. What
you said violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train or
the track. What you said is based on the erroneous assumption that the
strikes have only one light path length and that the train observer is
moving wrt these light fronts. <shrug>

Ken Seto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Ken Seto's theory has
light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which
doesn't work. Theory flushed.
Same thing, over and over. They say they've found some refutation
of relativity, then show that they'd get a big red X in sophomore
physics.
p***@gmail.com
2008-06-18 00:12:13 UTC
Post by kenseto
Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light
spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations. For
the track observer the spheres meet simultaneously at time 0.5L/c. For
the train observer the light spheres meet at a later time of
0.5L*gamma/c.
Your naive concept how light propagate is laughable.
Post by Bryan Olson
While the paths of the observers the arrivals of the lights
from the front and rear cannot be simultaneous for both
No ....light does not propagate as you described above. It appears
that it is your naive understanding of physics is the problem. What
you said violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train or
the track. What you said is based on the erroneous assumption that the
strikes have only one light path length and that the train observer is
moving wrt these light fronts. <shrug>
Ken Seto
Says the clown that does not know any mathematics or physics, or
English by the way.

What in the world means "the lightning strikes occur as a light
sphere"? Can you make even a diagram of what that mean? Are you
suggesting that the back strike is like a big balloon that finds the
train observer in a point where the front strike is now a smaller
balloon?
According to your funny and ridiculous IRT those light strokes suffer
from Doppler shift or not?
Can you explain what in the world is for you the meaning of "violates
the isotropy of the speed of light"?

Miguel Rios
k***@erinet.com
2008-06-18 13:00:38 UTC
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by kenseto
Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light
spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations. For
the track observer the spheres meet simultaneously at time 0.5L/c. For
the train observer the light spheres meet at a later time of
0.5L*gamma/c.
Your naive concept how light propagate is laughable.
Post by Bryan Olson
While the paths of the observers the arrivals of the lights
from the front and rear cannot be simultaneous for both
No ....light does not propagate as you described above. It appears
that it is your naive understanding of physics is the problem. What
you said violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train or
the track. What you said is based on the erroneous assumption that the
strikes have only one light path length and that the train observer is
moving wrt these light fronts. <shrug>
Ken Seto
Says the clown that does not know any mathematics or physics, or
English by the way.
What in the world means "the lightning strikes occur as a light
sphere"? Can you make even a diagram of what that mean? Are you
suggesting that the back strike is like a big balloon that finds the
train observer in a point where the front strike is now a smaller
balloon?
Are you too stupid to understand that each strike is an expanding
light sphere at a speed of c?
Post by p***@gmail.com
According to your funny and ridiculous IRT those light strokes suffer
from Doppler shift or not?
Not according to the observer in the track or the train. Why? Because
the speed of light in both frames are isotropic.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Can you explain what in the world is for you the meaning of "violates
the isotropy of the speed of light"?
Einstein said that the train observer is rushing toward the light
front from the front of the train and receding away from the light
front from the rear. This statement destroys the isotropy of the speed
of light in the train. What this mean is that the SR postulates said
that the speed of light in the train is isotropic......in order to
derive the concept of relativity of simultaneity he put in new
conditions that destroy the isotropy of the isotropy of the speed of
light in the train.

Ken Seto
p***@gmail.com
2008-06-18 13:58:29 UTC
Post by k***@erinet.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Says the clown that does not know any mathematics or physics, or
English by the way.
What in the world means "the lightning strikes occur as a light
sphere"? Can you make even a diagram of what that mean? Are you
suggesting that the back strike is like a big balloon that finds the
train observer in a point where the front strike is now a smaller
balloon?
Are you too stupid to understand that each strike is an expanding
light sphere at a speed of c?
No, I'm clever enough to understand that a lightning strike is an
event happening at a very precise location and, for sure, it is not
"an expanding light sphere" as your stupid assertion says.
What you should say is that the light, carrying the information of the
strike, propagates in a spherical form away from the location of the
strike.
Post by k***@erinet.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
According to your funny and ridiculous IRT those light strokes suffer
from Doppler shift or not?
Not according to the observer in the track or the train. Why? Because
the speed of light in both frames are isotropic.
So it does not matters a bit both observers are moving one with
respect the other at relativistic speed?
Post by k***@erinet.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Can you explain what in the world is for you the meaning of "violates
the isotropy of the speed of light"?
Einstein said that the train observer is rushing toward the light
front from the front of the train and receding away from the light
front from the rear. This statement destroys the isotropy of the speed
of light in the train. What this mean is that the SR postulates said
that the speed of light in the train is isotropic......in order to
derive the concept of relativity of simultaneity he put in new
conditions that destroy the isotropy of the isotropy of the speed of
light in the train.
Ken Seto
So what is the meaning for you of "speed of light in the train is
isotropic"?
Also, what is the meaning for you of "destroy the isotropy of the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train"?
It appears that you do not know the meaning of the words "isotropy",
"isotropic", or "anisotropy", etc.

Miguel Rios
Spaceman
2008-06-18 14:20:56 UTC
Post by p***@gmail.com
No, I'm clever enough to understand that a lightning strike is an
event happening at a very precise location and, for sure, it is not
"an expanding light sphere" as your stupid assertion says.
As the lightning hits the target spot, a sphere "grows" around
it at the speed of light...
this "expanding light sphere" he is talking about is the wave front of the
lightsource.
Sheesh people.
WAKE UP!
Post by p***@gmail.com
What you should say is that the light, carrying the information of the
strike, propagates in a spherical form away from the location of the
strike.
he said it fine,
You said it your silly rubber ruler way.
What the hell is the problem?
If you knew what it meant, why bother making him say it "yourway"
if both are the same things.
Are you trolling for sci.phyics.relativity?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
p***@gmail.com
2008-06-18 14:34:51 UTC
Post by Spaceman
Post by p***@gmail.com
No, I'm clever enough to understand that a lightning strike is an
event happening at a very precise location and, for sure, it is not
"an expanding light sphere" as your stupid assertion says.
As the lightning hits the target spot, a sphere "grows" around
it at the speed of light...
this "expanding light sphere" he is talking about is the wave front of the
lightsource.
Sheesh people.
WAKE UP!
Post by p***@gmail.com
What you should say is that the light, carrying the information of the
strike, propagates in a spherical form away from the location of the
strike.
he said it fine,
You said it your silly rubber ruler way.
What the hell is the problem?
If you knew what it meant, why bother making him say it "yourway"
if both are the same things.
Are you trolling for sci.phyics.relativity?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
What's up...Are you the alter ego of Clown Seto?
So all the responses to his "theories" are to be delivered to you?
Another stupid clown perhaps?

Miguel Rios
Spaceman
2008-06-18 14:39:05 UTC
Post by p***@gmail.com
What's up...Are you the alter ego of Clown Seto?
So all the responses to his "theories" are to be delivered to you?
Another stupid clown perhaps?
No, I am part of the audience that is laughing at the
relativity clowns that are smacking each other over the head
with rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks and saying
"curvature of space-time" and thinking it means anything in
reality.
LOL
You are a funny clown, but others are way more funny than
you..
You will need to step up your act.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
p***@gmail.com
2008-06-18 14:48:31 UTC
Post by Spaceman
Post by p***@gmail.com
What's up...Are you the alter ego of Clown Seto?
So all the responses to his "theories" are to be delivered to you?
Another stupid clown perhaps?
No, I am part of the audience that is laughing at the
relativity clowns that are smacking each other over the head
with rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks and saying
"curvature of space-time" and thinking it means anything in
reality.
LOL
You are a funny clown, but others are way more funny than
you..
You will need to step up your act.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Yeah I was right...you are a clown...
At least Seto has a theory...you are only vapor and with a bad
smelling.

