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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614841 > unrolled thread

A light clock that works.

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

Contents

  A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 10:56 -0700
    Re: A light clock that works. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 11:11 -0700
      Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 12:02 -0700
    Re: A light clock that works. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 11:21 -0700
      Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 12:04 -0700
        Re: A light clock that works. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 12:29 -0700
          Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 12:39 -0700
            Re: A light clock that works. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 13:53 -0700
              Re: A light clock that works. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-09 16:13 -0500
    Re: A light clock that works. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-09 22:54 +0200
      Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 15:06 -0700
        Re: A light clock that works. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 16:25 -0700
        Re: A light clock that works. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-09 21:08 -0500
          Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-10 09:32 -0700
            Re: A light clock that works. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 11:49 -0700
            Re: A light clock that works. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 11:53 -0700
            Re: A light clock that works. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-10 14:16 -0500
    Re: A light clock that works. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-10 11:13 +0300
      Re: A light clock that works. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 01:42 -0700
    Re: A light clock that works. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-10 22:11 +1000
      Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-10 06:12 -0700
        Re: A light clock that works. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-10 23:22 +1000
          Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-10 06:58 -0700
            Re: A light clock that works. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-11 00:09 +1000
              Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-10 07:11 -0700
              Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-10 07:22 -0700
                Re: A light clock that works. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 14:32 +0000
                  Re: A light clock that works. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 16:56 +0200
                    Re: A light clock that works. Jhon-Jhairo Papadopulos <drao@ohuholsj.jo> - 2023-07-10 17:28 +0000
                      Re: A light clock that works. Pablo Sfakianos <lsop@saikfiof.sn> - 2023-07-10 19:45 +0000
              Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-10 08:19 -0700
                Re: A light clock that works. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-11 11:23 +1000
                  Re: A light clock that works. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-10 20:54 -0500
          Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-10 07:10 -0700
    Re: A light clock that works. wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-10 21:52 +0200
      Re: A light clock that works. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:56 -0700
        Re: A light clock that works. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 18:17 +0000
        Re: A light clock that works. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-11 13:22 -0500
          Re: A light clock that works. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 13:02 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#614904

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-July-23 3:56 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light: 
> > Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion. 
> > The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion. 
> > That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away 
> > On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it. 
> > Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary. 
> > Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not. 
> > Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does?
> Care to expand on that using algebra, rather than hand-waving? 
> 
> Sylvia.
I would have thought you knew elementary algebra.
With light speed independent of the speed of the source:
Distance= (d + x) + (d - x)= 2d.
Velocity= c
Time= 2d/c
In case you didn't understand, refer to the completely sufficient verbal description given previously.

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

#614905

On 10-July-23 11:12 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10-July-23 3:56 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light:
>>> Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion.
>>> The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion.
>>> That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away
>>> On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it.
>>> Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary.
>>> Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not.
>>> Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does?
>> Care to expand on that using algebra, rather than hand-waving?
>>
>> Sylvia.
> I would have thought you knew elementary algebra.
> With light speed independent of the speed of the source:
> Distance= (d + x) + (d - x)= 2d.
> Velocity= c
> Time= 2d/c
> In case you didn't understand, refer to the completely sufficient verbal description given previously.

You said near the speed of light, presumably relative to some as yet to 
be identified observer, since it cannot be relative to the spaceship itself.

Sylvia.

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

#614906

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-July-23 11:12 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 10-July-23 3:56 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light: 
> >>> Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion. 
> >>> The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion. 
> >>> That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away 
> >>> On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it. 
> >>> Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary. 
> >>> Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not. 
> >>> Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does? 
> >> Care to expand on that using algebra, rather than hand-waving? 
> >> 
> >> Sylvia. 
> > I would have thought you knew elementary algebra. 
> > With light speed independent of the speed of the source: 
> > Distance= (d + x) + (d - x)= 2d. 
> > Velocity= c 
> > Time= 2d/c 
> > In case you didn't understand, refer to the completely sufficient verbal description given previously.
> You said near the speed of light, presumably relative to some as yet to 
> be identified observer, since it cannot be relative to the spaceship itself. 
> 
> Sylvia.
How needlessly you complicate matters. The observer reading the light clock is inside the ship.

