Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #482472 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 05:01 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 15:30 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 08:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 11:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 21:38 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 16:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-28 22:07 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 08:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-29 04:47 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 06:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-01-31 00:34 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 18:36 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 19:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:57 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-27 10:10 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 17:53 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 14:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 16:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 14:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-01 08:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-02 11:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 14:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 11:29 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 02:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 14:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 19:26 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:38 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:14 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 14:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 07:46 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 09:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 12:03 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:29 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 21:42 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 15:31 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 20:45 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 23:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 18:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-31 10:57 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 12:21 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 06:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 12:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 08:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-31 07:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 12:47 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-02-01 20:03 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 19:16 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 01:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 12:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:14 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:35 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:19 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 18:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:55 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 17:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 04:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 22:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 10:05 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 23:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 18:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 06:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 00:32 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 17:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 10:43 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 19:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 15:17 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 23:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 16:02 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:56 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 23:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:23 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 14:46 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:49 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 18:21 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 16:31 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 22:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-05 02:04 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 09:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 10:40 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:29 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-04 18:16 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 09:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 09:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 20:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 03:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 03:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 16:44 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 21:53 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 14:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-01 08:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:31 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 21:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 22:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 22:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 11:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:13 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 22:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 11:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 04:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 17:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:25 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 10:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 22:23 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-06 17:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 00:00 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 15:18 +0000
Daft as Keith Stein eh! "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2019-02-04 08:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 11:49 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 19:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 09:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 06:39 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 10:08 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 07:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 07:45 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 21:52 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:43 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-04 04:49 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 12:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 10:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:18 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 04:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 00:28 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 05:48 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:25 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:41 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:44 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:24 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | yeurohenry@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 11:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <447b096b-1966-4937-9ec8-4da50cb5f809@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482539 |
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 10:56:40 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> It is indeed true that unless space and time are flexible and relative
> the speed of light can not be constant.
Special relativity doesn't say "the speed of light is constant" (that is a meaningless statement), it says the speed of light is c in terms of any system of coordinates in which the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form.
> tA is the time the light arrives at the point A in the laboratory,
That statement is nonsense because the emission event is "in the laboratory", regardless of what system of coordinates is specified. There is an inertial coordinate system x,t (defined as above) in which the lab is stationary, and there is another inertial coordinate system x',t' in which the walker is stationary. The question is, how are these related? The answer, as shown by abundant evidence, is by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations.
> tA' = tA
No, the coordinate systems have the unique property that the equations of physics take their simple form, and for those systems tA' does not equal tA.
> The only practical way to measure when the light arrives at A
> is with a clock stationary at A.
That's plainly false. We can measure the time that a car passes us with a clock on the side of the road, and we can also measure the time with a clock in the car. Neither of these is impractical. Were you drunk when you typed that?
> Tell me how you intend to measure tA' and tB'.
Here's just one of infinitely many ways: The walker is pushing a cart with standard rulers and clocks attached along its length, and the clocks are synchronized so that the homogeneous and isotropic equations of physics hold good in terms of those coordinates. tA' is the reading of the cart clock that coincides with the emission event, and tB' is the reading of the cart clock that coincides with reception event.
> Right where tA' and tB' are NOT MEASURED by anything,
> but are bull shit numbers invented for the sole purpose
> of ensuring you get that answer eh!
No, the coordinates of the walker's frame are physically defined in exactly the same way as the coordinates in the lab frame, i.e., they are the coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the law speed limit). This is the key point that you're missing.
> Einstein actually considered a rod AB with clocks at either end
> moving with velocity v, rather like my experiment above, except
> that he clearly uses the wrong value for xA'- xB', which clearly
> should be L + v(tA-tB), rather than the just the length of the
> rod, as used by Einstein.
You misread, perhaps because the prime (') symbol in this paragraph doesn't refer to another coordinate system, it just refers to the time when the light gets back to the emitter after reflection. So don't be confused by that.
In this paragraph Einstein is referring to clocks that are synchronized and adjusted to read the "time of the stationary system", and they are at the ends of a moving rod whose length is rAB in terms of the stationary inertial coordinates. Given that the speed of light is c in the stationary coordinates, the time required for the pulse to go from emitter to mirror is rAB/(c-v), and the time required for the return trip is rAB/(c+v). The first quantity is tB-tA and the second quantity is what you should call tA2-tB, where tA2 is the time in the stationary system when the pulse gets back to the emitter. (Einstein calls this tA', but that may be misleading you to think it refers to the moving coordinates, which it does not.)