Miguel Rios
Spaceman
2008-06-18 14:48:23 UTC
Post by p***@gmail.com
Yeah I was right...you are a clown...
At least Seto has a theory...you are only vapor and with a bad
smelling.
LOL
Hit yourself over the head again with that rubber ruler!
That is so funny!
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Bryan Olson
2008-06-18 00:35:53 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Light from
the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer
before reaching the track-fixed observer.
No...this naive assertion is wrong.
What could be going on in your head? Between the times when
the light starts from the front of the train to the time it
reaches the track-fixed observer, the train riding observer
is between the two locations. How does the light get from
one place to another without passing a point in between?
Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light
spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations.
In the train-and-embankment thought experiment, the y and z
axises are uninteresting.
--
--Bryan
kenseto
2008-06-18 02:36:19 UTC
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
Light from
the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer
before reaching the track-fixed observer.
No...this naive assertion is wrong.
What could be going on in your head? Between the times when
the light starts from the front of the train to the time it
reaches the track-fixed observer, the train riding observer
is between the two locations. How does the light get from
one place to another without passing a point in between?
Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light
spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations.
In the train-and-embankment thought experiment, the y and z
axises are uninteresting.
The each lightning strike is not a single light ray as depicted by the
gedanken.
p***@gmail.com
2008-06-18 12:07:57 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by Bryan Olson
In the train-and-embankment thought experiment, the y and z
axises are uninteresting.
The each lightning strike is not a single light ray as depicted by the
gedanken.
Wow...that is a good example of a clever thought.
Miguel Rios
Spirit of Truth
2008-06-19 06:58:43 UTC
Post by kenseto
No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation
says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the
ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is
the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast.
Ken Seto
...........................................................................Â­...........................
...........................................................................Â­...........................
Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train
experiement)?
Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows:
1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train
frame.
2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at
time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train.
3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur
simultaneously in the train as follows:
The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma
Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously
at time 0.5L*gamma/c.

Ken Seto

................................................................................................
................................................................................................

Ken, I am going to review/study all the links you gave us,
meanwhile Q's....

You still use the gamma for the length calculation, can you
explain in a simply way why?

For comparison in one example I worked with in SR
(I think it was from here:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html)
the gap closure of a set length had an 8 speed rate
in the reverse to direction of travel compared to a
2 speed rate in the direction of travel to close the
gap, while the transverse had a 4 speed rate. (These
numbers then predicted the gamma length contraction).
So can you explain why in your IRT, the time (or is
it length?) each way in the frame where you use
gamma is the same both ways?

Thanks!

Spirit
kenseto
2008-06-19 13:12:08 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by kenseto
No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation
says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the
ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is
the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks
moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast.
Ken Seto
...........................................................................Â­Â­...........................
...........................................................................Â­Â­...........................
Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train
experiement)?
1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train
frame.
2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at
time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train.
3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur
The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma
Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously
at time 0.5L*gamma/c.
Ken Seto
...........................................................................Â­.....................
...........................................................................Â­.....................
Ken, I am going to review/study all the links you gave us,
meanwhile Q's....
You still use the gamma for the length calculation, can you
explain in a simply way why?
In IRT the following Doppler factors are used in place of gamma or 1/
gamma:
Fab/Faa = 1/gamma
Faa/Fab = gamma
Where Faa= the measured frequency of a standard light source in
observer A's frame as measured by A.
Fab = the measured frequency of an identical standard light source in
B's frame as measured by A. If Fab is not constant the mean value is
used.
Post by kenseto
For comparison in one example I worked with in SR
(I think it was from here:http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html)
the gap closure of a set length had an 8 speed rate
in the reverse to direction of travel compared to a
2 speed rate Â in the direction of travel to close the
gap, while the transverse had a 4 speed rate. (These
numbers then predicted the gamma length contraction).
So can you explain why in your IRT, the time (or is
it length?) each Â way in the frame where you use
gamma is the same both ways?
In IRT the M&M experiment is explained as follows:
The speed of light in the same gravitational potential (in the
horizontal plane on earth) is isotropic. Therefore no fringe shift is
predicted or observed.

Ken Seto
jem
2008-06-16 13:01:47 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME.
What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second
represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that
a clock second is a universal interval of time.
By "standard clock" do you mean the observer's clock?
The standard equations of SR (e.g., the Lorentz Transformation)
presume that all observers use standard clocks.
Post by kenseto
In that case how
is it become a standard since every observer can claim that his clock
is the standard clock
*Every* clock that meets the standard is a standard clock.
Post by kenseto
and at the same time the flow of clock seconds
through every observer's clock is at different rates.
So what? Standard clocks need only meet the standard.
Post by kenseto
Also what do you mean a clock second is a universal interval of time?
It means that, in SR, every clock second (i.e. the measurement of a
second on a clock) represents an amount of time equal to a second.

Contrast that with LET, where a clock second only represents a second
of time when measured by clocks at rest in the stationary ether (i.e.,
in LET, a clock second is NOT a universal interval of time).
Post by kenseto
Do you mean that the passage of a clock second in A's frame
corresponds to the passage of a clock second in B's frame??
Did you mean to ask - if the interval between two events is one clock
second on A's clock, is it necessarily one clock second on B's clock?

If so, the answer is no (in SR).
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
This, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch
to characterize it as "time is flexible".
If a clock second is an interval of universal time
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Post by kenseto
then time must be
flexible (the passage of clock seconds) in order for two clocks in
relative motion to accumulate different clock seconds.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock.
And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in
motion relative to A).
Post by kenseto
This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time
is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above,
certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a
universal interval of time - in fact they require it.
You definition that a clock second is a universal interval of time
needs to be defined more clearly.
It's not a definition - it's a characterization.
Post by kenseto
Do you mean that a clock second will
have the same duration in all frames?
Did you mean to ask - does a clock second represent the same amount of
time on all standard clocks regardless of the motion of those clocks?

If so, the answer is yes (in SR).
Post by kenseto
In other words the time
(duration) required to complete a transition by the Cs atom is the
same in all frames?
Sure doesn't look like the last question "in other words". The last
question seemed to be asking whether (standard) clock seconds always
represent the same amount of time, snd the answer is simply a matter
of definition. This question, OTOH, seems to be asking whether
(standard) clock seconds always coincide with N periods of the
radiation resulting from a particular atomic transition, and the
answer would need to be ascertained empirically.
Post by kenseto
If that is what you mean then I disagree.
:) There's hardly a better confirmation of something's correctness
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/
interpretation. In fact, it's the LET interpretation.
No its not the LET interpretation.
Yes, Seto, it is.
Post by kenseto
The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether.
Nonsense. Two clocks in relative motion obviously can't both be at
rest in LET's stationary ether.

