Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #389317 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-13 06:27 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 92 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 09:24 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 16:09 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:40 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:29 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:29 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:21 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-09 05:49 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 05:56 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:59 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 08:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:58 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 11:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 10:27 -0700
Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 10:30 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 14:00 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:37 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune fraud eats shit rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 07:13 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:23 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:58 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 21:42 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:50 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 07:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 15:58 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:13 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:06 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:17 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 08:29 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-12 06:46 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:47 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 11:30 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 07:36 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-10 21:21 +0000
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:46 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 14:31 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:48 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 07:14 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-11 15:48 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:11 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 06:39 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:22 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:54 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-07 06:27 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 08:38 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-07 23:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:07 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 23:12 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 09:52 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:28 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 06:40 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 07:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:58 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 16:42 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:29 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 04:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:47 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-09 15:32 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:27 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-10 19:48 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 13:17 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-10 21:34 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 16:06 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-11 06:01 +0200
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:12 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 00:15 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:24 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-09 06:08 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:15 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-10 05:59 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 09:00 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 09:51 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:18 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 11:37 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 19:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 13:16 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 06:04 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 17:33 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 19:19 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 23:14 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-13 15:44 -0500
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 12:25 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:45 -0700
Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-13 06:27 -0700
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <611c4bf6-984a-43c9-81c9-e0d2e43114f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389717 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:58:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/2016 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 9:59:31 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/10/2016 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:14:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/9/2016 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:21:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/7/2016 8:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> The problems are as follows: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how > >>>>>>>>>> many times you get this wrong. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely > >>>>>>>>> not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The center of the rod is moving. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So are the ends of the rod. > >>>>> > >>>>>> So? > >>>>> > >>>>> So there is no difference in closing speeds for light fronts from the ends of the rod. > >>>> > >>>> No. What makes you think that if the center of the rod is moving and the > >>>> ends of the rods are moving, then the closing speeds will be the same? > >>> > >>> 1. The closing speed of light between the center and the ends of the rod is not measurable. > >> > >> Not true. Closing speed is measurable. Simply measure the initial > >> distance between the two closing things, and measure the time it takes > >> to close that distance. The ratio is closing speed. > > > > Idiot....why don't you give us the closing speeds for Tom's experiments. > > The measurements have not been done yet. The experiment is in design stage. > > > ....gee you are so fucking stupid. > > You always get frothy like this when you realize you've said something > stupid. > > > Besides, the length of the fiberoptic is the same from both ends and the speed of > > light in the fiberoptic is c/n in both secments of the fiberoptic the time of travel from > > both ends will be the same. > > Yes of course the time travel will be the same. But what's being tested > is that the time of origination of the signals from the ends will NOT be > the same in the rod frame. So of course if the start times are different > in the rod frame, and the time of travel is the same, then the time of > arrival will be different in the rod frame. Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time. > > You didn't understand the point of the experiment? It was you who didn't read the experiment. > > > ....gee you are so fucking stupid. > > > >> > >>> 2. The only closing speed of light between the center and the ends the rod is the OWLS an the > >>> OWLS is measurable to be isotropic. > >> > >> No, that's also incorrect. You do not know what closing speed. > >> > >>> 3. There is no difference in closing speed within the fiberoptic. > >> > >> Two incorrect premises --> incorrect conclusion. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 16:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nog7fm$1b82$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389748 |
On 8/10/2016 4:31 PM, kenseto wrote: >> Yes of course the time travel will be the same. But what's being tested >> > is that the time of origination of the signals from the ends will NOT be >> > the same in the rod frame. So of course if the start times are different >> > in the rod frame, and the time of travel is the same, then the time of >> > arrival will be different in the rod frame. > Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab > and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time. Not in the rod frame. Now it is time for you to declare that the lab frame takes priority, even though the principle of relativity from the time of Galileo says that no frame takes priority. :) > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea53107d-3038-4fd9-9be4-ec72edf95f01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389751 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:48:42 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/10/2016 4:31 PM, kenseto wrote: > >> Yes of course the time travel will be the same. But what's being tested > >> > is that the time of origination of the signals from the ends will NOT be > >> > the same in the rod frame. So of course if the start times are different > >> > in the rod frame, and the time of travel is the same, then the time of > >> > arrival will be different in the rod frame. > > Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab > > and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time. > > Not in the rod frame. Yes in all frames.....the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel the equal lengths from both ends. Besides what you said is merely an assumption. > Now it is time for you to declare that the lab frame takes priority, > even though the principle of relativity from the time of Galileo says > that no frame takes priority. :) The PoR got nothing to do with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 09:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noi3fj$1po9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389784 |
On 8/11/2016 9:14 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab >>> > > and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time. >> > >> > Not in the rod frame. > Yes in all frames.....the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel the > equal lengths from both ends. Besides what you said is merely an assumption. A TESTABLE assumption. You are declaring that you know the experimental result before the experiment is actually done. The experiment being proposed will be able to measure a shift in phase IF special relativity is right. If SR is not right, then the experiment will show no shift. So there are two possibilities for the FUTURE, which I wouldn't dream of saying I know already. 1. Tom's experiment shows the shift, and you would be proven wrong, and SR would be supported. 2. Tom's experiment shows no shift, and you would be proven right, and SR would be found lacking. Now, do you claim to know the future? > >> > Now it is time for you to declare that the lab frame takes priority, >> > even though the principle of relativity from the time of Galileo says >> > that no frame takes priority. :) > The PoR got nothing to do with it. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 15:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e904189-75b1-4f55-9a93-a77d579e93f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389788 |
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:52:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/11/2016 9:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab > >>> > > and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time. > >> > > >> > Not in the rod frame. > > Yes in all frames.....the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel the > > equal lengths from both ends. Besides what you said is merely an assumption. > > A TESTABLE assumption. You are declaring that you know the experimental > result before the experbiiment is actually done. I didn't declare anything. I merely stated the known fact that the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel an equal distance. >The experiment being > proposed will be able to measure a shift in phase IF special relativity > is right. If SR is not right, then the experiment will show no shift. Yes I agree......but my money is on no phrase shift. > > So there are two possibilities for the FUTURE, which I wouldn't dream of > saying I know already. I wouldn't dream of saying that either. > 1. Tom's experiment shows the shift, and you would be proven wrong, and > SR would be supported. > 2. Tom's experiment shows no shift, and you would be proven right, and > SR would be found lacking. > > Now, do you claim to know the future? I claimed no such thing. > > > > >> > Now it is time for you to declare that the lab frame takes priority, > >> > even though the principle of relativity from the time of Galileo says > >> > that no frame takes priority. :) > > The PoR got nothing to do with it. > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 19:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noj479$1bo4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389802 |
