Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375810 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-09 12:27 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-02-25 20:13 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 158 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-09 12:27 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-09 13:22 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-08 23:03 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 08:01 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-09 18:43 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-09 19:42 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 08:19 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> - 2016-02-09 16:52 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 12:34 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-10 08:52 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> - 2016-02-10 15:15 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-09 11:02 -0600
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 12:40 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-09 22:06 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 13:43 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-09 23:33 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 08:02 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-10 18:22 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-10 09:06 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 20:02 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-10 20:05 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 01:08 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 04:51 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-10 22:50 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks oriel36 <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 15:13 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 00:17 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 08:09 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-10 22:54 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 17:15 -0600
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-10 23:58 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-10 22:58 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 05:18 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 13:30 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Muddy Shoes <shoes@muddyshoes.org> - 2016-02-11 13:31 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-11 00:31 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-09 20:23 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-09 20:24 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-09 20:27 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-10 20:07 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-13 09:41 -0600
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 10:06 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 04:51 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 15:53 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 08:16 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:26 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 17:46 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:50 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-15 18:40 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-17 09:18 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 23:08 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-14 17:48 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 10:02 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 20:54 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 18:07 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-16 15:30 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 23:57 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 00:09 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 00:44 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-19 08:08 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 16:45 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-19 19:57 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-19 11:34 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-20 08:42 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-19 06:55 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 07:23 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-21 10:22 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 05:17 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-21 19:50 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-22 07:03 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-23 20:09 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-23 05:33 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-23 05:57 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-15 18:43 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Céline Desirée Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-15 17:48 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-15 16:32 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 02:36 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 03:29 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 04:15 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:11 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 05:47 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 05:15 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 05:39 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 06:55 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-16 07:01 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 07:44 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-16 15:47 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-16 18:12 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 09:27 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-16 18:54 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 10:27 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-16 20:09 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 11:26 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-16 20:31 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-16 21:01 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-16 15:35 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 07:43 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Celine Desiree Hedwig <celinedh@bernhardine.org> - 2016-02-14 20:50 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-16 13:44 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-16 22:59 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 19:33 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-17 09:26 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:38 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-17 07:34 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-17 17:49 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-17 13:07 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-18 16:11 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-18 08:29 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-20 09:06 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 11:53 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-21 10:38 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-17 18:43 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-18 11:38 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:40 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-18 16:13 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-18 23:17 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-19 19:54 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-19 11:30 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 02:36 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 05:43 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-20 09:11 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-20 12:06 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-20 18:46 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-20 19:02 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-21 08:51 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-21 09:26 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-21 10:46 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-21 12:49 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-02-21 20:06 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-21 23:13 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-23 20:06 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-23 12:01 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-23 10:08 -0600
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-23 20:10 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-24 09:36 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-23 20:14 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-24 09:39 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-23 23:03 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-02 09:31 +0000
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-24 09:31 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-23 17:43 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-23 18:29 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-24 10:03 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-25 20:08 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-25 16:40 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-26 08:16 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-26 10:19 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-27 08:21 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-27 09:40 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-28 10:00 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-28 09:37 +0100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 08:28 -0600
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-21 05:57 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-23 20:11 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-23 05:37 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-23 05:40 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-24 09:42 +1100
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-23 15:15 -0800
Re: A Short Essay on Time and Clocks HGW <hw@...> - 2016-02-25 20:13 +1100
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 12:27 +1100 |
| Subject | A Short Essay on Time and Clocks |
| Message-ID | <n9bf9h$1nvm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
We humans are one of the few animals on Earth that recognizes the
fundamental requirement for change that we refer to as the dimension of
TIME. We are inclined to regard time as an axis along which we are
moving at a seemingly constant speed and in one direction...but that is
not a correct description because movement itself is expressed in terms
of time. We possess a concept of a 'future' because we can recall that A
has always followed B and so when B occurs, we can anticipate A. We are
aware of causality and that events occur in 'sequence'. The concept of
'future' is based on expectancy and never actually exists, except as an
obscure mental concept. It is far from being obvious, and most lifeforms
on this planet, including many humans, live almost entirely in the
present.
