 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / August 2007Some troubling assumptions of SR
1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. This assumption leads to time dilation and at the same time it assumes that a clock second is a universal constant interval of time. Also this assumption leads to the conclusion that the speed of light as defined by a clock second is a universal constant. 2. SR assumes that the leading edge of a light ray (the first photon) will hit the target in the same frame of the source. This assumption appears to violate the Uncertainty Principle. Why? because it assumes the speed and position of the first photon are known simultaneously. 3. In SR the PoR assumes that all frames are equivalent and that an SR observer will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. This means that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. This assumption is valid if the observer is in a state of absolute rest. But SR deny the existence of the state of absolute rest. Therefore these assumptions are inconsistent with each other. To resolve the obove problems a new relativity theory call Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) is invented. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments...including gravity. A description of IRT is in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics" (page 4) in the following link: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto > 1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. No, imbecile, we, human beings, define time as what the clock measures. Dirk Vdm >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. Should we throw away our clocks and use something else to measure time? Have you designed an alternative that works in practice? > >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. > > > Should we throw away our clocks and use something else to measure > time? No we shouldn;t throw away our clocks. But we should realize that a clock second have different duration (different time content) in different frames. BTW that's the reason why the speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio in all frames as follows: Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the duration (the absolute time content) for a clock second co-moving with the rod. Ken Seto >> >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No we shouldn;t throw away our clocks. But we should realize that a clock > second have different duration (different time content) in different frames. Every human being takes his clock with him in his frame, Seto. Dirk Vdm In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:05:20 GMT <4dowh.700$ep7.635@news.cpqcorp.net>: >>> >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Every human being takes his clock with him in his frame, Seto. I'll admit to wondering why it took me so long to figure this out, but it's clearly the case that Seto has managed to *blend* both standard nBaT and SR into IRT, and screw up both of them in the process. The Newtonian theory, of course, comes into play if one uses "real" time intervals and light lengths. The SR part uses the light-defined variants. Unlike peanut butter and chocolate, these two just don't mix well.... :-) > Dirk Vdm  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Murphy was an optimist. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel > <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Unlike peanut butter and chocolate, these two just don't mix well.... > :-) You mean like chocolate and relativity sh.t. Don't be fooled because they are both brown, hyena. In sci.physics.relativity, Dumbledore_ <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_q> wrote on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:14:06 GMT <ilowh.231254$MO2.13545@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel >> <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You mean like chocolate and relativity sh.t. Don't be fooled > because they are both brown, hyena. And the average speed of a NASCAR race car is ... ? Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Murphy was an optimist. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, Dumbledore_ > <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_q> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > And the average speed of a NASCAR race car is ... ? I want to find out what a two way velocity is, average speeds are not interesting. Failed calculus 001, did you, anencephalous Machine/Ghost in the? In sci.physics.relativity, Dumbledore_ <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_q> wrote on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:05:41 GMT <VZpwh.231276$MO2.123595@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, Dumbledore_ >> <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_q> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I want to find out what a two way velocity is, average speeds > are not interesting. Please define the term "two-way velocity". One can of course have two velocities at different times. > Failed calculus 001, did you, anencephalous Machine/Ghost in the? Never took it. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional architectures I've seen in a computer system. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, Dumbledore_ > <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_q> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Please define the term "two-way velocity". In equation form, 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c. Light has a two way velocity, surely as a devout relativist you know that? Are you a Jewish, Moslem, Catholic or Protestant Relativist? They all worship the same Einstein, y'know. > One can of course have two > velocities at different times. Hmmm... is the other two way velocity at a different time 2AB/(tA-t'A) = -c? >> Failed calculus 001, did you, anencephalous Machine/Ghost in the? > > Never took it. Ah, I see. THAT is why you believe the Lord Einstein. Calculus 001: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Derivative.html "The derivative of a function represents an infinitesimal change in the function with respect to one of its variables." A prerequisite is Functions 001. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Function.html "A function is a relation that uniquely associates members of one set with members of another set." A prerequisite of that is Sets 001. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Set.html "A set is a finite or infinite collection of objects in which order has no significance," That can be confusing, because its pretty hard to make a function with the set {0,2,282, 4,3667,6,45...