This is all just Einstein's overly elaborate way of pointing out the obvious, which is that if the speed of light is isotropic in terms of the moving inertial coordinates, as well as in the stationary coordinates, then those two coordinate systems must have different simultaneity, because tA2-tB does not equal tB-tA. In other words, the speed would not be isotropic if the moving frame used the stationary synchronization.
But this is all irrelevant for you, because you (presumably) already know that if the speed of light is isotropic in terms of both coordinate systems their time coordinates must be skewed. Your question is: How do we know this is true? What is the reason for believing this is true? Well, Einstein is not addressing that question in the particular paragraph you are fixated on (and that you thoroughly misunderstand, by the way). What I've been explaining to you is why we know this to be true... but you keep ignoring the explanation.
> It may be that some modification of Newton's Laws are required,
> but it is certainly not necessary to abandon Newton's Universal
> time, and it is a damn fool thing to do.
It isn't a matter of choosing to abandon things or not, it is a matter of specifying clearly what you are talking about, and then being accurate in the things you say. If you want to talk about systems of coordinates related by Galilean transformations, go right ahead, but do not claim that the equations of physics in their simple form hold good in terms of those coordinates, because they don't, as has been demonstrated by countless experiments and observations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 10:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Icqdnb08kMlvStDBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #482472 |
On 1/27/19 6:36 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > How i know clocks don't really go SLOW in in low Earth orbit > and FAST in high Earth orbit. You phrased that wrong: "know" => "FANTASIZE". > Of course i am not saying that clocks can't be adjusted to do that, > but if you don't cheat by readjusting the clocks for each orbit,there > is no way that clocks will really lose 25 us/day in ISS orbit, and gain > 37 us/day in GPS orbit. Nobody is "cheating". UNADJUSTED clocks are measured to send signals that tick 38 us/day faster than IDENTICAL ground clocks. There is no valid reason to expect clocks at the ISS to not lag 25 us/day behind ground clocks (your FANTASIES are not a valid reason). > in classical physics space and time are invariable > and absolute, and the velocity of light is relative. Yes. But that classical physics is INCONSISTENT with experiments. HUNDREDS of experiments. This is well known, and it is sad that you refuse to learn anything about the subject. > If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, > so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any > way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must > be as daft as Einstein eh! The crazy person is YOU. That is not at all what is done. The meter and second are not "redefined" -- the same number of atoms in a meterstick spans a meter regardless of which inertial frame it is at rest in; the same number of Cs133 oscillations comprise a second, regardless of which inertial frame the atom is at rest in. Ditto for wherever they are at rest in a gravitational field. Twins are OBSERVED to have experienced different elapsed proper times between meetings. Your fantasies cannot change the results of myriad experiments. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1em3E.188816$Pa4.55062@fx30.am4> |
| In reply to | #482478 |
On 27/01/2019 16:10, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 1/27/19 6:36 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, >> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any >> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must >> be as daft as Einstein eh! > > The crazy person is YOU. > > That is not at all what is done. The meter and second are not > "redefined" -- the same number of atoms in a meterstick spans a meter > regardless of which inertial frame it is at rest in; the same number of > Cs133 oscillations comprise a second, regardless of which inertial frame > the atom is at rest in. Excellent Mr.Roberts. Now, considering Einstein's light clock mounted across a railway carriage, the number of Cs133 oscillations which occur between light passing point A on one side of the carriage, being reflected at B on the other side of and returning to A, must be the same regardless of the speed of the train, (which indeed it is eh!), and therefore t' = t > Twins are OBSERVED to have experienced different elapsed proper times > between meetings. I must of missed that Mr.Roberts. What were the names of those twins eh? :) > Your fantasies cannot change the results of myriad > experiments. You are the one fantasizing Mr.Roberts. There has never been an experiment showing so much as =1 us of the SR Twin Effect, and while you obviously will not OBSERVE that with real twins, in reality you have never even OBSERVED it with real clocks. Although it should be easy to observe -25 us/day on the ISS, if it really existed eh! keith stein > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 14:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d1d44e7d-aed4-4815-bd56-9b42d15392c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482478 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 8:10:32 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > UNADJUSTED clocks are measured to send signals that tick 38 us/day > faster than IDENTICAL ground clocks. Section A of chapter K of the following treatise has a better explanation of this +42 usec due to net gravitational time dilation and -7 usec due to differences in absolute speeds. http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf > Twins are OBSERVED to have experienced different elapsed proper times > between meetings. There is not an experiment that supports the existence of this proper time thing. They all show the possibilities of one local clock tick rate to be ticking at a different rate than another local and remote clock. Ahjohng
