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

Groups > sci.physics > #683152 > unrolled thread

And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh!

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 18:23 +0100
    Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-01 13:38 -0400
    Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-02 15:44 -0500
      Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 19:06 +0100
        Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-03 14:27 -0500
          Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-03 21:29 -0400
            Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-03 23:52 -0500
              Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-04 03:41 -0400
    Re: And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:05 +0100

#683152 — And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law eh!

On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
 > On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
 >> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
 >>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:

 >>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know 
what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It 
ain't eh!

 >>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as 
far as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself 
run at its normal rate.

 >> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two 
clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!

 >>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two 
observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the 
ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.

 >> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to 
run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed 
rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.

 > Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two 
cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at 
the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as 
well, no matter which route they took.

No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from 
New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the 
trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route 
they took eh!

 > If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their 
clocks won't agree.

There is space, measured by odometers,
  and there is time, measured by clocks,
  and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!

 >>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's 
obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike 
any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.

 >>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.

no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the 
observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever 
will, because actually it's an impossibility.

 >> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!

 > Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.

Another impossibility eh!

 >>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate 
whatever

 >>> Finally you said something correct.

Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:

"Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate 
whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"

 >>> You need to learn SR and GR.

 >> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
 >>
 >>      "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
 >>       WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
 >>       SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
 >>      CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."

 > Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".

Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its 
successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week 
later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!

keith stein

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#683156

On 5/1/2018 1:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
<snip repost>

All asked and answered.

>  > Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
> 
> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its 
> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week 
> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
> 
> keith stein

It would be nice just to have one more data point and to shut up the 
anti-relativity nuts, but of course the last won't happen regardless of 
the outcome.

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

#683386

On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
> ain't eh!
> 
>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far
> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run
> at its normal rate.
> 
>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
> 
>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the
> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
> 
>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed
> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
> 
>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at
> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as
> well, no matter which route they took.
> 
> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from
> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
> they took eh!
> 
>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks
> won't agree.
> 
> There is space, measured by odometers,
>  and there is time, measured by clocks,
>  and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
> 
>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
> 
>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.
> 
> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
> 
>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!
> 
>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
> 
> Another impossibility eh!
> 
>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
> whatever
> 
>>>> Finally you said something correct.
> 
> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
> 
> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
> 
>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
> 
>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>
>>>      "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>       WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>       SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>      CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
> 
>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
> 
> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
> 
> keith stein


Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,

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

#683519

On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
>> ain't eh!
>>
>>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far
>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run
>> at its normal rate.
>>
>>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
>> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
>>
>>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the
>> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
>>
>>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
>> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed
>> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
>>
>>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
>> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at
>> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as
>> well, no matter which route they took.
>>
>> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from
>> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
>> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
>> they took eh!
>>
>>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks
>> won't agree.
>>
>> There is space, measured by odometers,
>>   and there is time, measured by clocks,
>>   and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
>>
>>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
>>
>>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.
>>
>> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
>> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
>> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
>>
>>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!
>>
>>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
>>
>> Another impossibility eh!
>>
>>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>> whatever
>>
>>>>> Finally you said something correct.
>>
>> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
>>
>> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
>>
>>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
>>
>>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>>
>>>>        "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>>         WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>>         SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>>        CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
>>
>>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
>>
>> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
>> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
>> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!


> Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,

Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
the ISS.

keith stein

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

#683532

On 5/3/2018 1:06 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
>>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
>>> ain't eh!
>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far
>>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run
>>> at its normal rate.
>>>
>>>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
>>> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
>>>
>>>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
>>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the
>>> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
>>>
>>>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
>>> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed
>>> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
>>>
>>>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
>>> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at
>>> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as
>>> well, no matter which route they took.
>>>
>>> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from
>>> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
>>> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
>>> they took eh!
>>>
>>>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks
>>> won't agree.
>>>
>>> There is space, measured by odometers,
>>>   and there is time, measured by clocks,
>>>   and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
>>>
>>>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
>>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
>>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
>>>
>>>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.
>>>
>>> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
>>> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
>>> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
>>>
>>>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!
>>>
>>>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
>>>
>>> Another impossibility eh!
>>>
>>>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>> whatever
>>>
>>>>>> Finally you said something correct.
>>>
>>> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
>>>
>>> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
>>>
>>>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
>>>
>>>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>>>
>>>>>        "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>>>         WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>>>         SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>>>        CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
>>>
>>>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
>>>
>>> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
>>> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
>>> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
> 
> 
>> Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
> 
> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
> the ISS.
> 
> keith stein
> 
> 

here are two MIT clips about 30 min each, that prove relativistic time
dialation etc.  from 1960's   Interesting in the method they used and
the equipment.  one can do the muon one from parts off ebay

interesting measurement here, using muons,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnao7JWo8mA


another one timing electrons at MIT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0BOpiMQXQA