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

#614907

On 10-July-23 11:58 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10-July-23 11:12 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 10-July-23 3:56 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light:
>>>>> Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion.
>>>>> The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion.
>>>>> That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away
>>>>> On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it.
>>>>> Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary.
>>>>> Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not.
>>>>> Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does?
>>>> Care to expand on that using algebra, rather than hand-waving?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>> I would have thought you knew elementary algebra.
>>> With light speed independent of the speed of the source:
>>> Distance= (d + x) + (d - x)= 2d.
>>> Velocity= c
>>> Time= 2d/c
>>> In case you didn't understand, refer to the completely sufficient verbal description given previously.
>> You said near the speed of light, presumably relative to some as yet to
>> be identified observer, since it cannot be relative to the spaceship itself.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> How needlessly you complicate matters. The observer reading the light clock is inside the ship.

So what do you mean by "travelling at near the speed of light"? How 
would someone determine that they were, or were not, travelling at near 
the speed of light?

Sylvia.

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

#614909

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 7:09:23 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-July-23 11:58 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 10-July-23 11:12 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >>>> On 10-July-23 3:56 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>>>> Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light: 
> >>>>> Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion. 
> >>>>> The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion. 
> >>>>> That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away 
> >>>>> On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it. 
> >>>>> Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary. 
> >>>>> Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not. 
> >>>>> Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does? 
> >>>> Care to expand on that using algebra, rather than hand-waving? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sylvia. 
> >>> I would have thought you knew elementary algebra. 
> >>> With light speed independent of the speed of the source: 
> >>> Distance= (d + x) + (d - x)= 2d. 
> >>> Velocity= c 
> >>> Time= 2d/c 
> >>> In case you didn't understand, refer to the completely sufficient verbal description given previously. 
> >> You said near the speed of light, presumably relative to some as yet to 
> >> be identified observer, since it cannot be relative to the spaceship itself. 
> >> 
> >> Sylvia. 
> > How needlessly you complicate matters. The observer reading the light clock is inside the ship.
> So what do you mean by "travelling at near the speed of light"? How 
> would someone determine that they were, or were not, travelling at near 
> the speed of light? 
> 
> Sylvia.
Nobody is hoodwinked by relativity here. The spaceship has a speedometer.

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

#614910

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 7:09:23 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-July-23 11:58 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 10-July-23 11:12 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >>>> On 10-July-23 3:56 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>>>> Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light: 
> >>>>> Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion. 
> >>>>> The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion. 
> >>>>> That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away 
> >>>>> On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it. 
> >>>>> Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary. 
> >>>>> Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not. 
> >>>>> Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does? 
> >>>> Care to expand on that using algebra, rather than hand-waving? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sylvia. 
> >>> I would have thought you knew elementary algebra. 
> >>> With light speed independent of the speed of the source: 
> >>> Distance= (d + x) + (d - x)= 2d. 
> >>> Velocity= c 
> >>> Time= 2d/c 
> >>> In case you didn't understand, refer to the completely sufficient verbal description given previously. 
> >> You said near the speed of light, presumably relative to some as yet to 
> >> be identified observer, since it cannot be relative to the spaceship itself. 
> >> 
> >> Sylvia. 
> > How needlessly you complicate matters. The observer reading the light clock is inside the ship.
> So what do you mean by "travelling at near the speed of light"? How 
> would someone determine that they were, or were not, travelling at near 
> the speed of light? 
> 
> Sylvia.
In Galileo's ship you can look out the window and know it's moving.