Every human body is equipped with a rudimentary 'biological sensor' that
provides an estimate of the amount of time between two events but
because those estimates are very poor at best, some of our enlightened
ancestors saw a need for more reliable ways to determine the time of
day. The sun's regular movement was the obvious starting point because
it was about the only option. However, because daylight hours varied so
widely with the seasons and were far too long for practical situations
anyway, ways were soon sought to divide the time interval defined by
each day into fractions...a fundamentally difficult exercise since
neither end is ever available. Shadows of the sun cast by vertical poles
and sundials were useful and stone circles like Stonehenge in England
are probably relics of early and quite sophisticated attempts to divide
days and years into smaller units. (Another Wilson discovery).
Observations of swinging pendulums led to an understanding of
periodicity and then to a realization that each cycle of any regular
oscillator defines a short and repeatable interval of time. The counting
of such cycles is therefore a convenient way to measure longer time
intervals. Traditionally, the majority of man-made clocks has consisted
of an oscillator, a device that counts its cycles and a means of
displaying the running total in a convenient way. During the long
history of mechanical clock development, the principle aim has been to
minimize oscillator period and maximize its stability. Steady
improvements in accuracy, particularly with the use of spiral springs,
allowed the measurement of shorter and shorter time intervals and hence
faster speeds, such as those of trains, horses, sound and even planets,
which were the fastest of common interest even two hundred years ago. A
major breakthrough came with the advent of electricity where LC feedback
circuits provided very short and reasonably stable oscillator cycles.
That stability was again improved dramatically by the use of
pieze-electric crystals such as quartz, where distortion of the crystal
creates a voltage that is amplified and positively fed back to reinforce
the distortion itself. More recently, microwave absorption by atomic
nucleii has provided claimed timing accuracies of as 1 part in 10^-16
seconds.
When Ole Roemer, in the 17th century showed that light took a finite
time to travel between two points and that its speed was exceptionally
fast, a whole new challenge had been issued to clock makers to produce
instruments with much greater resolution and stability. During the
latter half of the 19th century, the transmission of light through space
was a hot topic and there were many attempts to measure the Earth's
speed through the absolute medium that was believed to be the carrier.
In 1850, Fizeau and Foucault performed an ingenious and reasonably
accurate two-way light speed experiment using a mirror and a spinning
toothed wheel that needed only one clock. It reinforced the view that
light took time to travel, although their determined value for light
speed was quite different from Roemer's. It was understood that the
two-way value so determined should vary with the Earth's movement
through the aether and that such variations might be measurable, not
with clocks but with interferometry. Also, the size of the variations
should be dependent on the direction of the beam used relative to the
earth's absolute speed through the Aether.
If a TWLS experiment is carried out parallel to that movement, a light
pulse will take times L/(c+v) one way and L/(c-v), the other. The total
time is 2Lc/(c^2-v^2) or 2L/(c-(v^2/c)). (if v=300m/sec, that time
differs from 2L/c by 1 part in 10^12)
On the other hand, if the experiment is carried out perpendicular to the
Earth's absolute movement, certain assumptions had to be made about
light emitted by a moving spherical source, in particular, from a point.
According to aether theory, light emanating from such a source will move
symmetrically outward from its instananeous absolute point of emission.
See for instance: http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html
If a narrow beam of vertical light is produced by positioning a
spherical source below two separated pinholes, the actual section of the
wavefront that passes through the holes is not vertical relative to the
absolute frame but is the one which moves diagonally at absolute speed c
and at the angle arctan(v/c), where v is the source's horizontal speed
through the supposed aether. If the beam is reflected by a flat mirror
back to the source through the same pinholes, the travel time of a point
in the beam is 2h/(c^2-v^2), where h is the vertical distance between
source and mirror.