[snip Setoland fantasy]
Spaceman
2008-06-16 13:59:32 UTC
Post by jem
*Every* clock that meets the standard is a standard clock.
Every clock can not be "standard" at the same time,
Only one clock can be a standard.
Just because it is built the same, does not mean it
will also be a standard clock once it moves compared the
the ONE standard clock at all.
If they were truly all keeping "standard" time, they would all
have them same time on them even when brought back together.
The clocks therefore are not all keeping "standard" time.
Post by jem
So what? Standard clocks need only meet the standard.
Not true,
That is not a standard.
That is a factory spec, not a "standard of measurement".
Post by jem
It means that, in SR, every clock second (i.e. the measurement of a
second on a clock) represents an amount of time equal to a second.
And that is where SR goes off in time travel land.
The clocks are not all equal seconds.
Just because it ticks the same amount of times, does not mean
it made those ticks for the same amount of a second.
And proof they goofed up doing such is when they are brought back
together and have different times on them.
Post by jem
Contrast that with LET, where a clock second only represents a second
of time when measured by clocks at rest in the stationary ether (i.e.,
in LET, a clock second is NOT a universal interval of time).
That is close to the scientific definition of "time".
Of course, no aether is needed and the one clock must be
kept in one place that all conditions surrounding it do not change.
One single standard clock, not many that are all different.
That would be a standard clock.
and no other clock could be that standard if moving wrt that standard.
Shesh!
Spirit of Truth
2008-06-17 06:49:37 UTC
No, Jem, Ken's stuff IS different from LET and SR.

Look, you are good at math and physics, please study the following
to see what he is actually saying and let us know what you find is

http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Cosmology.pdf

In the second one he specifically lays out the idea in
the section under 'Proposed Experiments To Detect
Absolute Motions' where he discusses the light clock experiment
that the first and subsequent correct interpretation
of the travelling light particles is that the light travels vertically
NOT on the horizontal. You may recall I questioned you a
long time ago on why one would have to consider
it on a hozizontal path as if affected by the moving system
when the moving system does not affect the the horizontal
light path at all.

Thanks!

Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
2008-06-17 06:55:32 UTC
Corrected, should have said hypotenuse...
No, Jem, Ken's stuff IS different from LET and SR.

Look, you are good at math and physics, please study the following
to see what he is actually saying and let us know what you find is

http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Cosmology.pdf

In the second one he specifically lays out the idea in
the section under 'Proposed Experiments To Detect
Absolute Motions' where he discusses the light clock experiment
that the first and subsequent correct interpretation
of the travelling light particles is that the light travels vertically
NOT on the hypotenuse.You may recall I questioned you a
long time ago on why one would have to consider
it on a hozizontal path as if affected by the moving system
when the moving system does not affect the the horizontal
light path at all.

Thanks!

Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
2008-06-17 06:58:25 UTC
Again I missed a hypotenuse
Corrected 2nd time, should have said hypotenuse...
No, Jem, Ken's stuff IS different from LET and SR.

Look, you are good at math and physics, please study the following
to see what he is actually saying and let us know what you find is

http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Cosmology.pdf

In the second one he specifically lays out the idea in
the section under 'Proposed Experiments To Detect
Absolute Motions' where he discusses the light clock experiment
that the first and subsequent correct interpretation
of the travelling light particles is that the light travels vertically
NOT on the hypotenuse.You may recall I questioned you a
long time ago on why one would have to consider
it on a hypotenuse path as if affected by the moving system
when the moving system does not affect the the horizontal
light path at all.

Thanks!

Spirit of Truth
jem
2008-06-17 13:14:49 UTC
Post by Spirit of Truth
Again I missed a hypotenuse
Corrected 2nd time, should have said hypotenuse...
No, Jem, Ken's stuff IS different from LET and SR.
Look, you are good at math and physics, please study the following
to see what he is actually saying and let us know what you find is
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Cosmology.pdf
Seto lives in a fantasy world, Spirit, and that's the world his
"theory" describes. Take a look down Main Street in Setoland:

Post by Spirit of Truth
In the second one he specifically lays out the idea in
the section under 'Proposed Experiments To Detect
Absolute Motions' where he discusses the light clock experiment
that the first and subsequent correct interpretation
of the travelling light particles is that the light travels vertically
NOT on the hypotenuse.You may recall I questioned you a
long time ago on why one would have to consider
it on a hypotenuse path as if affected by the moving system
when the moving system does not affect the the horizontal
light path at all.
I recall. The focussed light in the light clock travels along the
hypotenuse, Spirit, because if it didn't, the light clock wouldn't be
a /functioning/ light clock (i.e. the light wouldn't be reflecting
back and forth between two specific points on its two mirrors).

Picture a child bouncing a ball in the aisle of a uniformly moving
train. What's the path of the ball as described by someone watching
the train pass by?

OTOH, perhaps you're thinking about what happens when a vertically
oriented light clock gets /accelerated/ horizontally. That's a
different situation, and if the acceleration were sufficiently large,
the light clock would break (i.e. the light from the lower mirror
would miss the upper mirror entirely).
Post by Spirit of Truth
Thanks!
You're welcome.
Sue...
2008-06-17 13:51:32 UTC
On Jun 17, 9:14 am, jem <***@xxx.xxx> wrote:
[...]
Post by jem
I recall. The focussed light in the light clock travels along the
hypotenuse,
No... It explores all paths.

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

Sue...
[...]
Spirit of Truth
2008-06-20 07:10:56 UTC
Post by Sue...
[...]
Post by jem
I recall. The focussed light in the light clock travels along the
hypotenuse,
No... It explores all paths.
Yes, that statement of yours is what came to mind when I read
that text of his!

So an infinity of calculations and the vertical one would make
no time dilation!

:)

Spirit
Post by Sue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
Sue...
[...]
Sue...
2008-06-20 09:50:27 UTC
Post by Spirit of Truth
Post by Sue...
[...]
Post by jem
I recall. The focussed light in the light clock travels along the
hypotenuse,
No... It explores all paths.
Yes, that statement of yours is what came to mind when I read
that text of his!
So an infinity of calculations and the vertical one would make
no time dilation!
An infinity of calculation puts back the field expressions
required to adaquately describe light propagation.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html

It fairly well puts to rest that sort of abuse of the
particle light model.

That is not to say there is anything wrong with moving
media interferometers or the Lorenz gauge where the
sum of all paths CAN agree with a line.

"Time dilation" and "ether" have many interpretation so
you have to be more specific in saying what is eliminated.

Feynman touches on this in his Noble Lecture
but it is a bit rambling. For somthing with
rigour, compare Jackson's description of the
Coulomb and Lorenz gauge.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment

Sue...
Post by Spirit of Truth
:)
Spirit
Post by Sue...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
Sue...
[...]
Spirit of Truth
2008-06-20 07:08:36 UTC
Post by Spirit of Truth
Again I missed a hypotenuse
Corrected 2nd time, should have said hypotenuse...
No, Jem, Ken's stuff IS different from LET and SR.
Look, you are good at math and physics, please study the following
to see what he is actually saying and let us know what you find is
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Cosmology.pdf
Seto lives in a fantasy world, Spirit, and that's the world his "theory"
Post by Spirit of Truth
In the second one he specifically lays out the idea in
the section under 'Proposed Experiments To Detect
Absolute Motions' where he discusses the light clock experiment
that the first and subsequent correct interpretation
of the travelling light particles is that the light travels vertically
NOT on the hypotenuse.You may recall I questioned you a
long time ago on why one would have to consider
it on a hypotenuse path as if affected by the moving system
when the moving system does not affect the the horizontal
light path at all.
I recall. The focussed light in the light clock travels along the
hypotenuse, Spirit, because if it didn't, the light clock wouldn't be a
/functioning/ light clock (i.e. the light wouldn't be reflecting back and
forth between two specific points on its two mirrors).
Picture a child bouncing a ball in the aisle of a uniformly moving train.
What's the path of the ball as described by someone watching the train
pass by?
OTOH, perhaps you're thinking about what happens when a vertically
oriented light clock gets /accelerated/ horizontally. That's a different
situation, and if the acceleration were sufficiently large, the light
clock would break (i.e. the light from the lower mirror would miss the
upper mirror entirely).
Post by Spirit of Truth
Thanks!
You're welcome.
Thanks, Jem, I'll study the link above.