} unless it is an ordered set. I daresay the disordered mind of Dork Van de merde has been your mentor and unguide into the mysterious world of mathematics. He's not a Jewish, Moslem, Catholic or Protestant Relativist, he's a Psychotic Narcissist Relativist. Psychotic Narcissist Relativists worship only themselves. http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html "We use 3 inertial reference frames" [because Dorks can't get the result they want in two]. "In neither of these frames any form of acceleration is felt" [neither one of all three]. "In order for the travelling twin to make HIS trip, SHE must be in frame S' while going away". "if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will have aged 10 years". Belgium is where the farts blow. "Your conclusion is dead wrong. Start over, but skip the first part and the conclusion." -- Dork Van de fuckhead. "You made a mistake" -- Dork Van de psychotic fumble mumbler. ASSistant professor Paul B. Andersen, tusseladd: "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames which is the same as interchanging the frames, which - as I have told you a LOT of times, OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform: t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) or: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" Psychotic Narcissist Relativist Dorks refuse to listen to the words of Tusseladd Relativists (a minor Norwegian sect) and write their own Relativity. It is very easy to find variations in the religion, relativists always disagree on something. Psychotic Narcissist Relativist Dorks do not worship the One True Einstein, instead they worship themselves. Einstein Akbar! Say your prayers. Hail Aether, Full of Light, Einstein is with thee. Blessed art thou among absolute frames of reference, and blessed is the fruit of thy tomb, Lorentz Transform. Holy Aether, Daughter of Lunacy, prey on us morons now, and at the dilated hour of death. Gawd the farther, Gawd the sun, Gawd the Holey Transform. There is no Gawd but Gawd, and Albert is his son. There is no Nature but Mother Nature, and Lunacy is her daughter. There is no profit without a prophet. There is no prophet but Einstein... oops... Albert. "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v; it follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light." --Albert Einstein 1905. On Feb 2, 12:49 am, "Dumbledore_" <Headmas...@hogwarts.physics_q> generated: [an enormous quantity of hot air that didn't really convey much] I gather that it's more important to Androcles to be iconoclastic and wrong than to be in agreement with anybody and right. PD > On Feb 2, 12:49 am, "Dumbledore_" <Headmas...@hogwarts.physics_q> > generated: > [an enormous quantity of hot air that didn't really convey much] Can't answer it, huh? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF Which one is ewe? On Feb 2, 1:03 pm, "Dumbledore_" <Headmas...@hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > > On Feb 2, 12:49 am, "Dumbledore_" <Headmas...@hogwarts.physics_q> > > generated: > > [an enormous quantity of hot air that didn't really convey much] > > Can't answer it, huh? You didn't ask much in the way of a question in all that. As I said, it didn't convey much. As I recall, the only thing you posed to answer was: ============================== Light has a two way velocity, surely as a devout relativist you know that? Are you a Jewish, Moslem, Catholic or Protestant Relativist? They all worship the same Einstein, y'know. > One can of course have two > velocities at different times. Hmmm... is the other two way velocity at a different time 2AB/(tA-t'A) = -c? ============================== So, in answer to your three questions, the answers are no, no, and no. PD >>> >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Every human being takes his clock with him in his frame, Seto. How about the birds and bees: do they take their clocks with them? And how about the clocks themselves: do they also take their clocks with them? Clearly there must be quite a few clocks. ~v~~ >>>> >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>>> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How about the birds and bees: do they take their clocks with them? Do you think they leave their hearts and hormonal processes at home when they fly out? > And > how about the clocks themselves: do they also take their clocks with > them? Clearly there must be quite a few clocks. Yes indeed. Try to figure out how many clocks you constantly carry around with you. Don't stop before you reach the number 10. Dirk Vdm >>>>> >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Do you think they leave their hearts and hormonal processes >at home when they fly out? Well you do. >> And >> how about the clocks themselves: do they also take their clocks with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >with you. >Don't stop before you reach the number 10. You mean your IQ? ~v~~ >>>>>> >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Well you do. Why did you ask whether birds take their clocks with them? >>> And >>> how about the clocks themselves: do they also take their clocks with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You mean your IQ? You didn't try? Dirk Vdm >>>>>>> >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>>>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Why did you ask whether birds take their clocks with them? I often forget my watch and leave it at home. I just wondered whether birds and bees are similarly fallible. >>>> And >>>> how about the clocks themselves: do they also take their clocks with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >You didn't try? I do indeed find myself less trying than yourself. ~v~~ >>>>>>>> >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>>>>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I often forget my watch and leave it at home. I just wondered whether > birds and bees are similarly fallible. Do you also leave your heart at home? Dirk Vdm >>>>>>>>> >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>>>>>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Do you also leave your heart at home? I wear my heart on my sleeve. I just don't expect it to measure time on my sleeve. ~v~~ In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote on Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:55:44 -0700 <vpj7s2h854qhbtm9h4qcu6c4muqhfeqcrb@4ax.com>: >>>>>>>>>> >1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>>>>>>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > ~v~~ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232061/posts The main problem apparently is battery drain. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net /dev/signature: Not a text file -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick ><dontbother@nowhere.net> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >The main problem apparently is battery drain. Only if my heart requires a pacemaker. ~v~~ In sci.physics, Lester Zick <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote on Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:22:09 -0700 <plk9s2hrn48lj4bi478scir83t88jjv0el@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick >><dontbother@nowhere.net> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Only if my heart requires a pacemaker. Let's not get too stupid here. A pacemaker doesn't quite require the same precision for time synchronization. :-) The point was that it is possible to measure time rather accurately on one's sleeve, though more usual applications use piezoelectric crystals, which sacrifices accuracy for battery life. (My watch in particular can go for about 7 years between battery changes -- and this on a lithium "button" affair, which is a fairly standard watch battery, containing far less energy than a AA cell.) There are also self-winding watches, which are generally mechanical, and presumably have even less precision. > ~v~~ Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129: std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++) if(*i == thing) {...