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

#614911

Le 10/07/2023 à 16:22, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 7:09:23 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10-July-23 11:58 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
>> > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
>> >> On 10-July-23 11:12 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
>> >>> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
>> >>>> On 10-July-23 3:56 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
>> >>>>> Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the 
>> speed of light: 
>> >>>>> Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the 
>> direction of Earth's orbital motion. 
>> >>>>> The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's 
>> motion. 
>> >>>>> That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away 
>> >>>>> On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of 
>> the clock is moving towards it. 
>> >>>>> Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary. 
>> >>>>> Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or 
>> not. 
>> >>>>> Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an 
>> available one does? 
>> >>>> Care to expand on that using algebra, rather than hand-waving? 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Sylvia. 
>> >>> I would have thought you knew elementary algebra. 
>> >>> With light speed independent of the speed of the source: 
>> >>> Distance= (d + x) + (d - x)= 2d. 
>> >>> Velocity= c 
>> >>> Time= 2d/c 
>> >>> In case you didn't understand, refer to the completely sufficient verbal 
>> description given previously. 
>> >> You said near the speed of light, presumably relative to some as yet to 
>> >> be identified observer, since it cannot be relative to the spaceship itself. 
>> >> 
>> >> Sylvia. 
>> > How needlessly you complicate matters. The observer reading the light clock is 
>> inside the ship.
>> So what do you mean by "travelling at near the speed of light"? How 
>> would someone determine that they were, or were not, travelling at near 
>> the speed of light? 
>> 
>> Sylvia.
> In Galileo's ship you can look out the window and know it's moving.

Certainly, but in Dr. Hachel's ship, there is no absolute frame of 
reference (like a fixed and immutable ether).

If we admit that the universe does not exist, and that there are no stars, 
no planets, but only a rocket that wanders in the empty and infinite 
spaces.

It is clear that she would not move, nor could she be moved.

Not everything is "sex".

Look at Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Wonderful Walt Disney movie.

But where are the space and the time during which we shot the film? Where 
is the house that served as a spatial support?

But no, it's just colors on film.

There is nothing absolute here.

Same in our universe. Everything is only by comparisons of colors of 
distances, of time.

But no absolute reference.

Let's take the notion of speed: which of A or B is really going faster?

A is at rest, and says that it is B who moves and therefore goes faster.

B looks at A wryly and says: "No, you're the one going faster!".

R.H. 

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

#614912

On 2023-07-10 14:32:27 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said:

>>> 
>>> [ … ]
>>> 
> Certainly, but in Dr. Hachel's ship, there is no absolute frame of 
> reference (like a fixed and immutable ether).

All very interesting, but you still haven't revealed where you earned 
your doctorate.
> 
> If we admit that the universe does not exist, and that there are no 
> stars, no planets, but only a rocket that wanders in the empty and 
> infinite spaces.
> 
> It is clear that she would not move, nor could she be moved.
> 
> Not everything is "sex".
> 
> Look at Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
> 
> Wonderful Walt Disney movie.
> 
> But where are the space and the time during which we shot the film? 
> Where is the house that served as a spatial support?
> 
> But no, it's just colors on film.
> 
> There is nothing absolute here.
> 
> Same in our universe. Everything is only by comparisons of colors of 
> distances, of time.
> 
> But no absolute reference.
> 
> Let's take the notion of speed: which of A or B is really going faster?
> 
> A is at rest, and says that it is B who moves and therefore goes faster.
> 
> B looks at A wryly and says: "No, you're the one going faster!".
> 
> R.H.


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#614918

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2023-07-10 14:32:27 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said:
>> Certainly, but in Dr. Hachel's ship, there is no absolute frame of
>> reference (like a fixed and immutable ether).
> 
> All very interesting, but you still haven't revealed where you earned
> your doctorate.

everybody really undrestand this title here, really undrestand?? With your money, he stole from you, he is walking alive and depopulate. You stinking capitalists, what the fuck is wrong with you.

