Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389108 > unrolled thread

Slow clock transport and the measurement of one way light speed.

Started by	Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com>
First post	2016-08-03 11:07 -0700
Last post	2016-08-14 13:05 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 97 — 18 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →

#390023

From	Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Date	2016-08-15 14:00 +0200
Message-ID	<nosatf$sqa$1@node2.news.atman.pl>
In reply to	#389930


Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:a7be50b2-a8f1-45a0-99ab-c55895004bd5@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:10:27 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:1fdcb2c4-8bad-4b72-bb66-0b97c9202a24@googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> > >
> > > The difference they display is 0.
> >
> > |No, Tom is correct.
> >
> > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed  numbers.
> > You showed nothing.
>
> |Tom is correct. You are incorrect.
> |Nobody is going to "show" you anything, it's a waste of time.
>
> Tom is an idiot living in his dreams, samely as you.
> I showed  numbers.
> You showed nothing.

|As I said, it's a waste of time.

And, as I said, you showed nothing. You can only scream
and wave arms, as expected from relativistic trash.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390074

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2016-08-15 12:27 -0700
Message-ID	<57B217A9.3659@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#389861

JanPB wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 11:33:14 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piÄ…tek, 12 sierpnia 2016 02:02:20 UTC+2 uÅ¼ytkownik The Starmaker napisaÅ‚:
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > > > > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> > > > > and they remain in absolute synch.
> > > >
> > > > This is just plain not true.
> > > >
> > > > There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1
> > > > m/s over a few seconds.
> > > >
> > > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> > > > together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> > > > altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> >
> > The difference they display is 0.
> 
> No, Tom is correct.
> 
> --
> Jan


Tom did not display the difference, so what is correct???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389921

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2016-08-13 08:06 -0700
Message-ID	<84ee2b97-8502-40a4-a7cc-5d0f5f33b52c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389792

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> > and they remain in absolute synch.
> 
> This is just plain not true.
> 
> There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1 
> m/s over a few seconds.
> 
> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them 
> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant 
> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.

Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second. In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal interval of time.
For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a ground clock second.

> 
> You keep living in a FANTASY world, and refuse to learn much about the world we 
> actually inhabit. How sad.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389929

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2016-08-13 17:33 +0000
Message-ID	<nonlln$lor$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#389921

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> 
>> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them 
>> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant 
>> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.

>Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling 
>clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second. 
>In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal 
>interval of time.

No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem.  The clock in the
car is the traveling twin.  It will see less elapsed time than the
stationary clock.

>For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of 
>Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make 
>the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a 
>ground clock second.

You have been told many times that this is wrong. Why do you keep 
repeating this mistake?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389931

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2016-08-13 12:28 -0700
Message-ID	<d0ef50fc-0433-4596-8ef1-d4349af466dc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389929

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> 
> >> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them 
> >> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant 
> >> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
> 
> >Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling 
> >clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second. 
> >In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal 
> >interval of time.
> 
> No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem.  The clock in the
> car is the traveling twin.  It will see less elapsed time than the
> stationary clock.

Again.....this is not due to time dilation. It is due to that the traveling clock second contains more TIME (duration) than the stationary clock second.

> 
> >For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of 
> >Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make 
> >the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a 
> >ground clock second.
> 
> You have been told many times that this is wrong. Why do you keep 
> repeating this mistake?

I told you many time that this is not wrong.....a clock second is not a universal interval of time in different frames and that's why clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389935

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-13 13:15 -0700
Message-ID	<a479e263-65f2-44eb-9a4d-a9a056f6461d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389931

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:28:49 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> > 
> > > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks,
> > > > synchronize them together, put one in a car and drive around for
> > > > a few hours (at constant altitude), bring it back to the other,
> > > > and SEE the difference they display.
> > >
> > > Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the
> > > traveling clock second have a longer duration than the stay at
> > > home clock second.  In other word, a clock second in different
> > > frame is not a universal interval of time.
> > 
> > No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem.  The clock in the
> > car is the traveling twin.  It will see less elapsed time than the
> > stationary clock.
> 
> Again.....this is not due to time dilation.

Of course it is, baloney-head.  At least, it's what is commonly called time
dilation.

> It is due to that the traveling clock second contains more TIME (duration)
> than the stationary clock second.