} -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >In sci.physics, Lester Zick ><dontbother@nowhere.net> [. . .] >>>The main problem apparently is battery drain. >> >> Only if my heart requires a pacemaker. > >Let's not get too stupid here. It's already pretty stupid here. I mean if you want to discuss SR it's about time to get to it. > A pacemaker doesn't quite >require the same precision for time synchronization. :-) Does someone really care? I mean Dutch is pretty much hung up on clocks. But then he seems too lazy or stupid to discuss SR instead. >The point was that it is possible to measure time rather >accurately on one's sleeve, though more usual applications [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"button" affair, which is a fairly standard watch battery, >containing far less energy than a AA cell.) So your watch is only good for measuring the truth of SR for seven years? >There are also self-winding watches, which are generally >mechanical, and presumably have even less precision. Precision is not an issue when considering the constancy of any imprecision. (Please let me know when the subject returns to SR.) ~v~~ >>> 1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ken Seto Clocks faithfully measure the passage of time. The measure of a clock in a frame other than one's own is accurately predicted by general relativity... it the special case of constant velocity in the absence of gravitational fields, special relativity is adequate. In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:57:22 GMT <C5owh.376092$1i1.340982@attbi_s72>: >>>> 1. SR assumes that time is what the clock measures. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Clocks faithfully measure the passage of time. Clocks are *assumed* to measure time's passage, but to assume otherwise yields some very strange paths. In modern times, at least, clocks use such things as oscillatory motions of atoms in free fall through a resonating cavity, deriving a signal that can then be counted. It is difficult to see how such clocks can "malfunction" (a la Spaceman). A parochial clock is already in use -- it's apparently a hybrid created by TAI, derived from about 30 real clocks. For those of us on the ground, it's no big deal; satellites, however, have their own notions as to what time it is, and in fact there's a rotating coordinate system for GPS that has to be taken into account. (I would forget the details, but it's known.) > The measure of > a clock in a frame other than one's own is accurately predicted > by general relativity... it the special case of constant velocity > in the absence of gravitational fields, special relativity is > adequate. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Q: "Why is my computer doing that?" A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley > <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Clocks are *assumed* to measure time's passage, Stronger. Time is *defined* as what clocks measure. If you say that clocks are *assumed* to measure time's passage, then you must define time without mentioning clocks. Dirk Vdm >> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Stronger. >Time is *defined* as what clocks measure. So what's a clock? >If you say that clocks are *assumed* to measure time's passage, >then you must define time without mentioning clocks. Uh, EM frequency? ~v~~ >>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > So what's a clock? Don't you know? Look at your wrist. Listen to your heart beat. You're kidding, right? >>If you say that clocks are *assumed* to measure time's passage, >>then you must define time without mentioning clocks. > > Uh, EM frequency? Frequency is a count per unit of time. You're not allowed to use time when you try to define time. Dirk Vdm >>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Don't you know? Oh I do; I'm not so sure you do. But if you reiterate "time is what clocks measure" at a sufficiently high count per unit time perhaps I'll change my mind. >Look at your wrist. My clock isn't there. >Listen to your heart beat. So as per your complaint regarding my definition of time below in terms of EM frequency you're seriously prepared to claim that heart rates of count per unit time or clock rates of count per unit time are not circular definitions of time? Shirley you jest. Talk about special pleading! As a matter of fact I suspect we could in fact come a lot close to understanding "time" in abstract terms than we have. However that's not the immediate problem at hand which is to explain dilations in time mechanically however measured. And "defining" time in terms of clocks or even EM frequency doesn't do that. But analysis of time in terms of EM frequency gets us a lot closer to a mechanical explanation than clocks. >You're kidding, right? Would I kid a kidder? >>>If you say that clocks are *assumed* to measure time's passage, >>>then you must define time without mentioning clocks. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Frequency is a count per unit of time. You're not allowed to use >time when you try to define time. Since the task set before the class was to define time without mentioning clocks my definition satisfies the task set exactly. As a matter of fact your use of clocks to define time suffers from the exact same deficiency you cite of my definition unless you seriously intend to claim that stopped clocks measure time. Clocks measure counts per unit of time too when they're running. I mean if a clock reads "1" is that a measure of time? My definition of time was intended as a measure of time dilation in relative terms vis-a-vis a common source. Your definition of frequency as count per unit time is simply another way of saying you have no idea what either is; you only have a way of measuring frequencies in relation to one another which you infer describes counts and time in relation to one another. ~v~~ >>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > clocks measure" at a sufficiently high count per unit time perhaps > I'll change my mind. Sufficiently high for the experiment at hand. Never heard of that? It's called physics. Do you need millimeters when you measure your land? Throw a rock from a high tower. Use your heart beat to count. Find that the distance covered is proportional to the square of your heart beat count. That's physics. That's how it started and that's what it still is: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." >>Look at your wrist. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not circular definitions of time? Shirley you jest. Talk about special > pleading! I didn't mention heart beat frequency, did I? You count the beats and that's it. The count is defined as time. Period. Just use your eyeballs and make them go back and forth over the definition of a second. Dirk Vdm [remainder snipped unread] >>>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>>>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Sufficiently high for the experiment at hand. So a sufficiently high count per unit time reiteration of a circular definition makes the definition uncircular? I don't think so. >Never heard of that? Never heard that a sufficiently high count per unit time iteration of a circular definition makes it uncircular.But then I'm not an empiric. >It's called physics. Ookay then. A sufficiently high count per unit time iteration of a circular definition makes it uncircular is called physics. My mistake. >Do you need millimeters when you measure your land? My land is time dependent? Will wonders never cease. >Throw a rock from a high tower. Use your heart beat to count. You mean like Newton? >Find that the distance covered is proportional to the square of >your heart beat count. That's physics. So physics is proportional to the square of my heart beat? > That's how it started >and that's what it still is: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >I didn't mention heart beat frequency, did I? Of course not. Why would you use heart beat frequency to measure time? Certainly I wouldn't. But then I'm not an empiric. >You count the beats and that's it. So a heart beat of two measures time? I'm so confused. >The