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 12:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <48c701f5-576f-4a89-befc-c6ea26f61bbf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482472 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, > so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any > way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must > be as daft as Einstein eh! Special relativity is not about redefining metre and second. This is a basic mistake you are making. It's rather astonishing you can peddle this false claim after _years_ of studying the subject. Just give it up. You are wasting your time. Find something you are actually good at, it'll be much more rewarding. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 22:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <K0q3E.483402$Fi6.433828@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #482484 |
On 27/01/2019 20:05, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: >> >> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, >> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any >> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must >> be as daft as Einstein eh! > > Special relativity is not about redefining metre and second. When the meter was defined as the length of a bar somewhere in Paris, it is clear that the meter bar must be exactly one meter long even when you walk away from it eh! No length contraction of that meter bar can occur even if you fly away from it at .99c. You should also note Jan that if we stick with the definition of the second, in use in 1905 when Einstein wrote his SR paper, then t' = t. "The second is the SI base unit of time ...historically defined as 1⁄86400 of a day" Clearly the Earth has turned exactly the same number of times for both SR Twins when they meet, even after one has been flying about the Cosmos, and irrespective of how fast the traveling twin traveled. So on the original definition of the second both SR twins must be the same age eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 16:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <305a4c0c-ba92-4840-a47c-1c6ff9c774c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482491 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 2:11:56 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 27/01/2019 20:05, JanPB wrote: > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >> > >> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, > >> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any > >> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must > >> be as daft as Einstein eh! > > > > Special relativity is not about redefining metre and second. > > When the meter was defined as the length of a bar somewhere in > Paris, it is clear that the meter bar must be exactly one meter > long even when you walk away from it eh! No length contraction of > that meter bar can occur even if you fly away from it at .99c. > > You should also note Jan that if we stick with the definition of the > second, in use in 1905 when Einstein wrote his SR paper, then t' = t. As I said, find another hobby. You are spinning your wheels, it leads nowhere. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 07:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5faff9c2-0ed5-4f35-a9cf-0c080d90a8c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482491 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:11:56 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > On 27/01/2019 20:05, JanPB wrote: > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >> > >> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, > >> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any > >> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must > >> be as daft as Einstein eh! > > > > Special relativity is not about redefining metre and second. > > When the meter was defined as the length of a bar somewhere in > Paris, it is clear that the meter bar must be exactly one meter > long even when you walk away from it eh! No length contraction of > that meter bar can occur even if you fly away from it at .99c. Right, the material length of a meter stick is the same in all frames of reference. > You should also note Jan that if we stick with the definition of the > second, in use in 1905 when Einstein wrote his SR paper, then t’ = t. The problem with t’=t: 1. The TIME content (duration) of a second in my frame is not equal to the TIME content (duration) in your frame. 2. t’=t would destroy all the math of relativity and the LT....but these math agree with experiments. So what are the math based on t’=t that you have that agree with all these experiments? 3. Your problem is that you accept the existence of absolute time which gives you t’=t but there is no clock time unit (including a clock second as currently defined) that give you the same time content in all frames. 4. If you want to include absolute time in your argument, you should look at IRT in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf 5. IRT does include absolute time but its math also include relative time. > > "The second is the SI base unit of time ...historically defined as > 1⁄86400 of a day" > > Clearly the Earth has turned exactly the same number of times > for both SR Twins when they meet, even after one has been flying > about the Cosmos, and irrespective of how fast the traveling twin > traveled. So on the original definition of the second both SR twins > must be the same age eh! > > keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 14:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64d25e6b-7177-4fda-a064-361f8e7bf16b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482491 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:11:56 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: > On 27/01/2019 20:05, JanPB wrote: > > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > >> > >> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, > >> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any > >> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must > >> be as daft as Einstein eh! > > > > Special relativity is not about redefining metre and second. > > When the meter was defined as the length of a bar somewhere in > Paris, it is clear that the meter bar must be exactly one meter > long even when you walk away from it eh! No length contraction of > that meter bar can occur even if you fly away from it at .99c. Right, the material length of the meter stick in Paris remains the same even if you fly away from it at .99c. Relativists had to come up with an explanation of the length contraction equation, so they said that the projected length of the moving meter stick onto the observer’s frame is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. The better interpretation is that the light path length...