Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #470591 > unrolled thread

Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-06 01:07 +0200
    Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-19 16:06 +0200
      Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-19 10:43 -0500
        Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-19 15:56 +0000
        Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-20 06:45 +0200
          Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-20 16:35 +0000
            Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-21 19:45 +0200
              Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirw.on> - 2018-09-21 21:41 +0000
                Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-22 00:14 +0200
                  Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Rhett Joyner <udof@rsrrfirv.on> - 2018-09-21 22:48 +0000
          Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-21 19:43 +0200
            Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-23 16:23 +0200
              Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-23 16:44 +0200
        Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-20 11:07 -0700
          Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 12:16 -0700
            Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Jayson Durante <tug@wsedwsa.np> - 2018-09-20 19:43 +0000
            Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-20 15:38 -0700
          Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-20 23:34 -0500
            Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-21 09:23 +0000
            Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-21 11:25 -0700
              Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 16:17 -0700
                Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-09-22 10:36 -0700
                  Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-22 20:23 +0200
      Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-19 15:48 +0000
      Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-19 09:19 -0700
        Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-21 09:58 +0000
      Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-19 23:43 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#470591 — Re: Variable Time and the Variable Speed of Light

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Sure, there is circular reasoning in the definition of space and time.

No, there is not.  You simply have no clue.

> But how fast is actually light, if you have no meter defined?

It travels a multiple of whatever unit of length you choose in a multiple of
whatever unit of time you choose.

Say, for example, that you have a time measurement instrument, and you call
the time duration that passes between the local event that it points to a
position called “flub” and the local event that it points to position
“flab”, between it alternates, a “florb”.

Also, you have a length measurement instrument called a “blub” on which
certain regular marks indicate that two places have the distance “gnork”
from each other if both coincide with adjacent marks on the blub.

Then light will travel in vacuum a certain number of gnorks in a florb.

As hopefully you can *finally* see now, the units that one chooses for the
speed of light are completely irrelevant as long as they are well defined.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#472415

Am 06.09.2018 um 01:07 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Sure, there is circular reasoning in the definition of space and time.
> 
> No, there is not.  You simply have no clue.
> 
>> But how fast is actually light, if you have no meter defined?
> 
> It travels a multiple of whatever unit of length you choose in a multiple of
> whatever unit of time you choose.

You certainly know, that the meter is defined by the distance, that 
light travels through the vacuum  in a certain (very small) amount of time.

So the meter is defined by means of light and a certain interval of time.

This fraction of the second is defined by the time that light needs to 
travel a meter through vacuum.


To me this looks VERY much like circular reasoning.

..

TH

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

#472423

On 9/19/18 9:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> the meter is defined by the distance, that light 
> travels through the vacuum  in a certain (very small) amount of time.
> So the meter is defined by means of light and a certain interval of time.

Yes. That interval is 1/299,792,458 second (about 3.33 nanoseconds).

> This fraction of the second is defined by the time that light needs to travel a 
> meter through vacuum.

This last is wrong -- you assumed that you know what a meter is, but using the 
new definition YOU DON'T KNOW THAT until you determine it (via measurement).

	That fraction was DEFINED so that the the length of a meter
	using the new definition differed by as little as possible
	from the previous definition. The fraction was determined by
	many measurements of the vacuum speed of light using the old
	definition.

> To me this looks VERY much like circular reasoning.

Only because you phrased it inappropriately.

There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second, and the 
vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them, but not all three 
-- the third must be derived from the two that are defined, via measurement.

There is nothing circular in choosing to define the second and the vacuum speed 
of light, and then deriving the meter via measurement. There are good 
metrological reasons for doing it that way, which were accepted back in 1983.

	Do you seriously think you understand this better than the
	world's experts? SERIOUSLY????

	Perhaps if you decided to STUDY basic physics, rather than
	just making stuff up and pretending it is true, you would
	actually LEARN something about this.