count is defined as time. Period. I feel so much better now that two heart beats define time. >Just use your eyeballs and make them go back and forth over >the definition of a second. So if my eyeballs go back and forth over the same definition of time twice that makes that the definition of time? >[remainder snipped unread] So if you can't be bothered to read the remainder even once that makes your snipping the definition of time? Oh well. ~v~~ >>>>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>>>>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > So a sufficiently high count per unit time reiteration While a process is happening, you can count the number of days, or you can count your heart beat. The latter has a higher number than the former. > of a circular > definition makes the definition uncircular? I don't think so. When you go to the dentist, does he ask you to define teeth? Are you a retard? Dirk Vdm [remainder snipped unread] >>>>>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>>>>>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >or you can count your heart beat. The latter has a higher number >than the former. So April 1st is a definition of time? >> of a circular >> definition makes the definition uncircular? I don't think so. > >When you go to the dentist, does he ask you to define teeth? >Are you a retard? A dentist doesn't pretend he's doing physics. You do. >Dirk Vdm > >[remainder snipped unread] Just like a stopped clock. ~v~~ >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>>>>>>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > So April 1st is a definition of time? So you *are* a retard :-) >>> of a circular >>> definition makes the definition uncircular? I don't think so. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A dentist doesn't pretend he's doing physics. You do. When you go to the dentist, does he ask you to define teeth? Dirk Vdm >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>>>>>>>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Dirk Vdm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork.gif See the teeth, god? [snip] Nothing http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg Behold little Fumblebore http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete7.jpg http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete0.jpg http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete5.jpg SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > [snip] > > Nothing [snip river of sh.t from Schwartzcyst] Schwartz: http://tinyurl.com/ck9r2 "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:45C399C4.D64D593C@hate.spam.net... > Newtonian physics is infinite lightspeed (instantaneous knowledge of > all aspects of a system), You fuckin' ignorant, stoooopid, LYING bastard! ROEMER,DOPPLER, MICHELSON, SAGNAC! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_R%C3%B8mer "Cassini had observed the moons of Jupiter between 1666 and 1668, and discovered discrepancies in his measurements that, at first, he attributed to light having a finite speed." http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm Einstein: "we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Get the f.ck out of the river of sh.t, you are the biggest TORD in it, you lying fuckheaded c.nt! Go and worship Nehemiah Scudder! f.ck OFF and DIE! >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>>>>>>>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >So you *are* a retard :-) Well one of us certainly is. >>>> of a circular >>>> definition makes the definition uncircular? I don't think so. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >When you go to the dentist, does he ask you to define teeth? Only if he expects to drill them. ~v~~ >>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > So what's a clock? All theories require some semantic primitives. One can go a bit further and define it as a repetitive process with a counter. But what have you gained - you need to have a precise definition of repetitive process. http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm 'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock." Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what, philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.' Bottom line to go any further than time is what a clock reads is philosophy - not science. Thanks Bill >>If you say that clocks are *assumed* to measure time's passage, >>then you must define time without mentioning clocks. > > Uh, EM frequency? > > ~v~~ >>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > define it as a repetitive process with a counter. But what have you > gained - you need to have a precise definition of repetitive process. I don't think that's necessary. Something you can count is obviously enough to start doing physics. And if it's not "regular", then you'll end up with shaky physics, but it will be physics nevertheless. And of course we can, with the aid of mathematical (statistical) techniques investigate the quality of clocks by comparing. After all, that *is* exactly what we have been doing since science began, isn't it? :-) > http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm > 'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what, > philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.' I always love it when he shows the philosophers all corners of the room. > Bottom line to go any further than time is what a clock reads is > philosophy - not science. I would add the word 'armchair' somewhere in that sentence ;-) Dirk Vdm > "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message [snip] > > http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm > > 'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I always love it when he shows the philosophers all corners > of the room. Not that I disagree with your remark, or (still less) with the quoted paragraph, but did you think the paragraph was by Feynman himself? Apparently not, barring (unlikely) plagiarism. Go to the link and you will see that it's in fact part of Kelley L. Ross's review of a Feynman biography. And btw, Ross is a philosopher! >> "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > quoted paragraph, but did you think the paragraph was by > Feynman himself? I have given that quote many times. Dirk knows it is not by Feynman. However, the philosopher that wrote it obviously knows his Feynman, and it accurately reflects his views on the matter. > Apparently not, barring (unlikely) plagiarism. Go to the link > and you will see that it's in fact part of Kelley L. Ross's > review of a Feynman biography. > > And btw, Ross is a philosopher! Yes he is - but he knows and understands Feynman and philosophies relation to science. Most posters of an 'armchair philosophical' bent do not. Such is the difference between an 'actual' philosopher, and those that want to pass off their not well thought out musings as science/philosophy. Another characteristic of a genuine philosopher is to accept no generally accepted philosophical view of the world exists - which is different for science, where at any time one can determine what the general view is. That being the case, genuine philosophical types contrast and evaluate different philosophical positions rather than assert a particular one. The quote above is a case in point. Feynmans view, and the view of scientists in general, is to accept some basic notions as fundamental and proceed from that. Time as what a clock reads is one of those. It has the advantage of allowing one to do the science, but has the disadvantage of not being philosophically very satisfying. But 'philosophical satisfaction' is