(length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick).... of a moving meter stick is predicted to be contracted by a factor 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that the light path length of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. > > You should also note Jan that if we stick with the definition of the > second, in use in 1905 when Einstein wrote his SR paper, then t’ = t. No t’/=t.... the passage of a clock second in the primed clock corresponds to the passage of gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. > > "The second is the SI base unit of time ...historically defined as > 1⁄86400 of a day" > > Clearly the Earth has turned exactly the same number of times > for both SR Twins when they meet, even after one has been flying > about the Cosmos, and irrespective of how fast the traveling twin > traveled. So on the original definition of the second both SR twins > must be the same age eh! > > keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 03:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <LkP4E.139518$Ur2.14684@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #482689 |
On 31/01/2019 22:21, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:11:56 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 27/01/2019 20:05, JanPB wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second,
>>>> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any
>>>> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must
>>>> be as daft as Einstein eh!
>>>
>>> Special relativity is not about redefining metre and second.
>>
>> When the meter was defined as the length of a bar somewhere in
>> Paris, it is clear that the meter bar must be exactly one meter
>> long even when you walk away from it eh! No length contraction of
>> that meter bar can occur even if you fly away from it at .99c.
>
> Right, the material length of the meter stick in Paris remains the same even if you fly away from it at .99c. Relativists had to come up with an explanation of the length contraction equation, so they said that the projected length of the moving meter stick onto the observer’s frame is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. The better interpretation is that the light path length...(length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick).... of a moving meter stick is
But in reality Ken,
The "length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter
stick" depends on its velocity (magnitude and direction eh!)
If the bar and the light are moving in the same direction, then
"length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick"
= 1 + v/c
and if the bar and light are moving in opposite directions, then
"length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick"
= 1 - v/c
and for the general case you would need to learn to add
a couple of vectors Ken.
predicted to be contracted by a factor 1/gamma. This prediction is based
on the assumption that the light path length of the observer’s meter
stick is its material length.
>
>>
>> You should also note Jan that if we stick with the definition of the
>> second, in use in 1905 when Einstein wrote his SR paper, then t’ = t.
>
> No t’/=t.... the passage of a clock second in the primed clock corresponds to the passage of gamma seconds on the observer’s clock.
>
>>
>> "The second is the SI base unit of time ...historically defined as
>> 1⁄86400 of a day"
>>
>> Clearly the Earth has turned exactly the same number of times
>> for both SR Twins when they meet, even after one has been flying
>> about the Cosmos, and irrespective of how fast the traveling twin
>> traveled. So on the original definition of the second both SR twins
>> must be the same age eh!
>>
>> keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 08:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <264f4ca1-8757-4c15-938b-a09942661094@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482703 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 10:49:01 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 31/01/2019 22:21, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:11:56 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 27/01/2019 20:05, JanPB wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second,
> >>>> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any
> >>>> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must
> >>>> be as daft as Einstein eh!
> >>>
> >>> Special relativity is not about redefining metre and second.
> >>
> >> When the meter was defined as the length of a bar somewhere in
> >> Paris, it is clear that the meter bar must be exactly one meter
> >> long even when you walk away from it eh! No length contraction of
> >> that meter bar can occur even if you fly away from it at .99c.
> >
> > Right, the material length of the meter stick in Paris remains the same even if you fly away from it at .99c. Relativists had to come up with an explanation of the length contraction equation, so they said that the projected length of the moving meter stick onto the observer’s frame is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. The better interpretation is that the light path length...(length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick).... of a moving meter stick is
> But in reality Ken,
> The "length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter
> stick” depends on its velocity (magnitude and direction eh!)
You are mixing Doppler shift with length contraction.
For Doppler Shift:
A----------------S-----------------B
Vs----->
A sees the source is red shifted and B will see the source to be blue shifted. This is not length contraction or length compression.