A 'light clock' is a device that operates on the principle whereby a
brief light pulse is projected vertically towards a mirror and then
reflected back again, immediately triggering a similar pulse on arrival
...and so on...creating continuous cycles that can be counted. As
before, if an aether existed, the period of each cycle would depend on
the clock's absolute speed. Thus, if a vertical light clock was
positioned at the Earth's equator, it would be theoretically possible to
use it to measure variations in its absolute speed. Because no clocks at
that era could possibly resolve such small differences in time, Albert
Michelson, Edward Morley and others devised and experimented with a
number of ingenious interferometers that effectively combined two light
clocks at right angles and could theoretically perform such a task. As
we know, the results were all null, causing Fitzgerald and Lorentz to
propose that both length and time contracted with absolute speed such
that the latter was inherently undetectable.
Albert Einstein, who was apparently very poor at both geometry and
logic, quietly concocted the wild idea that those WHOLLY EXPECTED
variations in a vertical light clock's period were an indication that
TIME itself was somehow affected by the clock's absolute movement. He
also considered the horizontal light clock configuration along with the
misguided theory developed by Lorentz, that light speed will always be
measured as having the same value c. Accordingly, because the period of
such a clock would vary as 2L/(c-(v^2/c)) rather than remain at 2L/c, he
put forward the equally ridiculous proposal that the synchronization
between two clocks located at the source and 'mirror' would be frame
dependent, since, as correctly set, they would measure the one-way speed
of the pulses to be c+v and c-v....WHICH WAS EXACTLY AS EXPECTED!
__ __
->
__ __
S
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 13:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dht0qkFmv90U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #375810 |
On 9/02/2016 12:27 PM, HGW wrote: > He > also considered the horizontal light clock configuration along with the > misguided theory developed by Lorentz, that light speed will always be > measured as having the same value c. That light always travels at c in a vacuum is an experimental result, not something dreamt up by theorists. It is part of the reality that any correct theory has to describe. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-08 23:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d5d5388f-7897-45d2-a89c-6c5e013c2a55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375813 |
W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 03:22:15 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 9/02/2016 12:27 PM, HGW wrote: > > > He > > also considered the horizontal light clock configuration along with the > > misguided theory developed by Lorentz, that light speed will always be > > measured as having the same value c. > > That light always travels at c in a vacuum is an experimental result, > not something dreamt up by theorists. It is part of the reality No, it isn't. Reality is: observers seeing immobile trees and clocks indicating t'=t. Any correct theory has to describe it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 08:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3b4cc6d8-5cb0-4f6e-9c4e-1e8c64c1b29a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375820 |
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 2:03:17 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > That light always travels at c in a vacuum is an experimental result, > > not something dreamt up by theorists. It is part of the reality > > No, it isn't. Yes it is. > Reality is: observers seeing immobile trees > and clocks indicating t'=t. Continue to believe that and notice where it got you. As for us true empiric believers, we make our $$ from idiots like you and wait to be served at McDonalds by reality deniers like you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 18:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9d8ft$edq$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375843 |
Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:3b4cc6d8-5cb0-4f6e-9c4e-1e8c64c1b29a@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 2:03:17 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > That light always travels at c in a vacuum is an experimental result, > > not something dreamt up by theorists. It is part of the reality > > No, it isn't. |Yes it is. Continue to believe it and be too stupid to notice, where it got you. Reality is: observers seeing immobile trees and clocks indicating t'=t. Your Shit is nothing but some pseudomathematical phantasmagories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 19:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n9c8pg$lrf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375813 |
On 09/02/16 13:22, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/02/2016 12:27 PM, HGW wrote: > >> He >> also considered the horizontal light clock configuration along with the >> misguided theory developed by Lorentz, that light speed will always be >> measured as having the same value c. > > That light always travels at c in a vacuum is an experimental result, > not something dreamt up by theorists. It is part of the reality that any > correct theory has to describe. moron...poor indoctrinated moron! > > Sylvia. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 08:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d79e23c-af1b-47e0-a597-48c4ca92319b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375810 |