Tom Roberts

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

#472428

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 9/19/18 9:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Yes. That interval is 1/299,792,458 second (about 3.33 nanoseconds).
> 
>> This fraction of the second is defined by the time that light needs to
>> travel a meter through vacuum.
> 
> This last is wrong -- you assumed that you know what a meter is, but
> using the new definition YOU DON'T KNOW THAT until you determine it (via
> measurement).

He said in vacuum. Hence very well defined. 
    Turn on the Light-> 3.33 ns -> 1 meter, or
    Turn on the Light-> 3.33 us -> 1 km, or
    Turn on the Light-> 3.33 ms -> 1e3 km, or
    Turn on the Light-> 3.33 s  -> 1e6 km

> That fraction was DEFINED so that the the length of a meter using the
> new definition differed by as little as possible from the previous
> definition. The fraction was determined by many measurements of the
> vacuum speed of light using the old definition.

word salad.

>> To me this looks VERY much like circular reasoning.
> 
> Only because you phrased it inappropriately.

Where.

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

#472487

Am 19.09.2018 um 17:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 9/19/18 9:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> the meter is defined by the distance, that light travels through the 
>> vacuum  in a certain (very small) amount of time.
>> So the meter is defined by means of light and a certain interval of time.
> 
> Yes. That interval is 1/299,792,458 second (about 3.33 nanoseconds).
> 
>> This fraction of the second is defined by the time that light needs to 
>> travel a meter through vacuum.
> 
> This last is wrong -- you assumed that you know what a meter is, but 
> using the new definition YOU DON'T KNOW THAT until you determine it (via 
> measurement).
> 
>      That fraction was DEFINED so that the the length of a meter
>      using the new definition differed by as little as possible
>      from the previous definition. The fraction was determined by
>      many measurements of the vacuum speed of light using the old
>      definition.
> 
>> To me this looks VERY much like circular reasoning.
> 
> Only because you phrased it inappropriately.
> 
> There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second, 
> and the vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them, 
> but not all three -- the third must be derived from the two that are 
> defined, via measurement.
>

Actually 'length of the meter' is, what the definition should define.

This already contains implicit assumptions (known to be wrong!):

- one piece (say one cubic meter) of vacuum here is behaving similar to 
one piece of vacuum there (say: one light year away).

- length does not change

- the length of a second does not change

Then we have another implicit assumption in 'speed of light in vacuum'. 
That is 'inertial frame of reference' (stemming from SRT).

But we don't have anything like that here on Earth or even near the 
solar system.

Instead the Earth surface performs circular motions around several axis':
around its own axis
around the Sun
around the center of our Galaxy

We have also gravity, Earth magnetism and lots of em-fields of various 
sources.

This is all supposed to have an influence on light and eventually on 
time, too.

So the definition of the meter is not really a definition.

It is actually a certain way to transfer the original definition to 
other places.

Actually all the SI units are random choices of something, but according 
to a certain systematic approach. The meter was defined as 1/40,000 of 
the meridian through Paris.

The system was a quite clever and had many advantages. Now this length 
was casted into a Platinum bar and that was defining the meter.

Since it was not a very practical method, the new definition of the 
meter uses light.


> There is nothing circular in choosing to define the second and the 
> vacuum speed of light, and then deriving the meter via measurement. 
> There are good metrological reasons for doing it that way, which were 
> accepted back in 1983.
> 
>      Do you seriously think you understand this better than the
>      world's experts? SERIOUSLY????
> 

Physics is in a way 'sick' and the disease is called 'academia'.

This is causing the scientists to base everything they think and say on 
their forefathers and superiors.

So errors (made by any of our ancestors) of any kind are prohibited to 
be considered, unless the scientists wants to loose the job - what they 
usually don't.



TH

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

#472516

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 19.09.2018 um 17:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> On 9/19/18 9:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second,
>> and the vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them,
>> but not all three -- the third must be derived from the two that are
>> defined, via measurement.
>
> Actually 'length of the meter' is, what the definition should define.

Not in relativity, since the last centimeter in that meter will be non-
local.