On 8/11/2016 5:48 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:52:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/11/2016 9:14 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> Idiot.....the length of both fiberoptic were the same as measured in the lab >>>>>>> and there is only one common source.....so that means that they have the same starting time. >>>>> >>>>> Not in the rod frame. >>> Yes in all frames.....the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel the >>> equal lengths from both ends. Besides what you said is merely an assumption. >> >> A TESTABLE assumption. You are declaring that you know the experimental >> result before the experbiiment is actually done. > > I didn't declare anything. I merely stated the known fact that the light fronts in the fiberoptic will take the same time to travel an equal distance. > >> The experiment being >> proposed will be able to measure a shift in phase IF special relativity >> is right. If SR is not right, then the experiment will show no shift. > > Yes I agree......but my money is on no phrase shift. Then we'll see if you lose your money or not. > >> >> So there are two possibilities for the FUTURE, which I wouldn't dream of >> saying I know already. > > I wouldn't dream of saying that either. > >> 1. Tom's experiment shows the shift, and you would be proven wrong, and >> SR would be supported. >> 2. Tom's experiment shows no shift, and you would be proven right, and >> SR would be found lacking. >> >> Now, do you claim to know the future? > > I claimed no such thing. >> >>> >>>>> Now it is time for you to declare that the lab frame takes priority, >>>>> even though the principle of relativity from the time of Galileo says >>>>> that no frame takes priority. :) >>> The PoR got nothing to do with it. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 06:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25d4f9cb-cc78-42c7-abd5-17e627e2c493@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #389343 |
On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 6:29:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/6/2016 4:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 5:09:18 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/6/2016 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> The problems are as follows: > >>> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of the OWLS in the rod frame. > >> > >> Nope. Already discussed. Light speed is not closing speed, no matter how > >> many times you get this wrong. > > > > idiot....the design of the experiment is one-way light speed from the ends to the center. This is definitely > > not closing speeds. Gee you are stupid. > > The center of the rod is moving. > > I know you don't know what closing speed means. I know you don't want to > talk about closing speed. Doesn't matter what you want. > > > >> > >>> > >>> 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept. > >>> > >> > >> And what if he DOES detect RoS? Then where will you be about this > >> "flawed concept"? Will you give up on that? > > > > Idiot....look at item #1. Gee you are stupid. > > Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It > is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the > premise. > No he assumed that the speed of light is isotropic c in the observer's coordinate system then he assumed that any object moving in his coordinate system is c+v or c-v.....these are false assumptions because the speed of light is isotropic c in the moving object.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <no7u8s$1gm3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389376 |
On 8/7/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >> Ken, Einstein derived RoS directly FROM the constancy of light speed. It >> > is impossible to derive something from a premise that contradicts the >> > premise. >> > > No he assumed that the speed of light is isotropic c in the observer's > coordinate system Yes. > then he assumed that any object moving in his coordinate system is c+v or > c-v.....these are false assumptions because the speed of light is > isotropic c in the moving object. Gibberish and not in the paper. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 21:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-YGdnaev0KNCPzvKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #389317 |
On 8/6/16 8/6/16 11:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > The problems are as follows: These are, as usual, problems in YOUR misunderstandings. > 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected anisotropy of > the OWLS in the rod frame. But only for clocks synchronized as these signals are synchronized, but no sensible person would ever "synchronize" clocks like that in the rod frame. Setup a lab straddling the CST/EST boundary, set one clock to CST and one to EST, and use them to measure OWLS. You will of course get an ENORMOUS anisotropy, but no sensible person would ever use such clocks for such a measurement. This is just like measuring OWLS in the rod frame using clocks synchronized like my signals. (CST and EST are adjacent time zones in the U.S.A.) > 2. If he was not able to detect RoS then the concept of RoS is a flawed concept. Not necessarily. It could be that there is a problem in instrumentation or technique. But fortunately, we will MEASURE OUR ERRORBARS, and thus be able to distinguish instrumentation problems from RoS not being present. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 06:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e0nrloFpquvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389350 |