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

#683584

On 5/3/2018 3:27 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/3/2018 1:06 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
>>>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
>>>> ain't eh!
>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as far
>>>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see itself run
>>>> at its normal rate.
>>>>
>>>>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
>>>> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
>>>>
>>>>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
>>>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on the
>>>> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
>>>>
>>>>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
>>>> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY changed
>>>> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
>>>>
>>>>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
>>>> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are identical at
>>>> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the trip as
>>>> well, no matter which route they took.
>>>>
>>>> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive from
>>>> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
>>>> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
>>>> they took eh!
>>>>
>>>>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their clocks
>>>> won't agree.
>>>>
>>>> There is space, measured by odometers,
>>>>    and there is time, measured by clocks,
>>>>    and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
>>>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
>>>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
>>>>
>>>>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing this.
>>>>
>>>> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative to the
>>>> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none ever
>>>> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
>>>>
>>>>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect, ever eh!
>>>>
>>>>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
>>>>
>>>> Another impossibility eh!
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>> whatever
>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally you said something correct.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
>>>>
>>>> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
>>>>
>>>>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>>>>          WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>>>>          SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>>>>         CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
>>>>
>>>>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
>>>>
>>>> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
>>>> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
>>>> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
>>
>>
>>> Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
>>
>> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
>> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
>> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
>> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
>> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
>> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
>> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
>> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
>> the ISS.
>>
>> keith stein
>>
>>
> 
> here are two MIT clips about 30 min each, that prove relativistic time
> dialation etc.  from 1960's   Interesting in the method they used and
> the equipment.  one can do the muon one from parts off ebay
> 
> interesting measurement here, using muons,
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnao7JWo8mA
> 
> 
> another one timing electrons at MIT
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0BOpiMQXQA
> 
Sergio, where did you find the magnificent old piece of shit! Oh man! 
did you see that narrow tie! TUBE electronics! Old Hog oscilloscope! 
Using a freaking SLIDE RULE to calculate numbers! How in the hell did 
anyone EVER do any real science back in those days?

Cute little Van de Graff. Only I've got a bigger one stored in my 
garage. One day I should put it back together again! So cool to have 
million volts around just for fun. Love that old hog O'scope. I had one 
like that and traded it to a tech where I worked for a hog car (about a 
block long Chrysler) Drove that old piece of shit FOREVER! Was great if 
you didn't care what you spent on gas.

OF course the experiment doesn't show anything about clocks, just that 
electrons using electric fields can't be accelerated faster than the 
speed of light. Note that electric fields TRAVEL at the speed of light. 
Duh.

Loved that primitive lab though.

Do I win the "smarter than Einstein" prize yet? (However to maintain 
sanity I usually refrain from discussing relativity on the INTERNET.)