"Traveling" means nothing at all since we all are always "traveling."
Consequently, the only time that really exists is what is called "proper
time," i.e., that time that progresses due to quantum processes in matter
that is at rest is an inertial frame.  It doesn't make any difference
whatever that said frame is moving because movement of inertial frames is
completely relative.

> > > For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of 
> > > Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make 
> > > the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a 
> > > ground clock second.
> > 
> > You have been told many times that this is wrong. Why do you keep 
> > repeating this mistake?
>
> I told you many time that this is not wrong.....a clock second is not a
> universal interval of time in different frames

Apparently it is universal, i.e., every good clock (i.e., atomic clock)
runs at a rate determined by quantum processes.  Claiming that such
processes vary with relative velocity, or more ridiculously by "absolute"
velocity (which cannot be detected), is nuts IMHO.

> and that's why clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at
> different rates.

This claim is refuted by three or more observers moving at different
relative velocities.  Each of them can claim they are stationary and
measure time in the other frame passing at different rates, but two will
measure the time in a third frame passing at, say, 0.866 and 0.5 times
as fast as his.  So which is it, 0.866 or 0.5?  How can it be both?
It can't.  Those measurements have nothing whatever to do with proper
time.  You DO know what proper time is, don't you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389979

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2016-08-14 07:56 -0700
Message-ID	<a85cb4fd-6c58-47e2-a361-815ea16ad888@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389935

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:28:49 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> > > 
> > > > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks,
> > > > > synchronize them together, put one in a car and drive around for
> > > > > a few hours (at constant altitude), bring it back to the other,
> > > > > and SEE the difference they display.
> > > >
> > > > Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the
> > > > traveling clock second have a longer duration than the stay at
> > > > home clock second.  In other word, a clock second in different
> > > > frame is not a universal interval of time.
> > > 
> > > No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem.  The clock in the
> > > car is the traveling twin.  It will see less elapsed time than the
> > > stationary clock.
> > 
> > Again.....this is not due to time dilation.
> 
> Of course it is, baloney-head.  At least, it's what is commonly called time
> dilation.
> 
> > It is due to that the traveling clock second contains more TIME (duration)
> > than the stationary clock second.
> 
> "Traveling" means nothing at all since we all are always "traveling."

So you admitted that we all are in a state of absolute motion.....right?

> Consequently, the only time that really exists is what is called "proper
> time," i.e., that time that progresses due to quantum processes in matter
> that is at rest is an inertial frame.  It doesn't make any difference
> whatever that said frame is moving because movement of inertial frames is
> completely relative.

Between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
1. Clock A accumulates proper time (proper clock seconds) at  rate of Ra and Clock B Accumulates proper clock seconds Rb.
2.  If Ra>Rb then Rb<Ra is a must consequence. 
3. The cause of these rate differences is due to that a B second contains a larger amount of TIME (duration) than  an A second.
4. The reason why a B second contains a larger amount of TIME than an A second is due to that B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A....the consequence is that the B cesium 133 atom will take a longer TIME (duration) than the A cesium 133 atoms to complete a transition.

> 
> > > > For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of 
> > > > Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make 
> > > > the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a 
> > > > ground clock second.
> > > 
> > > You have been told many times that this is wrong. Why do you keep 
> > > repeating this mistake?
> >
> > I told you many time that this is not wrong.....a clock second is not a
> > universal interval of time in different frames
> 
> Apparently it is universal, i.e., every good clock (i.e., atomic clock)
> runs at a rate determined by quantum processes.  Claiming that such
> processes vary with relative velocity, or more ridiculously by "absolute"
> velocity (which cannot be detected), is nuts IMHO.

Observations proved that you are wrong.....the SR math says that an A second is worth 1/gamma of a B second.

> 
> > and that's why clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at
> > different rates.
> 
> This claim is refuted by three or more observers moving at different
> relative velocities.  Each of them can claim they are stationary and
> measure time in the other frame passing at different rates, but two will
> measure the time in a third frame passing at, say, 0.866 and 0.5 times
> as fast as his.  So which is it, 0.866 or 0.5?  How can it be both?
> It can't.  Those measurements have nothing whatever to do with proper
> time.  You DO know what proper time is, don't you?