For length contraction in SR:
A and B measures that S have the same velocity Vs and thus they both will predict that a meter stick in the S frame will contracted by a factor of 1/gamma in their respective frame.
For light-path-length (LPL) contraction or expansion in IRT:
A and B each assumes that the LPL of his meter stick is its material length. A or B doesn’t know if the LPL of the moving meter stick is contracted by a factor pf 1/gamma or ex[anded by a factor of gamma. Therefore they each must include both calculations and the number that agrees with observation is the correct prediction.
A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>
> If the bar and the light are moving in the same direction, then
> "length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick"
> = 1 + v/c
>
> and if the bar and light are moving in opposite directions, then
> "length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick"
> = 1 - v/c
>
> and for the general case you would need to learn to add
> a couple of vectors Ken.
>
>
> predicted to be contracted by a factor 1/gamma. This prediction is based
> on the assumption that the light path length of the observer’s meter
> stick is its material length.
> >
> >>
> >> You should also note Jan that if we stick with the definition of the
> >> second, in use in 1905 when Einstein wrote his SR paper, then t’ = t.
> >
> > No t’/=t.... the passage of a clock second in the primed clock corresponds to the passage of gamma seconds on the observer’s clock.
> >
> >>
> >> "The second is the SI base unit of time ...historically defined as
> >> 1⁄86400 of a day"
> >>
> >> Clearly the Earth has turned exactly the same number of times
> >> for both SR Twins when they meet, even after one has been flying
> >> about the Cosmos, and irrespective of how fast the traveling twin
> >> traveled. So on the original definition of the second both SR twins
> >> must be the same age eh!
> >>
> >> keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-02 07:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zXb5E.886006$Sj4.145487@fx15.am4> |
| In reply to | #482737 |
On 01/02/2019 16:29, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 10:49:01 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 31/01/2019 22:21, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:11:56 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> When the meter was defined as the length of a bar somewhere in >>>> Paris, it is clear that the meter bar must be exactly one meter >>>> long even when you walk away from it eh! No length contraction of >>>> that meter bar can occur even if you fly away from it at .99c. >>> Right, the material length of the meter stick in Paris remains the same even if you fly away from it at .99c. Relativists had to come up with an explanation of the length contraction equation, so they said that the projected length of the moving meter stick onto the observer’s frame is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. The better interpretation is that the light path length...(length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick).... of a moving meter stick is >> But in reality Ken, >> The "length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter >> stick” depends on its velocity (magnitude and direction eh!) > You are mixing Doppler shift with length contraction. No it is you who is doing that Ken, not me eh! Study this old post of mine Ken, and then perhaps you will see how the path length of light which passes between A and B, depends on the velocity of AB relative to YOU. > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 Keith Stein wrote: >> >> Consider >> any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory. >> >> A B >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >> tA tB >> >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >> >> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >> >> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v >> If the bar and the light are moving in the same direction, then >> "length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick" >> = 1 + v/c >> >> and if the bar and light are moving in opposite directions, then >> "length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick" >> = 1 - v/c >> >> and for the general case you would need to learn to add >> a couple of vectors Ken. keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-02 11:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8401f21f-ad81-4242-8825-15a89bb705f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482776 |
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:48:49 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 01/02/2019 16:29, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 10:49:01 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 31/01/2019 22:21, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:11:56 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> >>>> When the meter was defined as the length of a bar somewhere in
> >>>> Paris, it is clear that the meter bar must be exactly one meter
> >>>> long even when you walk away from it eh! No length contraction of
> >>>> that meter bar can occur even if you fly away from it at .99c.
>
> >>> Right, the material length of the meter stick in Paris remains the same even if you fly away from it at .99c. Relativists had to come up with an explanation of the length contraction equation, so they said that the projected length of the moving meter stick onto the observer’s frame is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma. The better interpretation is that the light path length...(length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick).... of a moving meter stick is
>
> >> But in reality Ken,
> >> The "length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter
> >> stick” depends on its velocity (magnitude and direction eh!)
>
> > You are mixing Doppler shift with length contraction.
>
>
> No it is you who is doing that Ken, not me eh!
> Study this old post of mine Ken, and then perhaps
> you will see how the path length of light which
> passes between A and B, depends on the velocity of
> AB relative to YOU.
Here’s what you said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:48:09 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Consider
>> any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>
>> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
>
> Thought experiments depend upon the assumptions you make about them.