Am 07.08.2016 04:54, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> The problems are as follows: > > These are, as usual, problems in YOUR misunderstandings. > > >> 1. If he was able to detect RoS then he will also have detected >> anisotropy of >> the OWLS in the rod frame. > > But only for clocks synchronized as these signals are synchronized, but > no sensible person would ever "synchronize" clocks like that in the rod > frame. > > Setup a lab straddling the CST/EST boundary, set one > clock to CST and one to EST, and use them to measure OWLS. > You will of course get an ENORMOUS anisotropy, but no > sensible person would ever use such clocks for such a > measurement. This is just like measuring OWLS in the rod > frame using clocks synchronized like my signals. > (CST and EST are adjacent time zones in the U.S.A.) > 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'. What is irrelevant, that is to which time-zone they are set. But we want to have seconds of the same length, hence clocks to tick at the same rate. Then we want to know the time our remote counterpart would reed at a certain instant. So we would like to know the remote time. This is then feed into a specific 'remote-time-clock' in our lab, which shows remote time. Now the question is, how we could communicate with someone far away, so that we could know his time and whether or not he does measure the same length of a second as we do. If e.g. the remote partner sends a signal with a few one second beeps and a reading from his clock, we cannot use these signals directly. Reason: the remote partner does move and the signal could be red- or blue-shifted. Then we have the problem, that the signal takes a long time to travel (say: a year). Now we solve the problems by artificially correct the errors with a calculation. The run-time of the signal is added to the reading of the remote clock. The red-/blue-shift we could also correct. As a next step we correct our own lab-clock to the remote settings and correction factors (for red- or blue-shift). So if our lab clock show a certain time, we know (actually hope) the same reading would be what our remote partner would read of his clock at the same time. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 08:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <no7dks$77g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389353 |
On 8/6/2016 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'. No. And that may be the problem you and I were having earlier. Your clock and my clock may be ticking at the same rate, but not be synchronized. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 23:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e0pmhhF9848U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389375 |
Am 07.08.2016 15:38, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 8/6/2016 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'. > > No. And that may be the problem you and I were having earlier. > > Your clock and my clock may be ticking at the same rate, but not be > synchronized. > If my understanding of the term 'simultaneous' is not correct and synchronisation of clocks means something else, than what actually is correct? I regard time measurement as something local. So I would use my local clock, which shows GMT + 1 , which is the timezone of Germany. If I would communicate with someone from a different solar-system one light-year away, the least thing I want to have is his local time-zone. Much less I would like to 'sync' GMT+1 to Alpha Century mean time + 7. That would make no sense. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 10:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noa789$n55$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389408 |
On 8/7/2016 4:12 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.08.2016 15:38, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> On 8/6/2016 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'. >> >> No. And that may be the problem you and I were having earlier. >> >> Your clock and my clock may be ticking at the same rate, but not be >> synchronized. >> > > If my understanding of the term 'simultaneous' is not correct and > synchronisation of clocks means something else, than what actually is > correct? > > I regard time measurement as something local. So I would use my local > clock, which shows GMT + 1 , which is the timezone of Germany. > > If I would communicate with someone from a different solar-system one > light-year away, the least thing I want to have is his local time-zone. And note that even in this case, the two clocks are ticking at the same rate. Therefore you've just demonstrated that having them tick at the same rate is not sufficient for calling them synchronized. There are a couple decent ways to test if clocks are synchronized. 1. Go to a place midway between the two clocks at at rest relative to them. Send a signal traveling at the same speed in both directions. If the clocks read the same time when the signals arrive, they are synchronized. 2. Stay with one clock and send a signal from this clock to the other clock. Record the time on the other clock when the signal arrives and immediately send the same signal back to the first clock. Record the time on the first clock when the second signal arrives. If the time on the other clock is midway between the two readings on the first clock, then the clocks are synchronized. > > Much less I would like to 'sync' GMT+1 to Alpha Century mean time + 7. > > That would make no sense. > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 23:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e0satoFsmv6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389448 |