No such measurement.....each observer uses the LT to predict the rate of the third clock. The different prediction results are due to the different states of absolute motion of the different observers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389980

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-14 08:34 -0700
Message-ID	<bca90109-da1e-43bb-8405-8b7a30b81ff8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389979

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > "Traveling" means nothing at all since we all are always "traveling."
> 
> So you admitted that we all are in a state of absolute motion.....right?

So you admit that you are a dishonest manipulator of language, right?

Since we cannot determine which inertial motion is "absolute," your
clueless claim is pure baloney.

> Between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
> 1. Clock A accumulates proper time (proper clock seconds) at  rate of Ra
> and Clock B Accumulates proper clock seconds Rb.

Completely wrong and purposely false claim.  ALL clocks "accumulate" proper
time at the same rate.  This a DEFINITION, cumquat-head.

> 2.  If Ra>Rb then Rb<Ra is a must consequence. 

Proving that Seto can't even think straight.

> 3. The cause of these rate differences is due to that a B second contains
> a larger amount of TIME (duration) than  an A second.

Seto has left the land of rationality.

> 4. The reason why a B second contains a larger amount of TIME than an A
> second

It doesn't, bonehead.

> is due to that B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A....the
> consequence is that the B cesium 133 atom will take a longer TIME (duration)
> than the A cesium 133 atoms to complete a transition.

Are you really this stupid?  What about a C second and a D second, etc.?
Start putting in numbers and you will see that this is impossible.

> Observations proved that you are wrong.....the SR math says that an A
> second is worth 1/gamma of a B second.

You are crazier than a loon.

> > This claim is refuted by three or more observers moving at different
> > relative velocities.  Each of them can claim they are stationary and
> > measure time in the other frame passing at different rates, but two will
> > measure the time in a third frame passing at, say, 0.866 and 0.5 times
> > as fast as his.  So which is it, 0.866 or 0.5?  How can it be both?
> > It can't.  Those measurements have nothing whatever to do with proper
> > time.  You DO know what proper time is, don't you?
> 
> No such measurement

And there's no such measurement of absolute time or absolute motion either,
disingenuous one.  Ergo, you have proven that your whole thesis is pure
hokum.  OTOH, REAL measurements show that the speed of light is invariant
for all observers and that the principle of relativity has never been
refuted.  The only rational conclusion is that what is predicted in my
paragraph must surely happen.

> .....each observer uses the LT to predict the rate of the third clock. The
> different prediction results are due to the different states of absolute
> motion of the different observers.

Nope.  They only predict the relative motions.  Are you really so stupid
that you don't understand that the "v" in the LT is RELATIVE motion or
that absolute motion has NEVER been measured?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389982

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2016-08-14 11:08 -0700
Message-ID	<141ac55e-f44c-4314-af85-307964937450@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389980

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:34:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > "Traveling" means nothing at all since we all are always "traveling."
> > 
> > So you admitted that we all are in a state of absolute motion.....right?
> 
> So you admit that you are a dishonest manipulator of language, right?
> 
> Since we cannot determine which inertial motion is "absolute," your
> clueless claim is pure baloney.

Idiot.....all objects are in a state of absolute motion wrt the light-waves in the ether. Between two objects A and B the vector difference of their absolute motions is their relative motion.
> 
> > Between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
> > 1. Clock A accumulates proper time (proper clock seconds) at  rate of Ra
> > and Clock B Accumulates proper clock seconds Rb.
> 
> Completely wrong and purposely false claim.  ALL clocks "accumulate" proper
> time at the same rate.  This a DEFINITION, cumquat-head.

Wrong....according to A, B accumulate clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma. Gee you are stupid.
> 
> 
> > 2.  If Ra>Rb then Rb<Ra is a must consequence. 
> 
> Proving that Seto can't even think straight.

Pot kettle black.

> 
> > 3. The cause of these rate differences is due to that a B second contains
> > a larger amount of TIME (duration) than  an A second.
> 
> Seto has left the land of rationality.

Your pea brain failed to think outside the box.
> 
> > 4. The reason why a B second contains a larger amount of TIME than an A
> > second
> 
> It doesn't, bonehead.

Idiot....it happened.
> 
> > is due to that B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A....the
> > consequence is that the B cesium 133 atom will take a longer TIME (duration)
> > than the A cesium 133 atoms to complete a transition.
> 
> Are you really this stupid?  What about a C second and a D second, etc.?
> Start putting in numbers and you will see that this is impossible.