Re accelerated situation, yes that's what I eventually followed
back then. But, when I read Ken's notes I recalled what Sue
wrote back then ''It explores all paths" which at the time
satisfied the hypotenuse situation for me but upon reflection,
on the 16th the other day, I realized one could thus have
an infinity of calcualtions...including a vertical path...that
one would make no time dilation!

:)

Spirit
jem
2008-06-20 13:14:41 UTC
Post by Spirit of Truth
Post by Spirit of Truth
Again I missed a hypotenuse
Corrected 2nd time, should have said hypotenuse...
No, Jem, Ken's stuff IS different from LET and SR.
Look, you are good at math and physics, please study the following
to see what he is actually saying and let us know what you find is
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Cosmology.pdf
Seto lives in a fantasy world, Spirit, and that's the world his "theory"
Post by Spirit of Truth
In the second one he specifically lays out the idea in
the section under 'Proposed Experiments To Detect
Absolute Motions' where he discusses the light clock experiment
that the first and subsequent correct interpretation
of the travelling light particles is that the light travels vertically
NOT on the hypotenuse.You may recall I questioned you a
long time ago on why one would have to consider
it on a hypotenuse path as if affected by the moving system
when the moving system does not affect the the horizontal
light path at all.
I recall. The focussed light in the light clock travels along the
hypotenuse, Spirit, because if it didn't, the light clock wouldn't be a
/functioning/ light clock (i.e. the light wouldn't be reflecting back and
forth between two specific points on its two mirrors).
Picture a child bouncing a ball in the aisle of a uniformly moving train.
What's the path of the ball as described by someone watching the train
pass by?
OTOH, perhaps you're thinking about what happens when a vertically
oriented light clock gets /accelerated/ horizontally. That's a different
situation, and if the acceleration were sufficiently large, the light
clock would break (i.e. the light from the lower mirror would miss the
upper mirror entirely).
Post by Spirit of Truth
Thanks!
You're welcome.
Thanks, Jem, I'll study the link above.
Re accelerated situation, yes that's what I eventually followed
back then. But, when I read Ken's notes I recalled what Sue
wrote back then ''It explores all paths" which at the time
satisfied the hypotenuse situation for me but upon reflection,
on the 16th the other day, I realized one could thus have
an infinity of calcualtions...including a vertical path...that
one would make no time dilation!
:)
Spirit
That little quantum theory sound bite is a red herring when it comes
to resolving your dilemma, Spirit, since the only paths of interest in
a light clock are between the clock's two mirrors.

kenseto
2008-06-17 13:55:01 UTC
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. Â This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME.
What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second
represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that
a clock second is a universal interval of time.
By "standard clock" do you mean the observer's clock?
The standard equations of SR (e.g., the Lorentz Transformation)
presume that all observers use standard clocks.
Then there is no such thing as a standard clock. Why? Because
different observers' clock seconds have different duration....this is
because a transition of the Cs atom in different frame will take
different duration to complete.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
In that case how
is it become a standard since every observer can claim that his clock
is the standard clock
*Every* clock that meets the standard is a standard clock.
What defines the standard....since a clock second does not have the
same duration in different frames.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
and at the same time the flow of clock seconds
through every observer's clock is at different rates.
So what? Â Standard clocks need only meet the standard.
What standard? Do you mean the definition of a clock second? Do you
realize that a definition is not a standard? The reason is that a
difinition is depended on physical processes and physical processes
(such as the passage of a clock second) do not have the same duration
in different frames.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Also what do you mean a clock second is a universal interval of time?
It means that, in SR, every clock second (i.e. the measurement of a
second on a clock) represents an amount of time equal to a second.
You are talking in circle. What you are saying is that a second is
equal to a second in all frames. This contradicts with the SR
assertion that the passage of a second in observer A's frame is equal
to the passage of less then a clock second in the observed B frame.
Post by jem
Contrast that with LET, where a clock second only represents a second
of time when measured by clocks at rest in the stationary ether (i.e.,
in LET, a clock second is NOT a universal interval of time).
In SR A clock seconbd is not an interval of universal time too.
If a clock second is a universal interval of time then the passage of
a clock second in A's frame should correspond to the passage of a
clock second in B's frame. It is not.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Do you mean that the passage of a clock second in A's frame
corresponds to the passage of a clock second in B's frame??
Did you mean to ask - if the interval between two events is one clock
second on A's clock, is it necessarily one clock second on B's clock?
If so, the answer is no (in SR).
Then you can't claim that a clock second is a universal interval of
time.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
This, in turn, Â leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch
to characterize it as "time is flexible".
If a clock second is an interval of universal time
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Can you explain the differences between these terms:
1. A clock second is a universal interval of time.
2. A clock second is an interval of universal time.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
then time must be
flexible (the passage of clock seconds) in order for two clocks in
relative motion to accumulate different clock seconds.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock.
And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in
motion relative to A).
Post by kenseto
This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time
is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above,
certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a
universal interval of time - in fact they require it.
You definition that a clock second is a universal interval of time
needs to be defined more clearly.
It's not a definition - it's a characterization.
What do you mean when you said that a clock second is a universal
interval of time? Do you mean that a clock second can be compared
directly between frames?
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Do you mean that a clock second will
have the same duration in all frames?
Did you mean to ask - does a clock second represent the same amount of
time on all standard clocks regardless of the motion of those clocks?
If so, the answer is yes (in SR).
Here you seem to be saying that a clock second is an interval of
universal time. Are you trying to have you cake and eat it too?
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
In other words the time
(duration) required to complete a transition by the Cs atom is the
same in all frames?
Sure doesn't look like the last question "in other words". Â The last
question seemed to be asking whether (standard) clock seconds always
represent the same amount of time, snd the answer is simply a matter
of definition.
What definition? A clock seocnd is defined as "....the duration (time)
corresponds to the 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition of the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom". My
question is: Does each period of the radiation takes the same duration
to complete in different frames?
Post by jem
Â This question, OTOH, seems to be asking whether
(standard) clock seconds always coincide with N periods of the
radiation resulting from a particular atomic transition, and the
answer would need to be ascertained empirically.
Its already been done. The GPS clock second is re-defined to have
4.15 periods of the radiation. That means that 9,192,631,774.15
periods of the radiation up at the GPS location will have the duration
of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation on the ground clock.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
If that is what you mean then I disagree.
:) There's hardly a better confirmation of something's correctness
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/
interpretation. Â In fact, it's the LET interpretation.
No its not the LET interpretation.
Yes, Seto, it is.
No it is not. A LET observ's clock is the fastest runining clock in
the universe. An IRT observer's clock can run fast or slow compared to
all the clocks in the universe.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether.
Nonsense. Â Two clocks in relative motion obviously can't both be at
rest in LET's stationary ether.
Sigh....the LET observer's clock is assumed to be at rest in the
ether. That's why it is the fastest running clock in the universe.