Well, all that is well known. But a few add-ons that are less well known > if an aether existed, the period of each cycle would depend > on the clock's absolute speed. This is what was believed by many scientist of the epoch, but not by all. Namely, way before 1905, Poincare showed that given the synch procedures used, then the period of each cycle would NOT depend on the clock's absolute speed. Dirac also implied this and Maxwell's eqs also imply this (for simple "clocks". For complex clocks, its much harder to solve the Max.Eqs). All this, *with the assumption* of the "ether" (actually, a preferred frame). > Michelson, Edward Morley Although they set out to try to measure the "fringe shift", unbeknownst to them (but known by Poincare and a few others), their exp cold not discriminate between "SR" and "LET"; both theories predict a null fringe shift. Today, it is well established that SR and LET are equivalent theories; they make the exact same predictions for observables (kinematic-wise).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 16:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9d5fi$bnh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375844 |
Il giorno rotchm ha scritto: > Today, it is well established that SR and LET are equivalent theories; > they make the exact same predictions for observables (kinematic-wise). Hi, rotchm, nice to meet you. Yes, but those are not equivalent, as being based on auspices encompassing sets of totally different premises. You have to be careful with these things, as easily prone to misinterpretation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 12:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d212956-8409-41e4-96fe-88227be5108a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375846 |
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:52:07 AM UTC-5, Heiðr Einherjar wrote: > Il giorno rotchm ha scritto: > > > Today, it is well established that SR and LET are equivalent theories; > > they make the exact same predictions for observables (kinematic-wise). > > Hi, rotchm, nice to meet you. Yes, but those are not equivalent, as being > based on auspices encompassing sets of totally different premises. You > have to be careful with these things, as easily prone to misinterpretation. Correct. That is why I specified "same predictions for observables (kinematic-wise)". Equivalent in that sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 08:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n9dn3i$1b8g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375874 |
On 10/02/16 07:34, rotchm wrote: > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:52:07 AM UTC-5, Heiðr Einherjar wrote: >> Il giorno rotchm ha scritto: >> >>> Today, it is well established that SR and LET are equivalent theories; >>> they make the exact same predictions for observables (kinematic-wise). >> >> Hi, rotchm, nice to meet you. Yes, but those are not equivalent, as being >> based on auspices encompassing sets of totally different premises. You >> have to be careful with these things, as easily prone to misinterpretation. > > Correct. That is why I specified "same predictions for observables (kinematic-wise)". Equivalent in that sense. They are exactly the same theory, arrived at from opposite ends.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Heiðr Einherjar <einherjar@notformail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9fk6t$4h3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375874 |
Il giorno rotchm ha scritto: >> Hi, rotchm, nice to meet you. Yes, but those are not equivalent, as >> being based on auspices encompassing sets of totally different >> premises. >> You have to be careful with these things, as easily prone to >> misinterpretation. > > Correct. That is why I specified "same predictions for observables > (kinematic-wise)". Equivalent in that sense. As saying an yacht is equivalent to a ship. Only in case that yacht is very big, like a ship.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 11:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <3JGdnViwlJc3hifLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #375844 |
On 2/9/16 2/9/16 - 10:19 AM, rotchm wrote: >> Michelson, Edward Morley > > Although they set out to try to measure the "fringe shift", unbeknownst to > them (but known by Poincare and a few others), their exp cold not > discriminate between "SR" and "LET"; Michelson and Morley performed their experiment in 1887 to test the then-prevalent aether theory, in which motion relative to the aether WOULD HAVE BEEN OBSERVABLE by their apparatus. All you need to do is READ THEIR PAPER to know this. Apparently I need to point out that the MMX was performed 17 years before LET, and 18 years before SR. The experimenters did not AND COULD NOT know about these then-future theories. > both theories predict a null fringe > shift. Yes, both SR and LET predict a null fringe shift. But M&M were not intending to test these later theories. Only in retrospect do we realize the import of their experiment vis-a-vis these theories. > Today, it is well established that SR and LET are equivalent theories; they > make the exact same predictions for observables (kinematic-wise). Yes. They make the same predictions for ALL observables within their common domain. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 12:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a9966b31-3a1d-4714-874c-c2c6f9ec4e2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375847 |