an issue for philosophers - not scientists - which is why it is not really a proper subject for sci.physics.relativity - which is a science forum. Discussing the philosophy of relativity in on topic - general philosophical issues are not. Thanks Bill >> "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > quoted paragraph, but did you think the paragraph was by > Feynman himself? Actually, yes, I thought it was a Feynman quote. [ Sorry, Bill :-) ] Feynman surely could have written it, and if he hasn't, this is an excellent synopsis of what he has written in his autobiographies. Thanks for letting me know. > Apparently not, barring (unlikely) plagiarism. Go to the link > and you will see that it's in fact part of Kelley L. Ross's > review of a Feynman biography. > > And btw, Ross is a philosopher! Sure, but not the armchair type, and like Bill says, he knows his physics and his Feynman. Dirk Vdm >>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > clocks by comparing. After all, that *is* exactly what we have been > doing since science began, isn't it? :-) True. Thanks Bill >> http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm >> 'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dirk Vdm > >>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley > >>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Bottom line to go any further than time is what a clock reads is > philosophy - not science. NO....time is the *duration*. The definition for a clock second is "...the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transitions of the hyperfine levels of the Cs133 atom." That is not philosophy. The question is: Does "9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation" has the same duration in all frames? It does not. This is illustrated by the difference in elapsed time shown in the returning clock after a journey. > > >>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley > > >>> <sworml...@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - See my previous post (5): The duration IS the same; the readout on the dial (which is _not_ the same count) _appears_ as if time rate has alterered when accelleration/travel Doppler-effects the information transfer (between the caesium and the screen) Jim G c'=c+v In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:00:38 -0700 <nlo4s21u3r19i31jvrbc7ia0n29b7aq6hh@4ax.com>: >>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >>> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > So what's a clock? At this point I'd say a clock models a known oscillatory physical process in a known environment, and specify the physical process and environment. For example, the standard cesium atomic fountain clock shoots Cs-133 atoms up into a fountain, where they peak near a cavity resonator, vibrating at 9192631770 Hz. Technology has gotten to the point that these could be worn on one's wrist. There are also mercury ion clocks. On a more prosaic scale, one can vibrate quartz crystals, pendulum wheels (using escapements), and of course pendulums. While not nearly as accurate as the cesium clock, one can always resynchronize to within a few seconds (since that's sufficient precision for most non-scientific human activities) when one is near a basis clock. >>If you say that clocks are *assumed* to measure time's passage, >>then you must define time without mentioning clocks. > > Uh, EM frequency? And what EM frequency are you referring to? I suppose one could use sodium as one possible basis -- or, more likely, krypton, since Kr-86 was used for the meter length and could have been used for a time basis as well, at one point. That takes care of both length and frequency. > ~v~~ Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional architectures I've seen in a computer system. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick ><dontbother@nowhere.net> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >(since that's sufficient precision for most non-scientific >human activities) when one is near a basis clock. Well, Ghost, I suspect you're taking my question way too seriously. But in any event your definitions of clocks aren't any better or worse than other anecdotal definitions only possibly a little more accurate. However that's not really the problem at hand which is to explain dilations in time mechanically and not simply to define time itself. >>>If you say that clocks are *assumed* to measure time's passage, >>>then you must define time without mentioning clocks. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >time basis as well, at one point. That takes care of both length >and frequency. As I recollect Michelson used sodium for his experiment so I expect either would do. But the problem is not really which frequency to use since any EM frequency is subject to similar considerations when it comes to explaining frequency dilations in mechanical terms. At least with EM frequency dilation one has something specific to analyze instead of just the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of clocks. ~v~~ >>In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick >><dontbother@nowhere.net> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Well, Ghost, I suspect you're taking my question way too seriously. > But in any event your definitions of clocks aren't any better or worse Surely he isn't trying to define what a clock is??? What kind of moron would need a definition of a clock??? Dirk Vdm >>>In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick >>><dontbother@nowhere.net> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >Surely he isn't trying to define what a clock is??? >What kind of moron would need a definition of a clock??? Your kind of moron I expect. ~v~~ On Feb 3, 5:39 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > >>In sci.physics.relativity, Lester Zick > >><dontbot...@nowhere.net> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Consider two separated pieces of caesium: AE claims that walking from one towards the other causes an ACTUAL time (rate) alteration. Question: Are the atomic state change changes in A and B still the same? Jim G c'=c+v > c'=c+v c' is not what is observed in nature, Jim. >> c'=c+v > > c' is not what is observed in nature, Jim. In nature or in physics? ~v~~ >>> c'=c+v >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ~v~~ Light moving at c+v wrt an observer" is not observed. Period. >>>> c'=c+v >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Light moving at c+v wrt an observer" is not observed. Period. Then how do you know that "light moving at c+v" is actually moving at c+v? Seems a rather broad overgeneralization to me. Perhaps in physics one should restrict oneself to things which are observed instead of things which aren't. ~v~~ > Then how do you know that "light moving at c+v" is actually moving at > c+v? Seems a rather broad overgeneralization to me. Perhaps in physics > one should restrict oneself to things which are observed instead of > things which aren't. Light is always observed to propagate at c, not c-v or c+v. >> Then how do you know that "light moving at c+v" is actually moving at >> c+v? Seems a rather broad overgeneralization to me. Perhaps in physics >> one should restrict oneself to things which are observed instead of >> things which aren't. > > Light is always observed to propagate at c, not c-v or c+v. Which means what exactly that v=0? ~v~~ >>> Then how do you know that "light moving at c+v" is actually moving at >>> c+v? Seems a rather broad overgeneralization to me. Perhaps in physics [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ~v~~ The measurement of the speed of light is