Am 08.08.2016 17:07, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > On 8/7/2016 4:12 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 07.08.2016 15:38, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> On 8/6/2016 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'. >>> >>> No. And that may be the problem you and I were having earlier. >>> >>> Your clock and my clock may be ticking at the same rate, but not be >>> synchronized. >>> >> >> If my understanding of the term 'simultaneous' is not correct and >> synchronisation of clocks means something else, than what actually is >> correct? >> >> I regard time measurement as something local. So I would use my local >> clock, which shows GMT + 1 , which is the timezone of Germany. >> >> If I would communicate with someone from a different solar-system one >> light-year away, the least thing I want to have is his local time-zone. > > And note that even in this case, the two clocks are ticking at the same > rate. Therefore you've just demonstrated that having them tick at the > same rate is not sufficient for calling them synchronized. In my understanding remote clocks do not necessarily tick at the same rate. To do so, these clock should have no relative motion. But usually, those remote objects, where such clocks are located, have a velocity in respect to each other different from zero. I use a term I call 'time domain'. That means the set of places, where clocks tick at the same rate. This is - for instance - the surface of planet Earth. But we could think about a world, where time is vvveerrryyy slooowwww... (in our understanding). So a process, that would take one second for us seemingly takes an hour there, if observed in such a world (by us). But being there means: everything is as always and time ticks with on second per second. Seen from there we would look like moving extremely fast, since we could do in a second, for what they would need an hour. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 09:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cIudnTw_iqqn1jrKnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #389353 |
On 8/6/16 8/6/16 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'. No. That is necessary but not sufficient. To be synchronized, a pair of clocks must not only tick at the same rate, they must also display the same time when looked at simultaneously. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 13:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <no7ukh$1gm3$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389389 |
On 8/7/2016 9:52 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/6/16 8/6/16 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'. > > No. That is necessary but not sufficient. To be synchronized, a pair of > clocks must not only tick at the same rate, they must also display the > same time when looked at simultaneously. > And to carry this a step further, it isn't even necessary that the units on the synchronized clocks be the same. For example, one could "tick" in seconds and the other "tick" in millihours. Thus, strictly speaking, they don't tick at the same rate. However, since there is a well-defined conversion factor between seconds and millihours, you can correct for that simply by doing a delta-t conversion from one clock's units to the other clock's units, to verify that the clocks are running at the same rate. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 06:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e0qgqiFendcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389389 |
Am 07.08.2016 16:52, schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 8/6/16 8/6/16 11:27 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> 'To synchronise clocks' means 'make clocks tick at the same pace'. > > No. That is necessary but not sufficient. To be synchronized, a pair of > clocks must not only tick at the same rate, they must also display the > same time when looked at simultaneously. > The question of synchronisation of clocks occurs only in circumstance, where the observation of only one of these clocks is possible. If you can look at both of these clocks at the same time, the problem does not occur, since then the clocks already belong to the same 'time domain'. But if you have a counterpart in significant distance and unknown state of movement, things get difficult. So we have three factor, which we expect to have an effect on the time-rate in signals from remote clocks: - delay caused by distance - blue- or redshift of the signal - movement of the counterpart 'sideways' Possibly there is also an effect caused by gravity and/or all sorts of things or stuff along the way through space. So the synchronisation signals come distorted and with significant delay. Now we need to define, what we would like to express with 'simultaneous'. Somehow I would like to compensate the errors in the transmission of the signals. But what I cannot do, that is looking at the remote clocks. It wouldn't help anyhow, since (supposed I would have such a good telescope), I had to apply delay corrections to visual signals as well. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 07:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9K-dndvUF8Qu6jXKnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #389425 |
On 8/7/16 8/7/16 11:40 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > [...] There's no point in just making stuff up and pretending it is true. You need to LEARN what we mean by this. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 22:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e0sa3kFsgmhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #389436 |
Am 08.08.2016 14:14, schrieb Tom Roberts: > There's no point in just making stuff up and pretending it is true. You > need to LEARN what we mean by this. Since you are no teacher and I'm not in school, I have the right to 'make things up', if I wish to do so. But in case you are in fact a teacher (or would like to apply for such a job), you should behave like a teacher and tell, what in particular you do not like. It does not help too much, if you complain about the stupidity of your students, if you not able to tell, what were the mistakes. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 16:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noauc2$1qtd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #389515 |
On 8/8/2016 3:58 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.08.2016 14:14, schrieb Tom Roberts: > >> There's no point in just making stuff up and pretending it is true. You >> need to LEARN what we mean by this. > > Since you are no teacher and I'm not in school, I have the right to > 'make things up', if I wish to do so. To what end? > > But in case you are in fact a teacher (or would like to apply for such a > job), you should behave like a teacher and tell, what in particular you > do not like. If you want to ask a teacher to provide that service, are you not obligated to pay tuition? Teachers do not behave like teachers on demand, for free, to anyone who asks. > > It does not help too much, if you complain about the stupidity of your > students, if you not able to tell, what were the mistakes.\ I don't think you can claim status of student without paying tuition. > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web