So what about a C or D second?......C and D are in different states of absolute motion wrt A and therefore A predicts different rates  of accumulating clock seconds for them.
> 
> > Observations proved that you are wrong.....the SR math says that an A
> > second is worth 1/gamma of a B second.
> 
> You are crazier than a loon.
> 
> > > This claim is refuted by three or more observers moving at different
> > > relative velocities.  Each of them can claim they are stationary and
> > > measure time in the other frame passing at different rates, but two will
> > > measure the time in a third frame passing at, say, 0.866 and 0.5 times
> > > as fast as his.  So which is it, 0.866 or 0.5?  How can it be both?
> > > It can't.  Those measurements have nothing whatever to do with proper
> > > time.  You DO know what proper time is, don't you?
> > 
> > No such measurement
> 
> And there's no such measurement of absolute time or absolute motion either,
> disingenuous one.  Ergo, you have proven that your whole thesis is pure
> hokum.  OTOH, REAL measurements show that the speed of light is invariant
> for all observers and that the principle of relativity has never been
> refuted.  The only rational conclusion is that what is predicted in my
> paragraph must surely happen.
> 
> > .....each observer uses the LT to predict the rate of the third clock. The
> > different prediction results are due to the different states of absolute
> > motion of the different observers.
> 
> Nope.  They only predict the relative motions.  Are you really so stupid
> that you don't understand that the "v" in the LT is RELATIVE motion or
> that absolute motion has NEVER been measured?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389999

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-14 15:50 -0700
Message-ID	<8ec380f8-a396-4354-8133-d71c71972d4d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389982

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:08:26 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:34:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Traveling" means nothing at all since we all are always "traveling."
> > > 
> > > So you admitted that we all are in a state of absolute motion.....right?
> > 
> > So you admit that you are a dishonest manipulator of language, right?
> > 
> > Since we cannot determine which inertial motion is "absolute," your
> > clueless claim is pure baloney.
> 
> Idiot

Yes, you certainly STILL are.

> .....all objects are in a state of absolute motion wrt the light-waves in
> the ether.

Since you have no way whatsoever in measuring the ether, YOU are the idiot.

> Between two objects A and B the vector difference of their absolute motions
> is their relative motion.

This is pure baloney since you have no way of detecting the supposed ether.

> > > Between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
> > > 1. Clock A accumulates proper time (proper clock seconds) at  rate of Ra
> > > and Clock B Accumulates proper clock seconds Rb.
> > 
> > Completely wrong and purposely false claim.  ALL clocks "accumulate" proper
> > time at the same rate.  This a DEFINITION, cumquat-head.
> 
> Wrong....according to A, B accumulate clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma.
> Gee you are stupid.

So you cares what A believes?  Gee are you stupid!

> > > 2.  If Ra>Rb then Rb<Ra is a must consequence. 
> > 
> > Proving that Seto can't even think straight.
> 
> Pot kettle black.

So you finally admit that you can't think straight.  At last a breath
of honesty.

> > > 3. The cause of these rate differences is due to that a B second contains
> > > a larger amount of TIME (duration) than  an A second.
> > 
> > Seto has left the land of rationality.
> 
> Your pea brain failed to think outside the box.

Your brain is in a hermetically sealed box and can't receive any knowledge.

> > > 4. The reason why a B second contains a larger amount of TIME than an A
> > > second
> > 
> > It doesn't, bonehead.
> 
> Idiot....it happened.

No, idiot, it didn't happen.  Gee are you stupid.

> > > is due to that B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A....the
> > > consequence is that the B cesium 133 atom will take a longer TIME
> > > (duration) than the A cesium 133 atoms to complete a transition.
> > 
> > Are you really this stupid?  What about a C second and a D second, etc.?
> > Start putting in numbers and you will see that this is impossible.
> 
> So what about a C or D second?......C and D are in different states of
> absolute motion wrt A and therefore A predicts different rates  of
> accumulating clock seconds for them.

And since they all give different "predictions" your claims are crap.

> > > Observations proved that you are wrong.....the SR math says that an A
> > > second is worth 1/gamma of a B second.
> > 
> > You are crazier than a loon.