always c, independent of the relative velocity, v, between source and observer. >>>> Then how do you know that "light moving at c+v" is actually moving at >>>> c+v? Seems a rather broad overgeneralization to me. Perhaps in physics [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The measurement of the speed of light is always c, independent of > the relative velocity, v, between source and observer. Yes, yes, I understand and appreciate that. I was just wondering what the mechanical implications of that might be for v.I mean we are still doing physics aren't we? ~v~~ >>>>> Then how do you know that "light moving at c+v" is actually moving at >>>>> c+v? Seems a rather broad overgeneralization to me. Perhaps in physics [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ~v~~ The sheer rock of 'c' shatters v into many relative v's for many observers. If c is the same c for all observers, no v will be the same v for all observers. GLB >>>>>> Then how do you know that "light moving at c+v" is actually moving at >>>>>> c+v? Seems a rather broad overgeneralization to me. Perhaps in physics [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >observers. If c is the same c for all observers, no v will be the same v for >all observers. Whatever. I never claimed that c was not a rock constant. Nor that light traversed space independently of observers. Nor that v would be the same for all observers. All of which simply led me to ask why the relative velocity of light would be constant regardless of v unless v=0? Let's get with the program, people. This isn't rocket science. ~v~~ > On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:16:46 -0500, "G. L. Bradford" > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > relative velocity of light would be constant regardless of v unless > v=0? Let's get with the program, people. This isn't rocket science. I've already told you the answer to that. The relation that you're assuming, that an observer moving with velocity v should measure the velocity of light to be v+c, is simply wrong. That is not how velocities combine under *any* circumstances, even between a basketball and a moving car. You chose to ignore my correcting your error. PD >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:16:46 -0500, "G. L. Bradford" >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >velocities combine under *any* circumstances, even between a >basketball and a moving car. Good to know. Thanks for the opinion. >You chose to ignore my correcting your error. I chose to ignore your opinion because it is only an opinion and not in any event responsive to my question. ~v~~ > >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:16:46 -0500, "G. L. Bradford" > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > I chose to ignore your opinion because it is only an opinion and not > in any event responsive to my question. Well, I beg to differ. It's not just my opinion. It is experimentally tested fact. Those who would relegate experimental facts to status of "opinion" are -- and this IS my opinion -- not interested in doing science. They may very well be interested in high-sounding, jargon- laden, plausible-though-untestable speculation, but that has as much scientific value as meditating on the intrinsic worth of belly button lint. PD >> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:16:46 -0500, "G. L. Bradford" >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >Well, I beg to differ. You're certainly welcome to differ. > It's not just my opinion. Sure it is because you don't explain why your opinion is valid except by regression to arbitrary assertions that your opinion conforms to experimentally established facts when in fact it does not. > It is experimentally >tested fact. No it is not because it does not conform to experimentally established results for red and blue shift first order longitudinal doppler effects in stars and galaxies where the relevant shifts are calculated in reference to c-v and c+v. And if you can't tell the difference between exponents of first and second order there's nothing much to say regarding questions which entail exactly that distinction. > Those who would relegate experimental facts to status of >"opinion" are -- and this IS my opinion -- not interested in doing >science. Well my problem with your opinions is that they are not accompanied by explanations which conform to experimentally established facts, namely red and blue shift first order longitudinal doppler effects. All you've done is asserted relative c is to be calculated a certain way in second order terms. That's all very interesting for issues cast in second order terms such as MM and FLT but has no direct relevance to the question I'm asking. And the whole thing with science and those who wish to practice it is conformance with experimentally established facts and not merely the assertion that their opinions do conform to experimentally established facts. If you can show me exactly how your opinions on second order calculations for relative c are supposed to explain linear red and blue shifts for c+v I'll be happy to consider them as more than opinions. But your explanations so far have only described non linear second order calculations which don't do that. I don't say that second order calculations don't have any impact only that they don't explain why c should appear constant regardless of v. > They may very well be interested in high-sounding, jargon- >laden, plausible-though-untestable speculation, but that has as much >scientific value as meditating on the intrinsic worth of belly button >lint. Well how about high sounding, jargon laden, plausible though thoroughly testable speculation instead? All Einstein ever did was postulate isotropically constant relative c without ever explaining it except in terms of a hypothetical anisometry which has never been validated experimentally and in fact cannot be correct. My question concerned first order effects only in terms of c+v and interpretation of that function when considered in relation to longitudinal doppler effects such as red and blue shifts in stars and galaxies. ~v~~ >>> >> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:16:46 -0500, "G. L. Bradford" >>> [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > > ~v~~ A traveling point of light would not observe itself to be advancing upon any "observable" point in the distance at any speed but 2c. Not c+v, but 2c. Light travels a light-time-distance grid always being updated (at the speed of light) in object event information incoming to the grid from all directions, including from the afore-mentioned traveling point of light itself. As far as it is concerned, it is the sole traveler in the grid and the grid is just being updated in information at all times (again, being updated at the speed of light). Its time-traveling velocity forward, or space-time traveling velocity forward, with regard to the light-time-distance grid it is in, is then 2c, not c. Itself, it has no rear or rear view except for the photo-still frame information it itself is (as a bit) and is transporting forward through the grid (at the speed of light). But the information it is, and is transporting, is growing older by one second for every second (one second (-) per second (+)) it advances forward one light second through a grid itself being updated by one second every second (one second (+) per second (+)). You see, a point of light somewhere in line of points ahead of it traveling at the speed of light through the grid, that it has been trailing all along its own travel, is even older (regarding its information value) than its own information is by