*_WHO_To_Flood_Africa_With_Bill_Gates’_Experimental_Malaria_Vaccine_* To ‘Fight Climate Change’ 

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/who-to-flood-africa-with-bill-gates-experimental-malaria-vaccine-to-fight-climate-change/

*_WEF_Says_CBDCs_Must_Be_‘Implanted_Under_Your_Skin’_* if You Want To Participate in Society 
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/wef-says-cbdcs-must-be-implanted-under-your-skin-if-you-want-to-participate-in-society/

*_Biological_Man_Wins_This_Years_“Miss_Netherlands”_* 
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/biological-man-wins-this-years-miss-netherlands/

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

#614940

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> *_WHO_To_Flood_Africa_With_Bill_Gates’_Experimental_Malaria_Vaccine_* To
>> ‘Fight Climate Change’
>> 
>> https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/who-to-flood-africa-with-bill-gates-experimental-malaria-vaccine-to-fight-climate-change/
>> 
>> *_WEF_Says_CBDCs_Must_Be_‘Implanted_Under_Your_Skin’_* if You Want To
>> Participate in Society
>> https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/wef-says-cbdcs-must-be-implanted-under-your-skin-if-you-want-to-participate-in-society/
>> 
>> *_Biological_Man_Wins_This_Years_“Miss_Netherlands”_*
>> https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/biological-man-wins-this-years-miss-netherlands/
> 
> If light is propagating how do we see it in free space?
> Does it not have to absorb?

sure it does. It has to scatter or reflect from some piece of matter, otherwise it's invisible in all countries, and you can't see it. nor care. Fully based on my *_"On_the_Divergent_Mater_of_the_Moving_Koepers_Model"_*.

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

#614913

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 7:09:23 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-July-23 11:58 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 10-July-23 11:12 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >>>> On 10-July-23 3:56 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>>>> Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light: 
> >>>>> Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion. 
> >>>>> The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion. 
> >>>>> That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away 
> >>>>> On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it. 
> >>>>> Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary. 
> >>>>> Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not. 
> >>>>> Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does? 
> >>>> Care to expand on that using algebra, rather than hand-waving? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sylvia. 
> >>> I would have thought you knew elementary algebra. 
> >>> With light speed independent of the speed of the source: 
> >>> Distance= (d + x) + (d - x)= 2d. 
> >>> Velocity= c 
> >>> Time= 2d/c 
> >>> In case you didn't understand, refer to the completely sufficient verbal description given previously. 
> >> You said near the speed of light, presumably relative to some as yet to 
> >> be identified observer, since it cannot be relative to the spaceship itself. 
> >> 
> >> Sylvia. 
> > How needlessly you complicate matters. The observer reading the light clock is inside the ship.
> So what do you mean by "travelling at near the speed of light"? How 
> would someone determine that they were, or were not, travelling at near 
> the speed of light? 
> 
> Sylvia.
There is only one geometry. The actual path of the light. Objective reality sans subjectivism.

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

#614960

On 11-July-23 1:19 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 7:09:23 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10-July-23 11:58 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 10-July-23 11:12 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 10-July-23 3:56 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>>> Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light:
>>>>>>> Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion.
>>>>>>> The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion.
>>>>>>> That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away
>>>>>>> On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it.
>>>>>>> Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary.
>>>>>>> Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not.
>>>>>>> Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does?
>>>>>> Care to expand on that using algebra, rather than hand-waving?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>> I would have thought you knew elementary algebra.
>>>>> With light speed independent of the speed of the source:
>>>>> Distance= (d + x) + (d - x)= 2d.
>>>>> Velocity= c
>>>>> Time= 2d/c
>>>>> In case you didn't understand, refer to the completely sufficient verbal description given previously.
>>>> You said near the speed of light, presumably relative to some as yet to
>>>> be identified observer, since it cannot be relative to the spaceship itself.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>> How needlessly you complicate matters. The observer reading the light clock is inside the ship.
>> So what do you mean by "travelling at near the speed of light"? How
>> would someone determine that they were, or were not, travelling at near
>> the speed of light?
>>
>> Sylvia.
> There is only one geometry. The actual path of the light. Objective reality sans subjectivism.