Seto admits that he is crazier than a loon.

> > > > This claim is refuted by three or more observers moving at different
> > > > relative velocities.  Each of them can claim they are stationary and
> > > > measure time in the other frame passing at different rates, but two will
> > > > measure the time in a third frame passing at, say, 0.866 and 0.5 times
> > > > as fast as his.  So which is it, 0.866 or 0.5?  How can it be both?
> > > > It can't.  Those measurements have nothing whatever to do with proper
> > > > time.  You DO know what proper time is, don't you?
> > > 
> > > No such measurement
> > 
> > And there's no such measurement of absolute time or absolute motion either,
> > disingenuous one.  Ergo, you have proven that your whole thesis is pure
> > hokum.  OTOH, REAL measurements show that the speed of light is invariant
> > for all observers and that the principle of relativity has never been
> > refuted.  The only rational conclusion is that what is predicted in my
> > paragraph must surely happen.

Seto admits that there is no such thing as absolute time or motion.

> > > .....each observer uses the LT to predict the rate of the third clock. The
> > > different prediction results are due to the different states of absolute
> > > motion of the different observers.
> > 
> > Nope.  They only predict the relative motions.  Are you really so stupid
> > that you don't understand that the "v" in the LT is RELATIVE motion or
> > that absolute motion has NEVER been measured?

Seto admits that he really IS so stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390024

From	Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Date	2016-08-15 14:02 +0200
Message-ID	<nosb06$sss$1@node2.news.atman.pl>
In reply to	#389935


Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:a479e263-65f2-44eb-9a4d-a9a056f6461d@googlegroups.com...


|Of course it is, baloney-head.  At least, it's what is commonly called time
|dilation.

Wrong, poor idiot. Common name for such things is - "clock error".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390026

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-08-15 05:50 -0700
Message-ID	<06ca94ca-ed4b-43d8-bb73-548af9e7c58a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#390024

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:02:16 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:a479e263-65f2-44eb-9a4d-a9a056f6461d@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Crazy loon Seto wrote:
> > >
> > > > Again.....this is not due to time dilation
> >
> > Of course it is, baloney-head.  At least, it's what is commonly called time
> > dilation.
> 
> Wrong, poor idiot. Common name for such things is - "clock error".

Wrong, Seto lover, both of you two baloney-heads are rotten peas in a pod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390031

From	Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
Date	2016-08-15 15:20 +0200
Message-ID	<nosfil$tcc$1@node1.news.atman.pl>
In reply to	#390026

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:06ca94ca-ed4b-43d8-bb73-548af9e7c58a@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:02:16 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:a479e263-65f2-44eb-9a4d-a9a056f6461d@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Crazy loon Seto wrote:
> > >
> > > > Again.....this is not due to time dilation
> >
> > Of course it is, baloney-head.  At least, it's what is commonly called 
> > time
> > dilation.
>
> Wrong, poor idiot. Common name for such things is - "clock error".

|Wrong, Seto lover, both of you two baloney-heads are rotten peas in a pod.

Yes, poor idiot. Your idiot guru's mumble is not common at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389940

From	"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....>
Date	2016-08-14 06:28 +1000
Message-ID	<nonvtn$82g$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#389929

On 14/08/16 03:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>
>> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>
>>> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
>>> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
>>> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
>
>> Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling
>> clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second.
>> In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal
>> interval of time.
>
> No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem.  The clock in the
> car is the traveling twin.  It will see less elapsed time than the
> stationary clock.

Idiot! In the car clock frame, the stationary clock moves...so IT 
becomes the 'traveling twin' and IT will see less elapsed time than the 
car clock.
Note, acceleration does not appear in your transforms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389945

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-13 13:54 -0700
Message-ID	<ffa72d6b-d12d-414b-bb67-a71bed02c39c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389940

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:28:43 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 14/08/16 03:33, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Idiot! In the car clock frame, the stationary clock moves...so IT 
> becomes the 'traveling twin' 

Nope, it does NOT become the 'traveling twin' . You just dont understand the meaning of the words used.  Here, 'traveling twin' is just a *label* that designates *the car*. So, although the ground is moving wrt the car, it is the car that we have *labeled* the 'traveling twin'. Here, t' represents time in the car's frame whereas t is time in the ground frame.  