one second in time. And, some point of light somewhere in line of points behind it traveling through the grid, that has been trailing it all along since at least its own propagation, is younger in information (regarding its information value) than its own information is by one second in time. Its forerunner is updating the grid ahead of it. After the number of points between it and that point has updated the grid further, it updates the grid at each point that was updated before by its forerunners. Those points of light following it will update the grid along the same line with even later (younger) information, though still old information growing older all the time by one second every second of advancement (one second (-) per second (+)) through the ever updating (one second (+) per second (+)) light-time-distance grid. Crisscrossing points of light traveling at the speed of light do not collide at any combined speed of 2c for the simple reason that no other traveling point of light in the grid exists as a traveler. That is, except for its own proliferation of clones in expanding (ballooning) light wave front through the grid, all of them gradually weakening through their automatically continuing proliferation in cloning. That is, all them that are not traveling in the same direction as the source propagator, where the points' frequency in time between points would be closer, thus greater (in maintaining). Points in depth of line back to the source propagator traveling in their same direction would be more crowded in the line than if they were going in some other direction to the direction of the source propagator somewhere far behind them in space but unobservably somewhere far ahead in time of them all (as being their own -- being self-transported -- information). Via its continuous cloning and spread, each point of light observes itself to be expanding in space (but not time!!!) vis-a-vis its PROPAGATION point of origin. It observes its PROPAGATION point of origin to be contracting in space (but not time!!!), vis-a-vis itself (as itself and all its clones). As far as it is concerned, its propagation point of origin is photo-still frame in time for all time. BUT, as far as it is concerned, observably spatially it gradually becomes Gulliver's Giant (in spades) to it propagation point of origin's graduating Lilliputian. In the other -- opposite -- direction, though, observably spatially it (as each single individual point of light) observes itself to be gradually becoming Gulliver's Lilliputian (in spades) to some destined [individual] destination's graduating Leviathan Giant. The information that [is] the point of light cannot possibly fall behind the source (one second (-) per second (+)) moving on in state (by one second (+) per second (+)) in time unless the source is itself at the plus second at all times. Meaning, unless the source itself is at all times "moving on in state" at the same speed of light so as to simultaneously separate itself (+) in gain in time from the information (-) and its carrying courier point of light gaining in light-time-distance (+) from it (though the point of light, as a point of information, never gains in time from its PROPAGATION point of origin). Ahead, though, in order to gain its destined destination in time, a destination never sitting still in time and already 'unobservably' far ahead of its apparent place in the "observable" universe, even a point of light must accelerate up in shrinking space-time to that destination itself always advancing in state at the speed of light. It can only do so in a multiple of itself, 2c rather than c. It's got to overtake the constantly [light speed advancing] "state" of its destination, thus it can't match c for c regarding space-time, which is the same as matching 0 for 0...for no gain at all. It must go one c up on its destined destination (which of course "observed" by its destination upon its arrival would be an observed speed of c, rather than 2c (although its information content, its information makeup, goes -- stays -- backward in space-time to the space and time of its propagation and identifies -- fixs or establishes -- the light-time-distance from PROPAGATION point of origin "there and then" to "here and now"...wherever [here and now] will be from [there and then]. That is, unless the expansion, in space, from PROPAGATION point of origin became so great; the contraction, in space, of the point of origin so great; that the difference became complete, that mutual disappearance from the universe in mutual fade-away into the farthest horizon of the universe was the result). GLB [. . .] >>> Those who would relegate experimental facts to status of >>>"opinion" are -- and this IS my opinion -- not interested in doing [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] >in mutual fade-away into the farthest horizon of the universe was the >result). Forgive me for being crass but what is a "point of light" when it's at home? ~v~~ > [. . .] > [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] > > ~v~~ Lester, after more than fifteen years of an amateur logician's trial and error, I've grown to realize that the only thing the relativists do not understand about SR, concerning c-v, is where in time, relative to any destination, any traveler would start his travel to some destination from. c-v is the equivalent of 0+v. c+v is the equivalent of 0-v. Relativists do c-v fore AND aft for all travelers, and that just [ain't] the way it is or would be. All travelers should want to do c-v forward of them (which is what the observer behind them sees), because in doing c-v forward, the equivalent of 0+v, they will do c+v, the equivalent of 0-v, behind them (which is what the observer ahead of them sees) as the reaction to the action. Incredibly, Relativists have never dealt in c+v as reaction rearward to the action of c-v forward. Or, that the observer forward of all travelers observes in the direction of the traveler and the observer to the rear of the traveler, c+v (0-v). Or, that the observer rearward of all travelers, observes in the direction of the traveler and the observer forward of the traveler, c-v (0+v). Any traveler that sees his destination speed up time relative to himself (thus c-v), is advancing upon that destination at whatever 0+v. Any traveler that sees his point of origin receding in time away from him (thus c+v), is opening distance between himself and his point of origin at whatever 0-v. If a point of origin is frozen in time for a point of light, it is receding from the point of light at precisely c. The point of light is then doing precisely c in the opposite direction. That c is 2c vis-a-vis all points of light oncoming toward the point of light from precisely the opposed direction. But, Lester, no point of light deals in any opposed point of light at the speed of light, as Einstein might have seen if he had taken his mind's eye view just a little further than he did. It deals solely in informational positioning and passes right through each other as if the other had never been there in the first place. Zero masses do not collide with each other. Only masses collide. A photon, as opposed to any particle starting out with mass, has to drop out of and away from the speed of light -- its own state of rest "at home" -- in order to get relatively massive (thus energetic) from its speed of light norm of zero mass. In which case, of course, the frozen in time point of origin -- its prior information content -- will no longer be frozen in time. The photon, as a very dependable space-time information bit, photo-still frame, should then be chaotic. The question shouldn't be, "what