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

#683648

On 5/3/2018 8:29 PM, benj wrote:
> On 5/3/2018 3:27 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/3/2018 1:06 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
>>>>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
>>>>> ain't eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as
>>>>>>>> far
>>>>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see
>>>>> itself run
>>>>> at its normal rate.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
>>>>> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
>>>>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on
>>>>> the
>>>>> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
>>>>> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY
>>>>> changed
>>>>> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
>>>>> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are
>>>>> identical at
>>>>> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the
>>>>> trip as
>>>>> well, no matter which route they took.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive
>>>>> from
>>>>> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
>>>>> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
>>>>> they took eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their
>>>>>> clocks
>>>>> won't agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is space, measured by odometers,
>>>>>    and there is time, measured by clocks,
>>>>>    and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
>>>>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
>>>>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative
>>>>> to the
>>>>> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none
>>>>> ever
>>>>> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect,
>>>>>>> ever eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another impossibility eh!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>>> whatever
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally you said something correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>>> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>>>>>          WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>>>>>          SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>>>>>         CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
>>>>>
>>>>> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
>>>>> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
>>>>> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
>>>
>>> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
>>> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
>>> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
>>> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
>>> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
>>> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
>>> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
>>> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
>>> the ISS.
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>>
>>>
>>
>> here are two MIT clips about 30 min each, that prove relativistic time
>> dialation etc.  from 1960's   Interesting in the method they used and
>> the equipment.  one can do the muon one from parts off ebay
>>
>> interesting measurement here, using muons,
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnao7JWo8mA
>>
>>
>> another one timing electrons at MIT
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0BOpiMQXQA
>>
> Sergio, where did you find the magnificent old piece of shit! Oh man!
> did you see that narrow tie! TUBE electronics! Old Hog oscilloscope!
> Using a freaking SLIDE RULE to calculate numbers! How in the hell did
> anyone EVER do any real science back in those days?
> 
> Cute little Van de Graff. Only I've got a bigger one stored in my
> garage. One day I should put it back together again! So cool to have
> million volts around just for fun. Love that old hog O'scope. I had one
> like that and traded it to a tech where I worked for a hog car (about a
> block long Chrysler) Drove that old piece of shit FOREVER! Was great if
> you didn't care what you spent on gas.
> 
> OF course the experiment doesn't show anything about clocks, just that
> electrons using electric fields can't be accelerated faster than the
> speed of light. Note that electric fields TRAVEL at the speed of light.
> Duh.
> 
> Loved that primitive lab though.
> 
> Do I win the "smarter than Einstein" prize yet? (However to maintain
> sanity I usually refrain from discussing relativity on the INTERNET.)

yes, you recognized some of those boat anchors, they were using T
connectors, like type N or UHF,
those scopes are old, big on carts, lots of switches, not much
bandwidth, main problem with them is the custom power transformer, and
the display Tube, and all those descrete parts, no microprocessor...

and you have a great gerage queen, that van de graph, one guy I know had
an AM radio transmitter in his garage from 1940's it is 8   seven foot
tall racks  2.5 by 2.5 foot sq,  one rack  with a big, huge, water
cooled transmitter tube 2 foot long, another rack had the phasor, to
tune the transmitter to the antenna tower (am is hot antenna tower), the
phasor cabnet looked like it was out of a 1940's sci fi movie. very cool