Ken Seto
jem
2008-06-18 13:08:48 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME.
What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second
represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that
a clock second is a universal interval of time.
By "standard clock" do you mean the observer's clock?
The standard equations of SR (e.g., the Lorentz Transformation)
presume that all observers use standard clocks.
Then there is no such thing as a standard clock. Why? Because
different observers' clock seconds have different duration....this is
because a transition of the Cs atom in different frame will take
different duration to complete.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
In that case how
is it become a standard since every observer can claim that his clock
is the standard clock
*Every* clock that meets the standard is a standard clock.
What defines the standard....
The same thing as the last time I defined it for you, Seto. Look it
up. Or hire a nursemaid to look it up for you.
Post by kenseto
since a clock second does not have the
same duration in different frames.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
and at the same time the flow of clock seconds
through every observer's clock is at different rates.
So what? Standard clocks need only meet the standard.
What standard?
Post by kenseto
Do you mean the definition of a clock second? Do you
realize that a definition is not a standard? The reason is that a
difinition is depended on physical processes and physical processes
(such as the passage of a clock second) do not have the same duration
in different frames.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Also what do you mean a clock second is a universal interval of time?
It means that, in SR, every clock second (i.e. the measurement of a
second on a clock) represents an amount of time equal to a second.
You are talking in circle.
A second as measured on a clock isn't necessarily a second of time,
and I provided a LET example to show you that the two can be
different. However, in SR, clock seconds and seconds of time are
*defined* to be the same, which means that, in SR, it's appropriate to
characterize a clock second (i.e. a specific number of ticks of a
standard clock) as a *universal* interval of time (since it represents
the same amount of time on *every* standard clock). You're not going
to get it this time either, Seto, but this is the last time I'm going
to explain it to you in this thread.
Post by kenseto
What you are saying is that a second is
equal to a second in all frames. This contradicts with the SR
assertion that the passage of a second in observer A's frame is equal
to the passage of less then a clock second in the observed B frame.
Post by jem
Contrast that with LET, where a clock second only represents a second
of time when measured by clocks at rest in the stationary ether (i.e.,
in LET, a clock second is NOT a universal interval of time).
In SR A clock seconbd is not an interval of universal time too.
If a clock second is a universal interval of time then the passage of
a clock second in A's frame should correspond to the passage of a
clock second in B's frame. It is not.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Do you mean that the passage of a clock second in A's frame
corresponds to the passage of a clock second in B's frame??
Did you mean to ask - if the interval between two events is one clock
second on A's clock, is it necessarily one clock second on B's clock?
If so, the answer is no (in SR).
Then you can't claim that a clock second is a universal interval of
time.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
This, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch
to characterize it as "time is flexible".
If a clock second is an interval of universal time
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
1. A clock second is a universal interval of time.
2. A clock second is an interval of universal time.
Re. 1. - it's been explained to you at least a half-dozen times.
Re. 2. - it's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
then time must be
flexible (the passage of clock seconds) in order for two clocks in
relative motion to accumulate different clock seconds.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock.
And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in
motion relative to A).
Post by kenseto
This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time
is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above,
certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a
universal interval of time - in fact they require it.
You definition that a clock second is a universal interval of time
needs to be defined more clearly.
It's not a definition - it's a characterization.
What do you mean when you said that a clock second is a universal
interval of time? Do you mean that a clock second can be compared
directly between frames?
It doesn't do any good to tell you what it means, Seto, since you
can't understand what you're told, nor even remember /that/ you've
been told, one paragraph later.
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Do you mean that a clock second will
have the same duration in all frames?
Did you mean to ask - does a clock second represent the same amount of
time on all standard clocks regardless of the motion of those clocks?
If so, the answer is yes (in SR).
Here you seem to be saying that a clock second is an interval of
universal time. Are you trying to have you cake and eat it too?
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
In other words the time
(duration) required to complete a transition by the Cs atom is the
same in all frames?
Sure doesn't look like the last question "in other words". The last
question seemed to be asking whether (standard) clock seconds always
represent the same amount of time, snd the answer is simply a matter
of definition.
What definition?
"Time is what a clock measures". That definition.

A clock seocnd is defined as "....the duration (time)
Post by kenseto
corresponds to the 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition of the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom".
No, Seto, that's not the definition of a "clock second". It's the
definition of a unit of time called a "second" (assuming you copied
the definition correctly). A "clock second" is the interval between
two specific events on a clock (e.g. tick and tock).
Post by kenseto
My
question is: Does each period of the radiation takes the same duration
to complete in different frames?
I rephrased your question so that it would have a unique answer and I
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
This question, OTOH, seems to be asking whether
(standard) clock seconds always coincide with N periods of the
radiation resulting from a particular atomic transition, and the
answer would need to be ascertained empirically.
Its already been done. The GPS clock second is re-defined to have
4.15 periods of the radiation. That means that 9,192,631,774.15
periods of the radiation up at the GPS location will have the duration
of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation on the ground clock.
No, Seto, an empirical test would require reproducing the standard in
different environments and comparing the results. In no way does GPS
do that.
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
If that is what you mean then I disagree.
:) There's hardly a better confirmation of something's correctness
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/
interpretation. In fact, it's the LET interpretation.
No its not the LET interpretation.
Yes, Seto, it is.
No it is not. A LET observ's clock is the fastest runining clock in
the universe.
You misunderstand LET, Seto, just as well as you misunderstand SR,

[snip Setoland fantasy]
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether.
Nonsense. Two clocks in relative motion obviously can't both be at
rest in LET's stationary ether.
Sigh....the LET observer's clock is assumed to be at rest in the
ether. That's why it is the fastest running clock in the universe.
Do you seriously believe that *both* of those relatively moving LET
observers have the "fastest running clock in the universe"?
Spaceman
2008-06-18 14:04:16 UTC
Post by jem
A second as measured on a clock isn't necessarily a second of time,
and I provided a LET example to show you that the two can be
different. However, in SR, clock seconds and seconds of time are
*defined* to be the same, which means that, in SR, it's appropriate to
characterize a clock second (i.e. a specific number of ticks of a
standard clock) as a *universal* interval of time (since it represents
the same amount of time on *every* standard clock). You're not going
to get it this time either, Seto, but this is the last time I'm going
to explain it to you in this thread.
The standard clocks of relativity are not standards at all.
They are malfunctioning clocks and are a stupid ass repeat
of the oldest clock problem known to mankind.
SHEESH!
Is MIT teaching this SR shit that all the clocks are standard clocks?
What kind of fools are teaching those classes.
Make them go back to middle school to learn how clocks work
and the problems with moving a clock.
MIT is a great school for all except physics I guess
if it is teaching the SR shit without teaching the clock malfunction
parts of the reality of it all.
Damn!
I used to love that school.
:)
Post by jem
"Time is what a clock measures". That definition.
The definition of time is defective then because.....
Clocks only measure a periodic counting rate of a mass
in motion.
And they do nothing more than that.