is it when it's at home," but "what is it when it isn't at home?" GLB > Lester, after more than fifteen years of an amateur logician's trial and >error, I've grown to realize that the only thing the relativists do not [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >chaotic. The question shouldn't be, "what is it when it's at home," but >"what is it when it isn't at home?" What the f.ck are you rambling on about? [. . .] > If a point of origin is frozen in time for a point of light, it is >receding from the point of light at precisely c. The point of light is then [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >chaotic. The question shouldn't be, "what is it when it's at home," but >"what is it when it isn't at home?" Perhaps you misunderstood my question, G. L. but in twenty words or less please explain what you mean by points of light since everything else you say would seem to depend on such an explanation. There's no use to running on and on about what these points of light do or don't do unless we have some idea what you're talking about. ~v~~ > [. . .] > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > ~v~~ An information bit that is itself dimensionless or 0-dimensional. Funny that you couldn't put that together with "updating" a space-time grid with light-time-event information. A traveler in interplanetary space couldn't give his kilometers per second or kilometers per hour. In interstellar space there would be no such thing as calculating kilometers per second. Everything would be per light-time-distance updating. Slang: How many "lights" the traveler would be traveling while navigating a hologrammic space-time grid constantly being updated at the speed of light with new information. Particularly locally. Especially locally. I took the view of the light speed 'updaters' as well as the view of the traveler. I moved into the point of light, the information bit, and the points of the expanding, ballooning, light wave (light front). The points of the expanding, ballooning, light cone. You still haven't got it yet. Light doesn't travel like you or I travel. It travels like the surface horizon travels when you or I travel. Things contract and merge into it, merging into the "background" as we leave them behind us. Things appear out of it, out of the background horizon. Things separate from it and expand as we approach them. To a standing observer, we the travelers contract and merge into it, merging into the background. Or appear out of it, appearing out of the background horizon. We the travelers separate from it and expand in oncoming toward the observer. All this because that surface horizon has universal enwrapping coverage, "finite but without boundaries," as Einstein put it. It is independent of our velocity, but not independent of our position. It positions us perfectly, irrespective of velocity. It dead centers us each within its 360 degree flat. Or in the vacuum of space, it makes us each the core center of a hologrammic spherical grid of [light time] space-time. A light wave-front is expansively processive. Get around to its backside and take a look at it . . . nothing but recessive dimensionless vacuum. A lot of light waves / fronts flying around in every direction -- and flying in from everywhere. A lot of vacuums around the Universe. A lot of vacuum to the Universe. "That surface horizon has universal enwrapping coverage. And of course, "the speed of light is constant (c) in a vacuum," a wrap into itself, "finite but without boundaries." Light-time 'information', though, is very 'finite' and, also, quite 'boundaried'. But since "time is relative," a million different observers in a million different (space)time zones will give it a million different boundaries. They won't agree on (light-time) space-time ground-zero. Neither position nor velocity. Zero is not finite. ----------------- James Garner, looking at bullet dented sheriff's badge: "This badge must have saved a man's life." Harry Morgan: "It would have if it hadn't been for all those other bullets flying in from everywhere!" -- Support Your Local Sheriff. ----------------- GLB >> [. . .] >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >(light-time) space-time ground-zero. Neither position nor velocity. Zero is >not finite. Not very clear what you're talking about. I asked for twenty words on what points of light are and get an apparent recapitulation of what you said before. No further interest in trying to decipher nonsense. >----------------- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Harry Morgan: "It would have if it hadn't been for all those other bullets >flying in from everywhere!" Jim Garner and Harry Morgan are usually a lot funnier than that. ~v~~ Consider the case where there is only one object in the universe and Michelson-Morley is being conducted on that object. Those doing the experiment detect no fringe shift anticipated on the basis of FLT. Thus there are only a couple of possible explanations if we assume that light travels through space independent of the experimental platform at a constant velocity c. Either the platform is actually at rest in space or some kind of material or geometric contraction as a second order function of platform velocity through space contrives to counteract FLT or there is some more subtle mechanical explanation. ~v~~ > Consider [1] the case where there is only one [2] object in the > universe and Michelson [3]-Morley [4] is being conducted on > that object. -- [snipped the rest of Lester's Mo-Lestations] > ~v~~ [hanson] .... ahahahaha... you are [1], and your demand for [1] turned already into [4] objects before your show starts, which makes you guilty of Mo-Lestering your universe. Like you said, "AMF" .... Thanks for the laughs! ahahaha... ahahahahanson >All of which simply led me to ask why the >relative velocity of light would be constant regardless of v unless >v=0? It makes absolutely no difference what v is, it plays no role in what c is. >>All of which simply led me to ask why the >>relative velocity of light would be constant regardless of v unless >>v=0? > >It makes absolutely no difference what v is, it plays no role in what >c is. See the problem is that if we're discussing relative measures of c it certainly does make a difference what v is because that's exactly how longitudinal red and blue shift doppler is manifested for galaxies and stars. Longitudinal doppler is a linear function of constant c and variable v. In other words if relative c is constant it does not conform to experimental results and measurements. And I know we wouldn't want to be at variance with experimental measurements. ~v~~ In sci.physics, Lester Zick <dontbother@nowhere.net> wrote on Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:28:20 -0700 <5hccs2lusq1tjjitbqun1hu1i8jo3ak6ug@4ax.com>: >>>>> c'=c+v >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > one should restrict oneself to things which are observed instead of > things which aren't. A common method of lightspeed measurement, AIUI, is to simultaneously measure the frequency and wavelength. The frequency, presumably, is done using a frequency counter; the wavelength could be done by some sort of interferometer. At microwave frequencies this doesn't appear horribly difficult. Compton scattering might be used to estimate the energy of light quanta. The results AFAIK are in excellent agreement with SR. I'll have to look at how they measured Gravity Probe A's results, but I do remember they used a maser aboard a rocket, which launched, reached a certain height, then descended, probably into the ocean. :-) > ~v~~ Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message