> YOU made incorrect assumptions. The light did NOT travel a distance
> L, it traveled a distance d = L + v*(tB - tA).
Excellent Gary that is correct.
Now Speed = Distance / Time
= L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
= L/(tB-tA) + v
= c + v
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You made the following false assumptions:
1. You assumed that the speed of light is c in the A and B frame.
2. Then you assumed that you can add the relative velocity between you and A/B to get the final incoming speed of light.
The proper procedure for you to measure the one-way incoming speed of light:
1. Set up a known distance L' between A’ and B’ in your frame.
2. Determine the time for light to travel between A’ and B’....call this Delta(Tb’-Ta’)
3. The incoming speed of light is: L’/Delta(Tb’-Ta’)
Your argument that the incoming speed of light is not c can be valid if you determine the incoming speed of light as follows:
c’=(measured frequency of incoming light)(original wavelength of the source)
For example, if the source is sodium and the source wavelength of sodium is 589 nm
The incoming speed of sodium light is:
c’_na=(measured incoming frequency)(589nm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 Keith Stein wrote:
> >>
> >> Consider
> >> any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
> >>
> >> A B
> >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
> >> tA tB
> >>
> >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
> >>
> >> Now walk towards B from the right at v m/s
> >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
> >> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
> >> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
> >>
> >> Speed of light relative to YOU = (L + v(tB-tA)) / (tB-tA) = c + v
>
>
> >> If the bar and the light are moving in the same direction, then
> >> "length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick"
> >> = 1 + v/c
> >>
> >> and if the bar and light are moving in opposite directions, then
> >> "length for light to cover the material length of a moving meter stick"
> >> = 1 - v/c
> >>
> >> and for the general case you would need to learn to add
> >> a couple of vectors Ken.
>
>
> keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 23:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c3281348-3b0c-4b12-9c22-37c1bb0607d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482484 |
On Sunday, 27 January 2019 21:05:23 UTC+1, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > > > > If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, > > so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any > > way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must > > be as daft as Einstein eh! > > Special relativity is not about redefining metre and second. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. That's exactly what it is about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 14:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1b61f35-6327-4133-9111-0bce5cf778f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482472 |
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 4:36:05 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > How i know clocks don't really go SLOW in in low Earth orbit > and FAST in high Earth orbit. Do you program the right Gamma by the right gravity strength? Atomic clocks are problematic. You need more time then available on either side close or far. God creates gravity. Eternally. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 11:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gb70nmF53cbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482472 |
On 27/01/2019 11:36 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > How i know clocks don't really go SLOW in in low Earth orbit > and FAST in high Earth orbit. > > Of course i am not saying that clocks can't be adjusted to do that, > but if you don't cheat by readjusting the clocks for each orbit,there > is no way that clocks will really lose 25 us/day in ISS orbit, and gain > 37 us/day in GPS orbit. > > "If the speed of light is invariable and absolute, Einstein realized, > both space and time must be flexible and relative to accommodate this." > > Which is true, but in classical physics space and time are invariable > and absolute, and the velocity of light is relative. > > If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, > so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any > way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must > be as daft as Einstein eh! > > keith stein The definitions of the metre and the second are red-herrings in this discussion. Forget them. Construct two clocks. Don't worry about their specific tick rate, just make sure they tick at the same rate. Similarly, construct two rulers. Again, don't worry about their specific lengths, just ensure that they are the same. Select two impartial observers. Now, choose a clock and a ruler and an observer, and accelerate them for a time, and then stop accelerating them. Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will arrive at the same number. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 02:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v_t3E.180749$XD1.151285@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #482498 |