time = non variable periodic counting method.
(that is the proper scientific meaning of time.)
Post by jem
No, Seto, that's not the definition of a "clock second". It's the
definition of a unit of time called a "second" (assuming you copied
the definition correctly). A "clock second" is the interval between
two specific events on a clock (e.g. tick and tock).
And sadly, such an interval can change rate in clocks.
Some day, the smarter people will be lauging at how
stupid people were about clock malfunctions for the "second"(2nd)
time in history.
the clock malfunctioned silly human.
Time does not change rate, clocks do.
:P
Post by jem
No, Seto, an empirical test would require reproducing the standard in
different environments and comparing the results. In no way does GPS
do that.
What standard clock are you going to use?
The scientific standard (absolute time), or relativity standard
(clocks that screw up but are still called standard by morons)
Post by jem
Do you seriously believe that *both* of those relatively moving LET
observers have the "fastest running clock in the universe"?
According to SR, if 2 frames have a 0 relative speed,
then yes.
Both of them have the fastest clocks when compared to any other frames
that are not 0 speed wrt to them..
Sheesh!
Don't you believe that or do you not understand relativity enough to
see that?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Y.Porat
2008-06-18 15:13:49 UTC
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
.
Post by kenseto
Then there is no such thing as a standard clock. Why? Because
different observers' clock seconds have different duration....this is
because a transition of the Cs atom in different frame will take
different duration to complete.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
In that case how
is it become a standard since every observer can claim that his clock
is the standard clock
*Every* clock that meets the standard is a standard clock.
What defines the standard....
The same thing as the last time I defined it for you, Seto. Look it
up. Or hire a nursemaid to look it up for you.
Post by kenseto
since a clock second does not have the
same duration in different frames.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
and at the same time the flow of clock seconds
through every observer's clock is at different rates.
So what? Standard clocks need only meet the standard.
What standard?
Post by kenseto
Do you mean the definition of a clock second? Do you
realize that a definition is not a standard? The reason is that a
difinition is depended on physical processes and physical processes
(such as the passage of a clock second) do not have the same duration
in different frames.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Also what do you mean a clock second is a universal interval of time?
It means that, in SR, every clock second (i.e. the measurement of a
second on a clock) represents an amount of time equal to a second.
You are talking in circle.
A second as measured on a clock isn't necessarily a second of time,
and I provided a LET example to show you that the two can be
different. However, in SR, clock seconds and seconds of time are
*defined* to be the same, which means that, in SR, it's appropriate to
characterize a clock second (i.e. a specific number of ticks of a
standard clock) as a *universal* interval of time (since it represents
the same amount of time on *every* standard clock).
----------------
but you never get 'a standard clock ' in reality --that will be
exactly the same as the other 'standard clock' !!!
we discuss reality not theory !!
there is no universal time
time is just a motion comparison
to some chosen motion reference ---
not to two chosen references
and you can hardly if ever find (in practice )--
two motion references that will be** exactly the same **!!

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Post by jem
**---
kenseto
2008-06-18 15:29:09 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. Â This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME.
What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second
represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that
a clock second is a universal interval of time.
By "standard clock" do you mean the observer's clock?
The standard equations of SR (e.g., the Lorentz Transformation)
presume that all observers use standard clocks.
Then there is no such thing as a standard clock. Why? Because
different observers' clock seconds have different duration....this is
because a transition of the Cs atom in different frame will take
different duration to complete.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
In that case how
is it become a standard since every observer can claim that his clock
is the standard clock
*Every* clock that meets the standard is a standard clock.
What defines the standard....
The same thing as the last time I defined it for you, Seto. Â Look it
up. Â Or hire a nursemaid to look it up for you.
So you don't have a valid definition for a standard clock? Then why
did you keep on throwing this *standard clock* shit on me?
Post by kenseto
since a clock second does not have the
same duration in different frames.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
and at the same time the flow of clock seconds
through every observer's clock is at different rates.
So what? Â Standard clocks need only meet the standard.
What standard?
Post by kenseto
Do you mean the definition of a clock second? Do you
realize that a definition is not a standard? Â The reason is that a
difinition is depended on physical processes and physical processes
(such as the passage of a clock second) do not have the same Â duration
in different frames.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Also what do you mean a clock second is a universal interval of time?
It means that, in SR, every clock second (i.e. the measurement of a
second on a clock) represents an amount of time equal to a second.
You are talking in circle.
A second as measured on a clock isn't necessarily a second of time,
and I provided a LET example to show you that the two can be
different. Â
So according to you, in LET, a second of time is not the same as a
clock second? What LET example shows that?
However, in SR, clock seconds and seconds of time are
*defined* to be the same, which means that, in SR, it's appropriate to
characterize a clock second (i.e. a specific number of ticks of a
standard clock) as a *universal* interval of time (since it represents
the same amount of time on *every* standard clock). Â You're not going
to get it this time either, Seto, but this is the last time I'm going
to explain it to you in this thread.
That's the problem....you adopt the SR definition that time is what
the clock measures. This means that every clock is a perfect clock and
the passage of a clock second on every clock represents the same
amount of time (duration). This contradicts the other SR assertion
that the passage of a clock second in observer A's frame corresponds
to the passage of less than a clock second in the observed B clock.
Post by kenseto
What you are saying is that a second is
equal to a second in all frames. Â This contradicts with the SR
assertion that the passage of a second in observer A's frame is equal
to the passage of less then a clock second in the observed B frame.
Post by jem
Contrast that with LET, where a clock second only represents a second
of time when measured by clocks at rest in the stationary ether (i.e.,
in LET, a clock second is NOT a universal interval of time).
In SR A clock seconbd is not an interval of universal time too.
If a clock second is a universal interval of time then the passage of
a clock second in A's frame should correspond to the passage of a
clock second in B's frame. It is not.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Do you mean that the passage of a clock second in A's frame
corresponds to the passage of a clock second in B's frame??
Did you mean to ask - if the interval between two events is one clock
second on A's clock, is it necessarily one clock second on B's clock?
If so, the answer is no (in SR).
Then you can't claim that a clock second is a universal interval of
time.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
This, in turn, Â leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch
to characterize it as "time is flexible".
If a clock second is an interval of universal time
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
1. A clock second is a universal interval of time.
2. A clock second is an interval of universal time.
Re. 1. - it's been explained to you at least a half-dozen times.
Re. 2. - it's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
So you have no explanation for these two terms??
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
then time must be
flexible (the passage of clock seconds) in order for two clocks in
relative motion to accumulate different clock seconds.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock.
And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in
motion relative to A).
Post by kenseto
This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time
is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above,
certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a
universal interval of time - in fact they require it.
You definition that a clock second is a universal interval of time
needs to be defined more clearly.
It's not a definition - it's a characterization.
What do you mean when you said that a clock second is a universal
interval of time? Do you mean that a clock second can be compared
directly between frames?
It doesn't do any good to tell you what it means, Seto, since you
can't understand what you're told, nor even remember /that/ you've
been told, one paragraph later.
In order for a clock second to represent a universal interval of time
it is necessary that the passage of a clock second in observer A's
frame corresponds to the passage of a clcok second in the observed
clock B's frame. But SR says: the passage of a clock second in
observer A's clock does not correspond to the passage of a clock
second in B's clock. It seems that you are making contradictory
statements.
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Do you mean that a clock second will
have the same duration in all frames?
Did you mean to ask - does a clock second represent the same amount of
time on all standard clocks regardless of the motion of those clocks?
If so, the answer is yes (in SR).
Here you seem to be saying that a clock second is an interval of
universal time. Are you trying to have you cake and eat it too?
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Universal time: The passage of a clock second in A's frame correspond
to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. In the twin paradox
scenario the traveling twin's clock second is compared to the stay at
home clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling
twin is younger because he accumulated less clock seconds.
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
In other words the time
(duration) required to complete a transition by the Cs atom is the
same in all frames?
Sure doesn't look like the last question "in other words". Â The last
question seemed to be asking whether (standard) clock seconds always
represent the same amount of time, snd the answer is simply a matter
of definition.
What definition?
"Time is what a clock measures". Â That definition.
That definition implies that a clock second in different frames
contains the same amount of time (duration). This is shown to be false
emperically by the GPS clock. The GPS clock second is re-defined to
have 4.15 more periods of the radiation than the ground clock. This re-
definition is necessary so that both clock second contains the same
amount of universal time.
Â  A clock seocnd is defined as "....the duration (time)
Post by kenseto
corresponds to the 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition of the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom".
No, Seto, that's not the definition of a "clock second". Â It's the
definition of a unit of time called a "second" (assuming you copied
the definition correctly). Â A "clock second" is the interval between
two specific events on a clock (e.g. tick and tock).
It is the definition of a clock second. But lets play it your way. A
second of time is represented by the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods
of the radiation....if a second of time is an interval of universal
time that means that each period of the radiation will require the
same duration to complete. This is shown to be false emperically. Why?
because Doppler shift shows that the completion time for a period of
any radiation is sensitive to relative motion.
Post by kenseto
My
question is: Does each period of the radiation takes the same duration
to complete in different frames?
I rephrased your question so that it would have a unique answer and I
Why do you have to rephrased the question?
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Â This question, OTOH, seems to be asking whether
(standard) clock seconds always coincide with N periods of the
radiation resulting from a particular atomic transition, and the
answer would need to be ascertained empirically.
Its already been done. The GPS clock second is Â re-defined to have
4.15 periods of the radiation. That means that 9,192,631,774.15
periods of the radiation up at the GPS location will have the duration
of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation on the ground clock.
No, Seto, an empirical test would require reproducing the standard in
different environments and comparing the results. Â In no way does GPS
do that.
Are you saying that they didn't re-define the GPS clock second?
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
If that is what you mean then I disagree.
:) There's hardly a better confirmation of something's correctness
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/
interpretation. Â In fact, it's the LET interpretation.
No its not the LET interpretation.
Yes, Seto, it is.
No it is not. A LET observ's clock is the fastest runining clock in
the universe.
You misunderstand LET, Seto, just as well as you misunderstand SR,
No I didn't misunderstand LET or SR. Both theories' math show that the
observer's clock is the fastest running clock in the universe and the
observer's identical ruler is the longest ruler in the universe.
[snip Setoland fantasy]
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether.
Nonsense. Â Two clocks in relative motion obviously can't both be at
rest in LET's stationary ether.
Sigh....the LET observer's clock is assumed to be at rest in the
ether. That's why it is the fastest running clock in the universe.
Do you seriously believe that *both* of those relatively moving LET
observers have the "fastest running clock in the universe"?
No...what LET and SR say is that every SR and LET observer claims that
his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe and his ruler
is the longest ruler in the universe.