You appear to unable to answer even simple questions about the 
terminology you used.

Sylvia.

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

#614962

On 7/10/2023 8:23 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 11-July-23 1:19 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

<...>

>>>> How needlessly you complicate matters. The observer reading the 
>>>> light clock is inside the ship.
>>> So what do you mean by "travelling at near the speed of light"? How
>>> would someone determine that they were, or were not, travelling at near
>>> the speed of light?
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>> There is only one geometry. The actual path of the light. Objective 
>> reality sans subjectivism.
> 
> You appear to unable to answer even simple questions about the 
> terminology you used.

Haven't you noticed the patterns?

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

#614908

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10-July-23 11:12 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:11:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 10-July-23 3:56 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light: 
> >>> Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion. 
> >>> The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion. 
> >>> That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away 
> >>> On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it. 
> >>> Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary. 
> >>> Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not. 
> >>> Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does? 
> >> Care to expand on that using algebra, rather than hand-waving? 
> >> 
> >> Sylvia. 
> > I would have thought you knew elementary algebra. 
> > With light speed independent of the speed of the source: 
> > Distance= (d + x) + (d - x)= 2d. 
> > Velocity= c 
> > Time= 2d/c 
> > In case you didn't understand, refer to the completely sufficient verbal description given previously.
> You said near the speed of light, presumably relative to some as yet to 
> be identified observer, since it cannot be relative to the spaceship itself. 
> 
> Sylvia.
It doesn't matter where the observer is because the geometry is exactly the same. For example, in Galileo's ship cabin the ball bouncing up and down from ceiling to floor seems to cover only that distance but the observer can understand that because the ship is moving it is moving further.

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

#614941

Op 9/07/2023 om 19:56 schreef Laurence Clark Crossen:
> Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light:
> Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion.
> The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion.
> That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away
> On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it.
> Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary.
> Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not.
> Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does?

Light clocks deserve indeed to be considered as *the* measuring and 
calibrating tools for both time and space in SRT. They allow even an 
axiomatic approach that is intuitive, and yields constant light speed as 
a provable result, rather than it being a counterintuitive axiom, as in 
the original formulation. But then it takes understanding their functioning.

"Your" light clock works only for particle behaviour of light, with 
added velocities. Then you get indeed this:
https://wugi.be/giffls/tik19.htm
and tN = t'N'.
But with wave/particle behaviour this is no longer true. Looking at such 
light clocks we see,
first, that a "moving" light clock must suffer time dilation (longer 
light path perpendicular to direction of motion);
then, that they must suffer length contraction (for parallel en 
perpendicular light paths to "ticktock" in pace: one wants *time* to be 
an isotropic feature);
As a result we get this correct spacetime diagram for light clocks:
https://wugi.be/giffls/tik22.htm.

Furthermore, we see,
that simultaneity is different in a "moving" system;
and again, that these features are reciprocal: "moving" and "rest" 
systems can be swapped, with reciprocal results;
lastly, that light speed is constant: light clocks measure by definition 
light speed as the ratio of corresponding ticktock lengths and time 
intervals!
One can even deduce relativistic mass from light clock behaviour, by 
considering corresponding wavelengths and the light impulses involved.

Hereafter you can toy with interactive graphs for the principal 
lightclock features:
time dilation
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/zlplep7g5k?lang=nl
length contraction
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hpxundkvzt?lang=nl
relative simultaneity
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/7h1h4jvzno?lang=nl

Also interesting, a difference between the mentioned "Lorentz" 
properties of relativistic motion, and the properties actually "seen 
when looking at" such motion. Other files about this theme, in my desmos 
space.