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:02:37 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > Michelson and Morley performed their experiment in 1887 to test the > then-prevalent aether theory, Correct. Key words "the then", which is NOT what I was referring to. You should know by now that *I* always refer to the "then future theories" as you said. > The experimenters did not AND COULD NOT know about these > then-future theories. They didnt. But others did and more importantly, the Max.Eqs did. (still in debate though) > Yes, both SR and LET predict a null fringe shift. > But M&M were not intending to test these later theories. I'm well aware of that, and I told you this in the past. We already had such conversations. > Only in retrospect do we realize the import of their > experiment vis-a-vis these theories. Correct. > > Today, it is well established that SR and LET are equivalent theories; they > > make the exact same predictions for observables (kinematic-wise). > > Yes. They make the same predictions for ALL observables within > their common domain. Correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 22:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9dkbt$jr2$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375875 |
Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:a9966b31-3a1d-4714-874c-c2c6f9ec4e2b@googlegroups.com... > Yes. They make the same predictions for ALL observables within > their common domain. |Correct. Wrong, poor idiot. They have different predictions for clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 13:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f41e2cd4-2269-4be1-bfaa-c4b5d131be0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375878 |
> > Yes. They make the same predictions for ALL observables within > > their common domain. > > |Correct. > > Wrong, poor idiot. They have different predictions for clocks. Continue to be a reality denier...We smart people make our $ from ignoramuses like you! Thank you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 23:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b1846f2-222d-4563-a5fd-6b61a4e9b79f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375881 |
W dniu wtorek, 9 lutego 2016 22:43:16 UTC+1 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > > > Yes. They make the same predictions for ALL observables within > > > their common domain. > > > > |Correct. > > > > Wrong, poor idiot. They have different predictions for clocks. > > Continue to be a reality denier...We smart people make our $ from ignoramuses like you! Thank you! Continue to be reality denier. You think you're smart because you have a lot of money? Maybe, but you surely aren't as smart, as Michael Jackson was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 08:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c72cbd4c-41f8-405a-bf1c-21eba9fe65cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375924 |
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 2:33:27 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >, but you surely > aren't as smart, as Michael Jackson was. Of course I'm smarter than he is/was. Thats why I'm still alive and he isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 18:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n9frlm$3n9$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #375960 |
Użytkownik "rotchm" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:c72cbd4c-41f8-405a-bf1c-21eba9fe65cd@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 2:33:27 AM UTC-5, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >, but you surely > aren't as smart, as Michael Jackson was. |Of course I'm smarter than he is/was. Thats why I'm still alive and he isn't. I guess you're smarter than your poor idiot guru, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@...> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-10 09:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n9dnsl$1d38$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #375875 |
On 10/02/16 07:40, rotchm wrote: > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:02:37 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >>> Today, it is well established that SR and LET are equivalent theories; they >>> make the exact same predictions for observables (kinematic-wise). >> >> Yes. They make the same predictions for ALL observables within >> their common domain. > > Correct. LET PREDICTS that light speed from differently moving sources will be the same and includes a mechanism for that to happen. SR does not PREDICT that at all. It merely states the fact by postulate then establishes the mathematical consequences of that claim. Anyone can see that Einstein merely plagiarized Lorentz by formulating the same (stupid) theory from the opposite end. Of course they are both completely wrong. Poincare was right. Oscillator periods do not vary with speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-09 20:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7bed1c19-e99a-4726-996c-cdf64a44f2bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #375884 |
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 5:06:18 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >... It merely states the fact by postulate > then establishes the mathematical consequences of that claim. Well, as originally put, yes. But since, we know it is not necessary to have the second postulate and can be deduced otherwise. Stronger even, since 1983, we dont even need to deduce the "second postulate". It is true by construction. > Anyone can see that Einstein merely plagiarized Lorentz Perhaps. > by formulating > the same (stupid) theory from the opposite end. SR is much more general and applies to all physics. This is not the case for LET. > Of course they are both completely wrong. Poincare was right. Oscillator > periods do not vary with speed. Irrelevant. SR's predictions are empirically validated. Thats all what counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web