So, if we say that the car goes from x=0 to x = 10 with speed v, then implicitly this means that we *call* the car as the 'traveling twin' . The ground frame, an in particular, the grounded observer located at x=0, is called (labeled) the *home* twin. Does all this compute in your small head?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389946

From	"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....>
Date	2016-08-14 07:13 +1000
Message-ID	<noo2hj$brj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#389945

On 14/08/16 06:54, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:28:43 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc.
> wrote:
>> On 14/08/16 03:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> Idiot! In the car clock frame, the stationary clock moves...so IT
>> becomes the 'traveling twin'
>
> Nope, it does NOT become the 'traveling twin' . You just dont
> understand the meaning of the words used.  Here, 'traveling twin' is
> just a *label* that designates *the car*. So, although the ground is
> moving wrt the car, it is the car that we have *labeled* the
> 'traveling twin'. Here, t' represents time in the car's frame whereas
> t is time in the ground frame.
>
> So, if we say that the car goes from x=0 to x = 10 with speed v, then
> implicitly this means that we *call* the car as the 'traveling twin'
> . The ground frame, an in particular, the grounded observer located
> at x=0, is called (labeled) the *home* twin. Does all this compute in
> your small head?

Idiot! Reverse your arbitrary 'labels' and see what you get!

You don't seem to understand the principle of relativity at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389949

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-13 14:50 -0700
Message-ID	<2105af5d-acf0-40cf-9e9f-e0a0ceaf7a14@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389946

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:13:27 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 14/08/16 06:54, rotchm wrote:

> > So, if we say that the car goes from x=0 to x = 10 with speed v, then
> > implicitly this means that we *call* the car as the 'traveling twin'
> > . The ground frame, an in particular, the grounded observer located
> > at x=0, is called (labeled) the *home* twin. Does all this compute in
> > your small head?
> 
> Idiot! Reverse your arbitrary 'labels' and see what you get!

I know what one gets. I also know that YOU dont get it. You're very confused.

> You don't seem to understand the principle of relativity at all.

You dont seem to understand it. When we ask you to actually calculate something simple, you fail miserably. 

Try it: A car goes from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt ground). 
As it arrives there, what is the value of the ground clock there? What is te value on the car's clock?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389970

From	"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....>
Date	2016-08-14 20:08 +1000
Message-ID	<nopfu6$19d$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#389949

On 14/08/16 07:50, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:13:27 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc.

>>
>> Idiot! Reverse your arbitrary 'labels' and see what you get!
>
> I know what one gets. I also know that YOU dont get it. You're very
> confused.
>
>> You don't seem to understand the principle of relativity at all.
>
> You dont seem to understand it. When we ask you to actually calculate
> something simple, you fail miserably.
>
> Try it: A car goes from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt
> ground). As it arrives there, what is the value of the ground clock
> there? What is the value on the car's clock?

idiot! the ground is going from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt
car).
As it arrives there, what is the value of the car clock there? What is
the value on the ground clock?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389976

From	rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date	2016-08-14 07:14 -0700
Message-ID	<0d7584be-5d81-4635-b97b-cf6146145cc4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#389970

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 6:08:09 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 14/08/16 07:50, rotchm wrote:

> > Try it: A car goes from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt
> > ground). As it arrives there, what is the value of the ground clock
> > there? What is the value on the car's clock?
> 
> idiot! the ground is going from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt
> car).

Nope! See, you cant even do a *very simple* physics problem. You have three MAJOR errors in your sentence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389986

From	"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....>
Date	2016-08-15 05:09 +1000
Message-ID	<noqfki$1i5l$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#389976

On 15/08/16 00:14, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 6:08:09 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 14/08/16 07:50, rotchm wrote:
>
>>> Try it: A car goes from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt
>>> ground). As it arrives there, what is the value of the ground clock
>>> there? What is the value on the car's clock?
>>
>> idiot! the ground is going from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt
>> car).
>
> Nope! See, you cant even do a *very simple* physics problem. You have three MAJOR errors in your sentence.

It is a direct copy of your own.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →

csiph-web

Slow clock transport and the measurement of one way light speed.

Contents

#390023

#390074

#389921

#389929

#389931

#389935

#389979

#389980

#389982

#389999

#390024

#390026

#390031

#389940

#389945

#389946

#389949

#389970

#389976

#389986