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

#472605

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Stakos Netakis" <autp@wsalaws.np>
(fake hostname):

> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 19.09.2018 um 17:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>> On 9/19/18 9:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second,
>>> and the vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them,
>>> but not all three -- the third must be derived from the two that are
>>> defined, via measurement.
>> Actually 'length of the meter' is, what the definition should define.
> 
> Not in relativity, since the last centimeter in that meter will be non-
> local.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#472627

the local village idiot Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> "Dr. Stakos Netakis" <autp@wsalaws.np>:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 19.09.2018 um 17:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>>> On 9/19/18 9:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second,
>>>> and the vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them,
>>>> but not all three -- the third must be derived from the two that are
>>>> defined, via measurement.
>>> Actually 'length of the meter' is, what the definition should define.
>> 
>> Not in relativity, since the last centimeter in that meter will be non-
>> local.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>

This CAD designer masquerading a fritzkarte in "computer science" doesn't 
know about the extent of Local and Non-local used in physics. 

There is no place for you in a technocratic society. You will never have 
financial success.

*_B U M P_*

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

#472635

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Rhett Joyner" <udof@rsrrfirw.on>
(fake TLD):

> the local village idiot Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> "Dr. Stakos Netakis" <autp@wsalaws.np>:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 19.09.2018 um 17:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>>>> On 9/19/18 9:06 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second,
>>>>> and the vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them,
>>>>> but not all three -- the third must be derived from the two that are
>>>>> defined, via measurement.
>>>> Actually 'length of the meter' is, what the definition should define.
>>> Not in relativity, since the last centimeter in that meter will be non-
>>> local.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong>
> 
> This CAD designer masquerading a fritzkarte in "computer science"

The ’nym-shifting troll has no clue.  I am not a "CAD designer"; in my day
job (when I am not studying) I am a professional (Web) software developer
(supported by my degree of BSc in Computer Science).

“Masquerading a fritzkarte” has no meaning.  AVM _Fritz!Card_ is an ISDN
network interface that fell out of use (with ISDN) a decade ago.

> doesn't know about the extent of Local and Non-local used in physics. 

The ’nym-shifting troll has no clue.  If parts of a length would be
“non-local”, that would mean that they would be in several places at once.

> There is no place for you in a technocratic society.

The ’nym-shifting troll has no clue about English either.  “technocratic”
means something completely different from what they tried to say.

> You will never have financial success.

I already have.  I already have had enough financial and career success that
now I can afford studying physics part-time to achieve my second (and third)
degree while working only part-time.

The ’nym-shifting troll is a luser[tm] who has no clue about anything.
It is safe to killfile them.  Use the hint at the top.

Also, you should support me in reporting their abuse to their service
provider so that eventually their access to the service will be blocked:

<https://news.aioe.org/manual/complaints/>

Their provider is very supportive and will appreciate more evidence of
abuse, but obviously I do not have the time to do all the reporting myself.

> *_B U M P_*

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#472638

the trash bag Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Rhett Joyner" <udof@rsrrfirw.on>
> (fake TLD):

You must be thinking at your own ugly ’nym-shifting troll of a mother. Not 
me.

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

#472604

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.09.2018 um 17:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second, 
>> and the vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them, 
>> but not all three -- the third must be derived from the two that are 
>> defined, via measurement.
> 
> Actually 'length of the meter' is, what the definition should define.

It does.

> This already contains implicit assumptions (known to be wrong!):

None of this is "known to be wrong".  Instead, what *you* think that
*you* know is known to be wrong.

> - one piece (say one cubic meter) of vacuum here is behaving similar to 
> one piece of vacuum there (say: one light year away).

It is obvious that this is the case.  We can easily observe objects that are
one light-year away.

BTW, that you are using the unit of light-year implies that you are
accepting the isotropy of the speed of light as a given.

> - length does not change

As all other units, the meter is defined in the rest frame.