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

#683658

On 5/4/2018 12:52 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/3/2018 8:29 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 5/3/2018 3:27 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 5/3/2018 1:06 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 02/05/2018 21:44, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2018 12:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/04/2018 21:57, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 3:23 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/04/2018 19:40, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2018 2:14 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But think about it Ken, how is a clock in free fall going to know
>>>>>> what orbit it's in, in order to know whether to go fast or slow. It
>>>>>> ain't eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't know. The clock will always run at the normal rate as
>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>> as a local comoving observer is concerned. The clock will see
>>>>>> itself run
>>>>>> at its normal rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if it really does run at its normal rate then clearly the two
>>>>>> clocks will agree when reunited, on the ISS, or indeed anywhere eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Seeing a clock run slow or fast ONLY happens when there are two
>>>>>> observers/clocks in different states. Such as a stationary clock on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> ground and a clock in orbit on the ISS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course clocks which are moving relative to each other appear to
>>>>>> run at different rates, but, unless one of the clocks has REALLY
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>> rate, the clocks must agree when reunited.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would they? SR doesn't state that. It's like saying that if two
>>>>>> cars drive from New York to Chicago and their odometers are
>>>>>> identical at
>>>>>> the start of the trip, they must be identical at the end of the
>>>>>> trip as
>>>>>> well, no matter which route they took.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Mr. Volney, but it is exactly like saying that if two cars drive
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> New York to Chicago and their CLOCKS are identical at the start of the
>>>>>> trip, they must be identical at the end as well, no matter which route
>>>>>> they took eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the two twins take different routes through spacetime, their
>>>>>>> clocks
>>>>>> won't agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is space, measured by odometers,
>>>>>>     and there is time, measured by clocks,
>>>>>>     and there is spacetime, measured by idiots eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also if you look at how Einstein derived the SR time dilation it's
>>>>>> obvious that it's bull shit. He assumed the velocity of light, unlike
>>>>>> any other velocity, is independent of the velocity of the observer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And all measurements confirm that Einstein was correct in doing
>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no measurement ever confirmed that the velocity of light relative
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> observer is independent  of the velocity of the observer, and none
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>> will, because actually it's an impossibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one has ever successfully demonstrated the SR twin effect,
>>>>>>>> ever eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Demonstrated daily with particle accelerators.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another impossibility eh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally you said something correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Mr.Voley, and what i actually said was:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Me i think clocks would just go on ticking at the same old rate
>>>>>> whatever bull shit Einstein comes out with eh!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need to learn SR and GR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you Mr.Voley need to learn Stein's Law:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
>>>>>>>>           WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>>>>>>>>           SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>>>>>>>>          CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody cares about your self-proclaimed "law".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someday someone will take a couple of clocks to the ISS, or its
>>>>>> successor, and prove that indeed Stein's Law is correct, and one week
>>>>>> later everyone will wonder how anyone could ever of doubted it eh!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hafele–Keating experiment 1971,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Sergio. Yes that would seem to be relevant, but if you had
>>>> the benefit of seeing the original Hafele (confidential) internal report
>>>> to the US navy,you would know that those results are worthless. Before
>>>> the heavy massaging of the result which was done before the published
>>>> report the clock readings were all over the place, and Hafele himself
>>>> concludes in the original report that nothing could be concluded from
>>>> their results.  In any case the magnitude of the dilations in the H-K
>>>> experiment were orders of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on
>>>> the ISS.
>>>>
>>>> keith stein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> here are two MIT clips about 30 min each, that prove relativistic time
>>> dialation etc.  from 1960's   Interesting in the method they used and
>>> the equipment.  one can do the muon one from parts off ebay
>>>
>>> interesting measurement here, using muons,
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnao7JWo8mA
>>>
>>>
>>> another one timing electrons at MIT
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0BOpiMQXQA
>>>
>> Sergio, where did you find the magnificent old piece of shit! Oh man!
>> did you see that narrow tie! TUBE electronics! Old Hog oscilloscope!
>> Using a freaking SLIDE RULE to calculate numbers! How in the hell did
>> anyone EVER do any real science back in those days?
>>
>> Cute little Van de Graff. Only I've got a bigger one stored in my
>> garage. One day I should put it back together again! So cool to have
>> million volts around just for fun. Love that old hog O'scope. I had one
>> like that and traded it to a tech where I worked for a hog car (about a
>> block long Chrysler) Drove that old piece of shit FOREVER! Was great if
>> you didn't care what you spent on gas.
>>
>> OF course the experiment doesn't show anything about clocks, just that
>> electrons using electric fields can't be accelerated faster than the
>> speed of light. Note that electric fields TRAVEL at the speed of light.
>> Duh.
>>
>> Loved that primitive lab though.
>>
>> Do I win the "smarter than Einstein" prize yet? (However to maintain
>> sanity I usually refrain from discussing relativity on the INTERNET.)
> 
> yes, you recognized some of those boat anchors, they were using T
> connectors, like type N or UHF,
> those scopes are old, big on carts, lots of switches, not much
> bandwidth, main problem with them is the custom power transformer, and
> the display Tube, and all those descrete parts, no microprocessor...
> 
> and you have a great gerage queen, that van de graph, one guy I know had
> an AM radio transmitter in his garage from 1940's it is 8   seven foot
> tall racks  2.5 by 2.5 foot sq,  one rack  with a big, huge, water
> cooled transmitter tube 2 foot long, another rack had the phasor, to
> tune the transmitter to the antenna tower (am is hot antenna tower), the
> phasor cabnet looked like it was out of a 1940's sci fi movie. very cool
> 
Luckily I've come to my senses enough to get rid of SOME (but not all) 
of my old junk. (Wish I could find my old Univac quad tube flip flop 
chassis. would make a FINE decorator item today. Would go well with my 
Violet Ray quack machines. A million volts electrostatic can be fun but 
really doesn't have much spectacular poop. For real voltage fun you need 
to score a pole pig and build one of these:

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b6_1187215494

This is the kind of stuff people who are REALLY interested in science 
build!

PS. my pride and joy is my U2 aerial lens. (also in garage) f4, 12" 
diameter, 12 elements, made by Kodak, weighs about 300 pounds. One day I 
plan to make it into a sky camera on a trailer so I can drive it to dark 
places.

Benj's law of lenses: as diameter doubles (f# in half) price squares and 
weight cubes.

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

#683862

On 01/05/2018 18:23, Keith Stein wrote:


>  >>      "ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS,
>  >>       WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE SPEED OF THE
>  >>       SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER THOSE
>  >>      CLOCKS ARE REUNITED."

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web