Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #494368
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics, alt.astronomy |
| Subject | Re: The problem with Time |
| Date | 2018-07-01 14:18 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <phb9e5$1963$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <5B2C41A7.6696@ix.netcom.com> <aNaXC.500935$B36.468240@fx22.am4> <LzdXC.362094$br4.114999@fx34.iad> <zSJXC.428670$r6.224538@fx10.am4> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/24/2018 4:53 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > On 22/06/2018 22:08, benj wrote: >> On 6/22/2018 1:58 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>> On 22/06/2018 01:24, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> The problem with Time is... >>>> the science guys messed up Time. >>>> >>>> The first mistake they made was trying to measure time... >>> >>> Philosophers talk about time, >>> Science guys measure time, with clocks eh! >>> >>> The mistake they made was to believe that >>> clocks are in any way affected by walking >>> towards or away from them. >>> >>> Note that if clocks are not affected >>> by walking towards them, then the velocity >>> of light relative to you when you walk >>> towards the light must be c+v, not c eh! >>> >>> keith stein >> >> Obviously you are no more a philosopher than Starfaker. >> >> The question is not are clocks affected by your motion with respect to >> them but rather is your PERCEPTIOIN of their readings affected. > > Of course clocks APPEAR to run slower if you move away from them, > and the APPEAR to run faster when you move towards them. This is > the well understood DOPPLER EFFECT, and if you account for it correctly > then of course you do not require any relativistic time dilation. > > > >> There is no aether drift > > Agreed. > >> so c+v Is ALWAYS totally stupid and wrong, wrong, wrong. > > No! If clocks are not affected by walking towards them, then > c+v is INEVITABLE eh! > > A<-------- L m ------------->B > TA TB > > As viewed from stationary (laboratory) frame: > Speed of light = L / (TB-TA) = c > > As viewed from frame of reference in which laboratory is moving to the > right at v m/s. > Light must travel an extra distance = v*(TB-TA) > This being the distance B moves as the light travels from A to B. > > Therefore speed of light as viewed from frame of reference in which > laboratory is moving to the right at v m/s = c + v > > keith stein > if you see a clock 20 feet away, you are 20 nanoseconds behind the time it shows, as it takes about a nanosecond for light to travel 1 foot. if the clock is atomic, with lighted numerics, and your 100 feet away, then you are 100 nanoseconds late. If you have 4 clocks around you 10 ft, 25 ft, 50 ft, 100 ft which clock is right ?
Back to rec.arts.sf.written | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The problem with Time The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-21 17:24 -0700
Re: The problem with Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-21 21:30 -0400
Re: The problem with Time The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-21 22:22 -0700
Re: The problem with Time The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-22 00:54 -0700
Re: The problem with Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-22 11:46 -0400
Re: The problem with Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-22 11:45 -0400
Re: The problem with Time The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-06-22 11:25 -0700
Re: The problem with Time Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 18:58 +0100
Re: The problem with Time benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-22 17:08 -0400
Re: The problem with Time Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 10:53 +0100
Re: The problem with Time Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-01 14:18 -0500
csiph-web