> - the length of a second does not change

There is no good reason to believe that cesium atoms would work differently
elsewhere.  Absolutely none.  But there are a gazillion reasons given by
observation that indicate that it is not so.

> Then we have another implicit assumption in 'speed of light in vacuum'. 
> That is 'inertial frame of reference' (stemming from SRT).

You are hopelessly underinformed.  This is 2018, not 1905 – progress has
been made in the theories of relativity.

> But we don't have anything like that here on Earth or even near the 
> solar system.

In approximation we have, and that is enough.  The same as it is enough for
you to buy furniture whose dimensions are specified in length × height ×
depth/breadth as if space were Euclidean and the corresponding coordinate
axes would all be perpendicular to each other.

> Actually all the SI units are random choices of something,

No, they are not.  They are well-defined.

> but according to a certain systematic approach.

So they are not random, contrary to your uninformed claim.

> The meter was defined as 1/40,000 of the meridian through Paris.

Wrong.

>> There is nothing circular in choosing to define the second and the 
>> vacuum speed of light, and then deriving the meter via measurement. 
>> There are good metrological reasons for doing it that way, which were 
>> accepted back in 1983.
>>
>>      Do you seriously think you understand this better than the
>>      world's experts? SERIOUSLY????
> 
> Physics is in a way 'sick' and the disease is called 'academia'.

No, *you* are sick, and not just in scare quotes or “in a way”, but very
obviously in many ways.  You are mentally ill, because you believe your
fantasies above all arguments to the contrary and, most of all, above
observable reality.

This mental disorder is called “delusion” (German: „Wahn(vorstellung)“),
and your belief that you who are a layman know better than all experts is
called a “delusion of grandeur”, “grandiose delusion” or “megalomania”
(German: „Grössenwahn“); the medical term is “narcissistic personality
disorder” – look it up in ICD-10 Chapter Ⅴ.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#472793

Am 21.09.2018 um 19:43 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> The meter was defined as 1/40,000 of the meridian through Paris.
> Wrong.
> 

Well, it was - of course - the K I L O meter.

Sorry.


see e.g. here:

https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-measurement-of-one-meter-related-to-the-size-of-the-Earth

quote:

"The French went ahead, choosing the Earth as their standard 
(1/10,000,000 the quarter circumference, from equator to North Pole). 
Two astronomers headed teams to measure both a slice on the Earth (Paris 
to Calais, and Paris to Barcelona) and also how much of an angle the 
slice represented. Together, they permitted estimating their entire 
Earth’s quarter circumference.

A draft metre length was released, based on previous surveys of France, 
and the astronomers started their new precision survey."

TH

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

#472795

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.09.2018 um 19:43 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> The meter was defined as 1/40,000 of the meridian through Paris.
>> Wrong.
> 
> Well, it was - of course - the K I L O meter.

Still wrong.

> see e.g. here:
> 
> https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-measurement-of-one-meter-related-to-the-size-of-the-Earth

You have a poor choice of sources.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#472518

W dniu środa, 19 września 2018 17:43:40 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second, and the 
> vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them, but not all three 
> -- the third must be derived from the two that are defined, via measurement.

And the mainstream failed with this:
thus the Shapiro delay is bigger about 20us, than the GR predicts.

on the earth orbit:
sqrt(1-2m/r)-1 =~ m/r = 1.5km / 150e6 km = 1e-8

so, the second unit on the earth, is longer 1e-8 than the assumed value.

but: the lightspeed is still measured to be exact: c ~= 3e8 m/s;

and because:
c = r/t

hence a measured distance - r must be underestimated too!

simply:
r = r_real * (1 - 1e-8);

thus:
r_real = r_measured * (1 + 1e-8)


For example:
measured/assumed: 1au = 500s, is in fact bigger, about:

500s * 1e-8 = 5us

4 * 5us = 20us -> this is just the obvious error in the Shapiro delays;

All of the real distances in the Solar System are bigger about 1e-8,
than assumed and measured using the local thus wrong units: of time and distance!!!
 