Ken Seto
jem
2008-06-19 13:07:36 UTC
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME.
What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second
represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that
a clock second is a universal interval of time.
By "standard clock" do you mean the observer's clock?
The standard equations of SR (e.g., the Lorentz Transformation)
presume that all observers use standard clocks.
Then there is no such thing as a standard clock. Why? Because
different observers' clock seconds have different duration....this is
because a transition of the Cs atom in different frame will take
different duration to complete.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
In that case how
is it become a standard since every observer can claim that his clock
is the standard clock
*Every* clock that meets the standard is a standard clock.
What defines the standard....
The same thing as the last time I defined it for you, Seto. Look it
up. Or hire a nursemaid to look it up for you.
So you don't have a valid definition for a standard clock? Then why
did you keep on throwing this *standard clock* shit on me?
Like I said, hire somebody to compensate for your senility.

Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
since a clock second does not have the
same duration in different frames.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
and at the same time the flow of clock seconds
through every observer's clock is at different rates.
So what? Standard clocks need only meet the standard.
What standard?
Post by kenseto
Do you mean the definition of a clock second? Do you
realize that a definition is not a standard? The reason is that a
difinition is depended on physical processes and physical processes
(such as the passage of a clock second) do not have the same duration
in different frames.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Also what do you mean a clock second is a universal interval of time?
It means that, in SR, every clock second (i.e. the measurement of a
second on a clock) represents an amount of time equal to a second.
You are talking in circle.
A second as measured on a clock isn't necessarily a second of time,
and I provided a LET example to show you that the two can be
different.
So according to you, in LET, a second of time is not the same as a
clock second? What LET example shows that?
Just LOOK, Seto. How helpless are you?
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
However, in SR, clock seconds and seconds of time are
*defined* to be the same, which means that, in SR, it's appropriate to
characterize a clock second (i.e. a specific number of ticks of a
standard clock) as a *universal* interval of time (since it represents
the same amount of time on *every* standard clock). You're not going
to get it this time either, Seto, but this is the last time I'm going
to explain it to you in this thread.
That's the problem....you adopt the SR definition that time is what
the clock measures. This means that every clock is a perfect clock and
the passage of a clock second on every clock represents the same
amount of time (duration).
Right, but they aren't /perfect/ clocks - they're /standard/ clocks.
Post by kenseto
This contradicts the other SR assertion
that the passage of a clock second in observer A's frame corresponds
to the passage of less than a clock second in the observed B clock.
No it doesn't contradict it. In SR, Seto, time isn't absolute - each
clock keeps its own time. The fact that one tick on clock A takes one
second on clock A, and one tick on clock B takes one second on clock
B, doesn't mean that one tick on clock A takes one second on clock B.
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
What you are saying is that a second is
equal to a second in all frames. This contradicts with the SR
assertion that the passage of a second in observer A's frame is equal
to the passage of less then a clock second in the observed B frame.
Post by jem
Contrast that with LET, where a clock second only represents a second
of time when measured by clocks at rest in the stationary ether (i.e.,
in LET, a clock second is NOT a universal interval of time).
In SR A clock seconbd is not an interval of universal time too.
If a clock second is a universal interval of time then the passage of
a clock second in A's frame should correspond to the passage of a
clock second in B's frame. It is not.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Do you mean that the passage of a clock second in A's frame
corresponds to the passage of a clock second in B's frame??
Did you mean to ask - if the interval between two events is one clock
second on A's clock, is it necessarily one clock second on B's clock?
If so, the answer is no (in SR).
Then you can't claim that a clock second is a universal interval of
time.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
This, in turn, leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch
to characterize it as "time is flexible".
If a clock second is an interval of universal time
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
1. A clock second is a universal interval of time.
2. A clock second is an interval of universal time.
Re. 1. - it's been explained to you at least a half-dozen times.
Re. 2. - it's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
So you have no explanation for these two terms??
Re. 1. - it's been explained to you at least a half-dozen times.
Re. 2. - it's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
then time must be
flexible (the passage of clock seconds) in order for two clocks in
relative motion to accumulate different clock seconds.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock.
And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in
motion relative to A).
Post by kenseto
This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time
is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above,
certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a
universal interval of time - in fact they require it.
You definition that a clock second is a universal interval of time
needs to be defined more clearly.
It's not a definition - it's a characterization.
What do you mean when you said that a clock second is a universal
interval of time? Do you mean that a clock second can be compared
directly between frames?
It doesn't do any good to tell you what it means, Seto, since you
can't understand what you're told, nor even remember /that/ you've
been told, one paragraph later.
In order for a clock second to represent a universal interval of time
it is necessary that the passage of a clock second in observer A's
frame corresponds to the passage of a clcok second in the observed
clock B's frame.
No it's not necessary. The expression "universal interval of time"
doesn't have a unique definition - the adjective "universal" has
simply been used to characterize an interval of time. It's been
explained to you repeatedly the sense in which SR's clock seconds can
be considered to be universal, and it has nothing whatsoever to do
with any relationships between stationary and non-stationary clocks.
Post by kenseto
But SR says: the passage of a clock second in
observer A's clock does not correspond to the passage of a clock
second in B's clock. It seems that you are making contradictory
statements.
It seems that you are mistaken.
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Do you mean that a clock second will
have the same duration in all frames?
Did you mean to ask - does a clock second represent the same amount of
time on all standard clocks regardless of the motion of those clocks?
If so, the answer is yes (in SR).
Here you seem to be saying that a clock second is an interval of
universal time. Are you trying to have you cake and eat it too?
It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Universal time: The passage of a clock second in A's frame correspond
to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. In the twin paradox
scenario the traveling twin's clock second is compared to the stay at
home clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling
twin is younger because he accumulated less clock seconds.
Nothing in that paragraph indicates what "universal time" is, not
coherently anyway.