-- 
guido wugi

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

#615008

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 12:52:57 PM UTC-7, wugi wrote:
> Op 9/07/2023 om 19:56 schreef Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light: 
> > Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the direction of Earth's orbital motion.
> > The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's motion. 
> > That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away
> > On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the clock is moving towards it. 
> > Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary. 
> > Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not. 
> > Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available one does?
> Light clocks deserve indeed to be considered as *the* measuring and 
> calibrating tools for both time and space in SRT. They allow even an 
> axiomatic approach that is intuitive, and yields constant light speed as 
> a provable result, rather than it being a counterintuitive axiom, as in 
> the original formulation. But then it takes understanding their functioning. 
> 
> "Your" light clock works only for particle behaviour of light, with 
> added velocities. Then you get indeed this: 
> https://wugi.be/giffls/tik19.htm 
> and tN = t'N'. 
> But with wave/particle behaviour this is no longer true. Looking at such 
> light clocks we see, 
> first, that a "moving" light clock must suffer time dilation (longer 
> light path perpendicular to direction of motion); 
> then, that they must suffer length contraction (for parallel en 
> perpendicular light paths to "ticktock" in pace: one wants *time* to be 
> an isotropic feature); 
> As a result we get this correct spacetime diagram for light clocks: 
> https://wugi.be/giffls/tik22.htm. 
> 
> Furthermore, we see, 
> that simultaneity is different in a "moving" system; 
> and again, that these features are reciprocal: "moving" and "rest" 
> systems can be swapped, with reciprocal results; 
> lastly, that light speed is constant: light clocks measure by definition 
> light speed as the ratio of corresponding ticktock lengths and time 
> intervals! 
> One can even deduce relativistic mass from light clock behaviour, by 
> considering corresponding wavelengths and the light impulses involved. 
> 
> Hereafter you can toy with interactive graphs for the principal 
> lightclock features: 
> time dilation 
> https://www.desmos.com/calculator/zlplep7g5k?lang=nl 
> length contraction 
> https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hpxundkvzt?lang=nl 
> relative simultaneity 
> https://www.desmos.com/calculator/7h1h4jvzno?lang=nl 
> 
> Also interesting, a difference between the mentioned "Lorentz" 
> properties of relativistic motion, and the properties actually "seen 
> when looking at" such motion. Other files about this theme, in my desmos 
> space. 
> 
> -- 
> guido wugi
"Suffer" is the word! Thanks for the data, but there is no need to suffer any transformation because ordinary additive velocity is exactly correct for light, whether it is particles or waves or a hybrid. Relativity unnecessarily complicates simple matters.