This wrong assumption (about invariability of units of measure)
is a direct cause of many fantastic anomalies in the real measurements:
flyby and Pioneers anomalies, Shapiro delays and many others!

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

#472525

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 11:07:44 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 19 września 2018 17:43:40 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> 
> > There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second, and the 
> > vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them, but not all three 
> > -- the third must be derived from the two that are defined, via measurement.
> 
> And the mainstream failed with this:
> thus the Shapiro delay is bigger about 20us, than the GR predicts.

Nonsense.

--
Jan

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

#472526

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 11:07:44 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl
> wrote:
>> W dniu środa, 19 września 2018 17:43:40 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137
>> napisał:
>> 
>> > There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second,
>> > and the vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them,
>> > but not all three -- the third must be derived from the two that are
>> > defined, via measurement.
>
> Nonsense.

Sure, as it will brake the circularity. Each one being dependent and based 
on the definition of the others. Unintentionally, you just gave the proof.

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

#472548

W dniu czwartek, 20 września 2018 21:16:23 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 11:07:44 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 19 września 2018 17:43:40 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > 
> > > There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second, and the 
> > > vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them, but not all three 
> > > -- the third must be derived from the two that are defined, via measurement.
> > 
> > And the mainstream failed with this:
> > thus the Shapiro delay is bigger about 20us, than the GR predicts.
> 
> Nonsense.

1e-8 !

the real size of the Earth is:
r_measured_locally * (1 + 1e-8) = 6370 km * (1+1e-8)
...

hence the Earth radius is bigger about:
6370km * 1e-8 = 0.0637 m =~ 6.4 cm - than You believe

three fingers.. or even four - full hand!!!

(excluding selfgravity of the earth,
which produces additional several mm... almost 5mm). 

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

#472559

On 9/20/18 1:07 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 19 września 2018 17:43:40 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>> There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second, and the
>> vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them, but not all three
>> -- the third must be derived from the two that are defined, via measurement.
> 
> And the mainstream failed with this:
> thus the Shapiro delay is bigger about 20us, than the GR predicts.
> [...]

You keep claiming this, but have been completely unable to substantiate 
your claim. All you have ever shown is a bunch of chicken scratches 
involving unknown and undefined symbols.

If you ever post a real derivation of equations supporting your claim, 
I'll look at it. But your chicken scratches are completely useless.

Tom Roberts

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

#472573

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 9/20/18 1:07 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>> W dniu środa, 19 września 2018 17:43:40 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137
>> napisał:
>>> There are three inter-related quantities here: the meter, the second,
>>> and the vacuum speed of light. We are free to define any two of them,
>>> but not all three -- the third must be derived from the two that are
>>> defined, via measurement.
>> 
>> And the mainstream failed with this:
>> thus the Shapiro delay is bigger about 20us, than the GR predicts.
>> [...]
> 
> If you ever post a real derivation of equations supporting your claim,
> I'll look at it. But your chicken scratches are completely useless.

You contradict yourself, plainly. You are demanding equations, a 
substitute for Logic, in support of your stand point. But the postulated 
constancy of the speed of light, together with so many other things, are 
anything but logic. A mechanism is similar to a set of equations, which 
can describe a model. Something you CANNOT PROVIDE.

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

#472608

W dniu piątek, 21 września 2018 06:34:19 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> > And the mainstream failed with this:
> > thus the Shapiro delay is bigger about 20us, than the GR predicts.
> > [...]
> 
> You keep claiming this, but have been completely unable to substantiate 
> your claim. All you have ever shown is a bunch of chicken scratches 
> involving unknown and undefined symbols.
> 
> If you ever post a real derivation of equations supporting your claim, 
> I'll look at it. But your chicken scratches are completely useless.
> 
> Tom Roberts

I have send the correct solutions many times already,
including several other sources - links where authors noticed this fallacy too.

Simple conclusion:
You are completely impotent in the math.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web