How does "universal time" differ from "time"? How does "universal
time" differ from "absolute time"?
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
In other words the time
(duration) required to complete a transition by the Cs atom is the
same in all frames?
Sure doesn't look like the last question "in other words". The last
question seemed to be asking whether (standard) clock seconds always
represent the same amount of time, snd the answer is simply a matter
of definition.
What definition?
"Time is what a clock measures". That definition.
That definition implies that a clock second in different frames
contains the same amount of time (duration).
That definition implies that all clock seconds on standard clocks
contain the same amount of time.
Post by kenseto
This is shown to be false
emperically by the GPS clock. The GPS clock second is re-defined to
have 4.15 more periods of the radiation than the ground clock. This re-
definition is necessary so that both clock second contains the same
amount of universal time.
Nonsense. As I told you before, Seto, the GPS satellite clocks are
non-standard clocks. I have a computer clock that loses about 5
secs/day relative to the NIST clocks - do you think my computer clock
empirically falsifies the definition too? How about a pendulum clock
on roller coaster?
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
A clock seocnd is defined as "....the duration (time)
Post by kenseto
corresponds to the 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition of the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom".
No, Seto, that's not the definition of a "clock second". It's the
definition of a unit of time called a "second" (assuming you copied
the definition correctly). A "clock second" is the interval between
two specific events on a clock (e.g. tick and tock).
It is the definition of a clock second. But lets play it your way. A
second of time is represented by the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods
of the radiation....if a second of time is an interval of universal
time
It's still anybody's guess what you mean by "universal time".
Post by kenseto
that means that each period of the radiation will require the
same duration to complete. This is shown to be false emperically. Why?
because Doppler shift shows that the completion time for a period of
any radiation is sensitive to relative motion.
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
My
question is: Does each period of the radiation takes the same duration
to complete in different frames?
I rephrased your question so that it would have a unique answer and I
Why do you have to rephrased the question?
I told you why. Hint: look in the part of the sentence that comes
after the part where I told you that I rephrased it.
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
This question, OTOH, seems to be asking whether
(standard) clock seconds always coincide with N periods of the
radiation resulting from a particular atomic transition, and the
answer would need to be ascertained empirically.
Its already been done. The GPS clock second is re-defined to have
4.15 periods of the radiation. That means that 9,192,631,774.15
periods of the radiation up at the GPS location will have the duration
of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation on the ground clock.
No, Seto, an empirical test would require reproducing the standard in
different environments and comparing the results. In no way does GPS
do that.
Are you saying that they didn't re-define the GPS clock second?
I should qualify what I said about GPS not being an empirical test of
environmental effects on the production of a standard second (i.e. a
duration of N periods of radiation from a Cs atom).

If the clocks used in the GPS satellites have the same construction as
the clocks that reproduce the standard second on Earth (and they may),
then GPS /would/ provide a test of one particular environmental effect
(i.e. a small change in gravity).
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
If that is what you mean then I disagree.
:) There's hardly a better confirmation of something's correctness
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/
interpretation. In fact, it's the LET interpretation.
No its not the LET interpretation.
Yes, Seto, it is.
No it is not. A LET observ's clock is the fastest runining clock in
the universe.
You misunderstand LET, Seto, just as well as you misunderstand SR,
No I didn't misunderstand LET or SR. Both theories' math show that the
observer's clock is the fastest running clock in the universe and the
observer's identical ruler is the longest ruler in the universe.
See below.
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
[snip Setoland fantasy]
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by kenseto
The LET interpretation place the
observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether.
Nonsense. Two clocks in relative motion obviously can't both be at
rest in LET's stationary ether.
Sigh....the LET observer's clock is assumed to be at rest in the
ether. That's why it is the fastest running clock in the universe.
Do you seriously believe that *both* of those relatively moving LET
observers have the "fastest running clock in the universe"?
No...what LET and SR say is that every SR and LET observer claims that
his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe and his ruler
is the longest ruler in the universe.
Contrast that with what LET and SR really say.

In LET, standard clocks at rest in the stationary ether, run faster
(i.e. register more time per tick) than any standard clock that's
moving uniformly relative to the ether.

In SR, all standard clocks (Inertial or not) run at the same rate
(i.e. register the same amount of time per tick).

Here's the thing. Most of us have trouble with this subject because
it's so easy to become confused about how everything fits together.
You, OTOH, aren't the least bit confused. You've got the facts, and
the logical relationships between those facts, down cold. The problem
is that all but a handful of your facts are wrong, and your logic is
illogic. IMO, Seto, unless and until you can manage to become
m***@gmail.com
2008-06-16 04:07:20 UTC
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock
second is an interval of universal TIME. This, in turn, Â leads to the
assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are
in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each
clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different
in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds
accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at
different rates when they are in different frames.
On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second
in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock
second in the observed B clock. Â This means that a clock second is not
an interval of universal TIME.
It appears that SR is making contradictory claims.
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in
insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of
absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time
at the frame of the clock.
3. A clock second in different frames will represent different
interval of absolute time.
4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically.
These new interpretations of TIME gives a viable explanation why the
speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio in all frames
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes
SRT as a subset. However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are valid in
all environments, including gravity. A Paper on IRT entitled "Improved
Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Acceleration makes slow time physics.

Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
2008-06-18 04:24:58 UTC
Post by kenseto
TIME (duration) is what the clock measures.
This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same
amount of TIME (duration) in different frames.
it is not in many different frames
but you didnt get the main point that
'time' is nothing but
motion comparison to some chosen
motion reference
and 2
acceleration cannot be linear all along the scale
iow
it is a physical fact that it becomes
more and more difficult to add velocity
to a mass !!!-
as relative to the motion reference!!...**.that remains outside your
frame !!***)

ie more and more energy is needed
to add velocity to a mass !!
and that is the secrete why SR **is right**!!!!!
while observing experimental facts