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

#615010

Le 11/07/2023 à 19:56, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 12:52:57 PM UTC-7, wugi wrote:
>> Op 9/07/2023 om 19:56 schreef Laurence Clark Crossen:
>> > Design of a light clock that works on a spaceship traveling at near the speed 
>> of light: 
>> > Orient a light clock horizontally like the beam in the MMX directed in the 
>> direction of Earth's orbital motion.
>> > The beam going out to the mirror is in the direction of the spaceship's 
>> motion. 
>> > That beam covers a longer distance since that mirror is moving away
>> > On the return trip, it covers a shorter distance because the other side of the 
>> clock is moving towards it. 
>> > Result: The clock functions at the same rate as when stationary. 
>> > Further: This works whether light shares the velocity of the source or not. 
>> > Question: Why did Einstein choose a clock that doesn't work when an available 
>> one does?
>> Light clocks deserve indeed to be considered as *the* measuring and 
>> calibrating tools for both time and space in SRT. They allow even an 
>> axiomatic approach that is intuitive, and yields constant light speed as 
>> a provable result, rather than it being a counterintuitive axiom, as in 
>> the original formulation. But then it takes understanding their functioning. 
>> 
>> "Your" light clock works only for particle behaviour of light, with 
>> added velocities. Then you get indeed this: 
>> https://wugi.be/giffls/tik19.htm 
>> and tN = t'N'. 
>> But with wave/particle behaviour this is no longer true. Looking at such 
>> light clocks we see, 
>> first, that a "moving" light clock must suffer time dilation (longer 
>> light path perpendicular to direction of motion); 
>> then, that they must suffer length contraction (for parallel en 
>> perpendicular light paths to "ticktock" in pace: one wants *time* to be 
>> an isotropic feature); 
>> As a result we get this correct spacetime diagram for light clocks: 
>> https://wugi.be/giffls/tik22.htm. 
>> 
>> Furthermore, we see, 
>> that simultaneity is different in a "moving" system; 
>> and again, that these features are reciprocal: "moving" and "rest" 
>> systems can be swapped, with reciprocal results; 
>> lastly, that light speed is constant: light clocks measure by definition 
>> light speed as the ratio of corresponding ticktock lengths and time 
>> intervals! 
>> One can even deduce relativistic mass from light clock behaviour, by 
>> considering corresponding wavelengths and the light impulses involved. 
>> 
>> Hereafter you can toy with interactive graphs for the principal 
>> lightclock features: 
>> time dilation 
>> https://www.desmos.com/calculator/zlplep7g5k?lang=nl 
>> length contraction 
>> https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hpxundkvzt?lang=nl 
>> relative simultaneity 
>> https://www.desmos.com/calculator/7h1h4jvzno?lang=nl 
>> 
>> Also interesting, a difference between the mentioned "Lorentz" 
>> properties of relativistic motion, and the properties actually "seen 
>> when looking at" such motion. Other files about this theme, in my desmos 
>> space. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> guido wugi
> "Suffer" is the word! Thanks for the data, but there is no need to suffer any 
> transformation because ordinary additive velocity is exactly correct for light, 
> whether it is particles or waves or a hybrid. Relativity unnecessarily complicates 
> simple matters.

It's the opposite.

It's the simple things that complicate things, because they're wrong.

Some want, today, to make things very simple and very practical, by adding 
speeds of the type v(+)u=v+u.

But that is not true.

Ginette Feuillebois also wants to make things very simple and very 
practical in her college courses.

She teaches that it is more practical to simply add the two sides of the 
right triangle to obtain the hypothenuse.

It therefore sets h=a+b and no longer h=sqrt(a²+b²)

It's simpler and more convenient.

But that is not true.

I have given the formula for the general addition of observable 
relativized velocities.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fViD08BMqJwIa0ptNbrpTyZUY9E@jntp/Data.Media:1>

I even gave the equation for the addition of real speeds (it's even more 
complicated).

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?fViD08BMqJwIa0ptNbrpTyZUY9E@jntp/Data.Media:2>

Well, there will always be people who will say no.

Some saying that I'm wrong (because they're uneducated cranks) and that
simply w=v+u.

The others more posh, because professor of faculty, saying that I am also 
wrong, because even if my equations are correct and universal, I have no 
right to speak about it.

That's how it works.

R.H.

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

#615012

On 7/11/23 12:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> [...] there is no need to suffer any transformation because ordinary additive
velocity is exactly correct for light, whether it is particles or waves
or a hybrid. Relativity unnecessarily complicates simple matters.

In the fantasy world of your own mind, that may well be true (nobody 
else can know, of course). In the world we inhabit, this is blatantly false.

Tom Roberts

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

#615021

On Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 20:22:20 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/11/23 12:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > [...] there is no need to suffer any transformation because ordinary additive
> velocity is exactly correct for light, whether it is particles or waves 
> or a hybrid. Relativity unnecessarily complicates simple matters.
> In the fantasy world of your own mind, that may well be true (nobody 
> else can know, of course). In the world we inhabit

we're FORCED!!! to THE BEST WAY!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web