On 28/01/2019 00:29, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 27/01/2019 11:36 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> How i know clocks don't really go SLOW in in low Earth orbit >> and FAST in high Earth orbit. >> >> Of course i am not saying that clocks can't be adjusted to do that, >> but if you don't cheat by readjusting the clocks for each orbit,there >> is no way that clocks will really lose 25 us/day in ISS orbit, and >> gain 37 us/day in GPS orbit. >> >> "If the speed of light is invariable and absolute, Einstein >> realized, both space and time must be flexible and relative to >> accommodate this." >> >> Which is true, but in classical physics space and time are invariable >> and absolute, and the velocity of light is relative. >> >> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, >> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any >> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must >> be as daft as Einstein eh! >> >> keith stein > > The definitions of the metre and the second are red-herrings in this > discussion. Forget them. > > Construct two clocks. Don't worry about their specific tick rate, just > make sure they tick at the same rate. > > Similarly, construct two rulers. Again, don't worry about their specific > lengths, just ensure that they are the same. > > Select two impartial observers. > > Now, choose a clock and a ruler and an observer, and accelerate them for > a time, and then stop accelerating them. > > Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let > them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the > time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come > out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. What you say is true Sylvia, and not only that, but they would also both get the same number for the speed of sound eh! > The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will > arrive at the same number. Of course, Sylvia,but that in no way suggest that they will get the same value for the velocity of the remote experimenter's light, or indeed sound, as they get for the velocity of their own local light, or sound eh! keith stein > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 14:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gb7a9lF6v0nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482504 |
On 28/01/2019 1:43 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 28/01/2019 00:29, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 27/01/2019 11:36 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> How i know clocks don't really go SLOW in in low Earth orbit >>> and FAST in high Earth orbit. >>> >>> Of course i am not saying that clocks can't be adjusted to do that, >>> but if you don't cheat by readjusting the clocks for each orbit,there >>> is no way that clocks will really lose 25 us/day in ISS orbit, and >>> gain 37 us/day in GPS orbit. >>> >>> "If the speed of light is invariable and absolute, Einstein >>> realized, both space and time must be flexible and relative to >>> accommodate this." >>> >>> Which is true, but in classical physics space and time are invariable >>> and absolute, and the velocity of light is relative. >>> >>> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, >>> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any >>> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must >>> be as daft as Einstein eh! >>> >>> keith stein >> >> The definitions of the metre and the second are red-herrings in this >> discussion. Forget them. >> >> Construct two clocks. Don't worry about their specific tick rate, just >> make sure they tick at the same rate. >> >> Similarly, construct two rulers. Again, don't worry about their >> specific lengths, just ensure that they are the same. >> >> Select two impartial observers. >> >> Now, choose a clock and a ruler and an observer, and accelerate them >> for a time, and then stop accelerating them. >> >> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let >> them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure the >> time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will come >> out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. > > What you say is true Sylvia, and not only that, > but they would also both get the same number for > the speed of sound eh! That raises issues to do with the medium, and yet more red herrings. Let's stick to discussions about light in a vacuum. > >> The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will >> arrive at the same number. > > Of course, Sylvia,but that in no way suggest that > they will get the same value for the velocity of > the remote experimenter's light, or indeed sound, > as they get for the velocity of their own local > light, or sound eh! It could be the same light that they're measuring. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 07:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <%By3E.180968$XD1.38853@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #482506 |
On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/01/2019 1:43 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 28/01/2019 00:29, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 27/01/2019 11:36 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> How i know clocks don't really go SLOW in in low Earth orbit >>>> and FAST in high Earth orbit. >>>> >>>> Of course i am not saying that clocks can't be adjusted to do that, >>>> but if you don't cheat by readjusting the clocks for each orbit,there >>>> is no way that clocks will really lose 25 us/day in ISS orbit, and >>>> gain 37 us/day in GPS orbit. >>>> >>>> "If the speed of light is invariable and absolute, Einstein >>>> realized, both space and time must be flexible and relative to >>>> accommodate this." >>>> >>>> Which is true, but in classical physics space and time are >>>> invariable and absolute, and the velocity of light is relative. >>>> >>>> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, >>>> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any >>>> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must >>>> be as daft as Einstein eh! >>>> >>>> keith stein >>> >>> The definitions of the metre and the second are red-herrings in this >>> discussion. Forget them. >>> >>> Construct two clocks. Don't worry about their specific tick rate, >>> just make sure they tick at the same rate. >>> >>> Similarly, construct two rulers. Again, don't worry about their >>> specific lengths, just ensure that they are the same. >>> >>> Select two impartial observers. >>> >>> Now, choose a clock and a ruler and an observer, and accelerate them >>> for a time, and then stop accelerating them. >>> >>> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let >>> them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure >>> the time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will >>> come out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. >> >> What you say is true Sylvia, and not only that, >> but they would also both get the same number for >> the speed of sound eh! > That raises issues to do with the medium, and yet more red herrings. > Let's stick to discussions about light in a vacuum. But there isn't any vacuum Sylvia, and the medium is NOT a "red herring". You simply can not understand Maxwell's theory if you fail to recognize the role of the medium. It is the MEDIUM which defines the frame of reference with which light travels with a speed determined by the electric and magnetic properties OF THE MEDIUM. >>> The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will >>> arrive at the same number. >> >> Of course, Sylvia,but that in no way suggest that >> they will get the same value for the velocity of >> the remote experimenter's light, or indeed sound, >> as they get for the velocity of their own local >> light, or sound eh! > > It could be the same light that they're measuring. It could be the same ray of light yes, but a single ray of light does not necessarily have the same speed along the whole of its length. The speed of light varies with the nature of, and the velocity of, the local medium which it is traveling through. > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 19:26 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gb7sm8FamiuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482514 |
On 28/01/2019 6:58 pm, Keith Stein wrote: > On 28/01/2019 03:12, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/01/2019 1:43 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 28/01/2019 00:29, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 27/01/2019 11:36 pm, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> How i know clocks don't really go SLOW in in low Earth orbit >>>>> and FAST in high Earth orbit. >>>>> >>>>> Of course i am not saying that clocks can't be adjusted to do that, >>>>> but if you don't cheat by readjusting the clocks for each orbit,there >>>>> is no way that clocks will really lose 25 us/day in ISS orbit, and >>>>> gain 37 us/day in GPS orbit. >>>>> >>>>> "If the speed of light is invariable and absolute, Einstein >>>>> realized, both space and time must be flexible and relative to >>>>> accommodate this." >>>>> >>>>> Which is true, but in classical physics space and time are >>>>> invariable and absolute, and the velocity of light is relative. >>>>> >>>>> If you really believe that by redefining the meter and the second, >>>>> so as to force the speed of light to be constant,you would in any >>>>> way change the actual behavior of twins, or clocks,then you must >>>>> be as daft as Einstein eh! >>>>> >>>>> keith stein >>>> >>>> The definitions of the metre and the second are red-herrings in this >>>> discussion. Forget them. >>>> >>>> Construct two clocks. Don't worry about their specific tick rate, >>>> just make sure they tick at the same rate. >>>> >>>> Similarly, construct two rulers. Again, don't worry about their >>>> specific lengths, just ensure that they are the same. >>>> >>>> Select two impartial observers. >>>> >>>> Now, choose a clock and a ruler and an observer, and accelerate them >>>> for a time, and then stop accelerating them. >>>> >>>> Let each observer measure out a distance using their rulers, and let >>>> them determine the speed of light by using their clocks to measure >>>> the time it takes for light to travel that distance. The result will >>>> come out to some number of clock ticks per ruler length. >>> >>> What you say is true Sylvia, and not only that, >>> but they would also both get the same number for >>> the speed of sound eh! > >> That raises issues to do with the medium, and yet more red herrings. > >> Let's stick to discussions about light in a vacuum. > > But there isn't any vacuum Sylvia, and the medium is > NOT a "red herring". You simply can not understand > Maxwell's theory if you fail to recognize the role > of the medium. It is the MEDIUM which defines the > frame of reference with which light travels with > a speed determined by the electric and magnetic > properties OF THE MEDIUM. Michelson Morley was all about measuring the Earth's speed through the medium that light was thought to propagate through. They consistently got a result indistinguishable from zero. Even at different times of year. > >>>> The experimental evidence supports the idea that each observer will >>>> arrive at the same number. >>> >>> Of course, Sylvia,but that in no way suggest that >>> they will get the same value for the velocity of >>> the remote experimenter's light, or indeed sound, >>> as they get for the velocity of their own local >>> light, or sound eh! >> >> It could be the same light that they're measuring. > > It could be the same ray of light yes, but a single > ray of light does not necessarily have the same speed > along the whole of its length. The speed of light varies > with the nature of, and the velocity of, the local medium > which it is traveling through. Even if we accept, for the purpose of discussion, that that could be true, is it really possible to construct a model of that behaviour that gives consistent results? What I have in mind is a single light ray, with multiple observers travelling at different speeds, measuring the speed of the ray over different, but overlapping, parts of the ray's journey. Even if you managed to construct such a model, you'd still be left with a Universe that's modifying the speed of light over parts of the route based on who's measuring what. It doesn't sound tenable, let alone plausible. Anyway, the ball's in your court - let's see you propose a model. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web