 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase.
The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase: TIME (duration) is what the clock measures. This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock second is an interval of universal TIME. This, in turn, leads to the assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are in relative motion the different clock seconds accumlulated by each clock is due to that the flow of TIME through the clocks is different in different frames. In other words, the different clock seconds accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at different rates when they are in different frames. On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock second in the observed B clock. This means that a clock second is not an interval of universal TIME. It appears that SR is making contradictory claims. The correct SR interpretation of TIME should be as follows: 1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in insensitive to any motion. In other words, the rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames. 2. A clock second will represents a specfic interval of absolute time at the frame of the clock. 3. A clock second in different frames will represent different interval of absolute time. 4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically. These new interpretations of TIME gives a viable explanation why the speed of light is measured to be a constant math ratio in all frames as follows: Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of relativity called: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. A Paper on IRT entitled "Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" is available in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message b64cae6e-6079-448b-990d-b9e9d269387d@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com > The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase: > TIME (duration) is what the clock measures. FIRST mistake. This is not an SR definition. This is a HUMAN BEINGS definition. If we all carry the same type of clock, then we all use it to measure something we *call* time. SR has something to say about what we will find when we all measure how long a certain well-defined process takes while using our own personal clocks. > This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same > amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. SECOND mistake. This definition implies that a clock second CAN represent a DIFFERENT amount of time (duration) in different frames. This is where your personal wild goose starts. Dirk Vdm On Jun 13, 2:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dirk Vdm ___ ____ ____ ___ _ _ _ ______ __ / _ \| _ \| _ \_ _| \ | | / \ | _ \ \ / / | | | | |_) | | | | || \| | / _ \ | |_) \ V / | |_| | _ <| |_| | || |\ |/ ___ \| _ < | | \___/|_| \_\____/___|_| \_/_/ \_\_| \_\|_| _ _ ____ ____ _____ ____ ____ _ ____ _____ | | | | _ \| _ \| ____| _ \ / ___| / \ / ___|| ____| | | | | |_) | |_) | _| | |_) | | / _ \ \___ \| _| | |_| | __/| __/| |___| _ <| |___ / ___ \ ___) | |___ \___/|_| |_| |_____|_| \_\\____/_/ \_\____/|_____| __ _____ _ _ _ _ ___ _____ ____ _____ \ \ / /_ _| | | | | \ | |/ _ \_ _| | __ )| ____| \ \ /\ / / | || | | | | \| | | | || | | _ \| _| \ V V / | || |___| |___ | |\ | |_| || | | |_) | |___ \_/\_/ |___|_____|_____| |_| \_|\___/ |_| |____/|_____| ____ _ _ _____ _____ ___ ____ ___ _____ _ _ _____ _ / ___|| | | | ___| ___|_ _/ ___|_ _| ____| \ | |_ _| | \___ \| | | | |_ | |_ | | | | || _| | \| | | | | | ___) | |_| | _| | _| | | |___ | || |___| |\ | | | |_| |____/ \___/|_| |_| |___\____|___|_____|_| \_| |_| (_) > SECOND mistake. > This definition implies that a clock second CAN represent a > DIFFERENT amount of time (duration) in different frames. Univserse to Dirk, Come in Dirk Are you actually thinking at all? clocks CAN and DO represent different amounts of periodic count rates in different frames. (It is called time dilation) Sheesh! It is simple too, The clock malfunctions and shows a different time on the face than the other clock does. and even more stupid, if they did not have such a physical problem, there would be no discussion about this at all. DUH! and.... Sheesh again!  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 13, 4:59 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dirk Vdm ------------- Dirky you are making some progress at last !! probably due to my explanations ATB Y.Porat --------------------------------- > ------------- > Dirky > you are making some progress at last !! > probably due to my explanations It is amazing that some people can not tell that if the clocks did not have the same time when they came back together, than one clock "did not" keep the proper rate of the "second" It is really sad that such an old historical fact about clocks changing rates has been ignored all over again. But, the good thing is, They are sitting there repeating history, while others that find out the clock had the problem, and it was not "time" slowing, will be marching forward in science. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 18, 7:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > ------------- > > Dirky [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman ---------------------- again you are making sense !!! time is a human invention and is nothing but motion comparison 2 the real physical phenomenon is as i saied that it becomes more and more difficult to add velocity to your moving mass compared to the reference moving entity that ***stays outside*** your examined moving (accelerated ) frame 2 it is possible that in the experiment of the two clocks the very movement has some real efefct on the accelerated clock THAT IS COMPOSED OF MATTER !! may be for instance, the gravitation force is the cause that acts on the moving clock in the gravitational field ???!!! (not on 'time' but on the material of the clock even if it is an Atomic clock ???!!! the Atomic clock has electrons and Protons that its motion might be affected ??!!! TIA Y.Porat -------------------- > On Jun 18, 7:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > that ***stays outside*** your examined moving > (accelerated ) frame =============== > 2 > it is possible that in the experiment of the two clocks [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the Atomic clock has electrons and Protons > that its motion might be affected ??!!! Near a planet, of course. But as a demonstration of inertia a fair interpretation takes a very simple form. If 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving toward the clock and 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving away from the clock, can there be any resultant gravito-inertial force on any part of the clock ? Not according to the relativity principle. << "All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments." In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html << As Einstein said: "The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by the fact that it moves without acceleration." >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm Sue... > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------- > > On Jun 18, 7:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Not according to the relativity principle. ------------------------- 'where did you find in the history of the clock relativity experiments, the example you brought abut 'half of mass of universe' etc ?? so what is its relevance to our discussion about experimental proves ??!! -------------- > << "All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the > performance of all physical experiments." but my idea is about **combined frames** !! not net single frames ---------------- > In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment > which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different > inertial frames. may be according to the existing theory but may be it is not a comprehensive one ?? By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the > same form in all inertial frames. me as well do not stick **only **to the Newtonian theory !! ----------- Einstein generalized this result > in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of > physics take the same form in all inertial frames. but how about mixed frames ie one frame that will include *two* frames ?? -------------- >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the fact that it moves without acceleration." >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > ----------------------- so isnt there a possibility to establish as a said a frame that will include two or more frames in it ?? TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------- > > > On Jun 18, 7:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > relativity experiments, the example you brought > abut 'half of mass of universe' etc ?? You can find it walking across a large *homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be moving away from you. Half the cars will be moving toward you. Ignore the distant cars because their field is attenuated by 1/r^2. Can you sense the gravito-inertial field of an approaching car if an idential car is receeding at the same rate? > so what is its relevance to our discussion > about experimental proves ??!! > -------------- If you can demonstrate that the attractive force of the cars moving away from you is not matched by the attractive force the cars moving toward you then I suppose you can advance an argument against the principle of relativity. > > << "All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the > > performance of all physical experiments." [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > one frame that will include *two* frames ?? > -------------- http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > << > > As Einstein said: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > isnt there a possibility to establish as a said > a frame that will include two or more frames in it ?? The walker establishes one frame. The parking lot establishes another frame. What would we represent with additional frames ? > TIA > Y.Porat > ----------------------------- > You can find it walking across a large > *homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > car if an idential car is receeding at the same > rate? yes, you could the car moving towards you would make you sense the need to jump out of the way. :) > If you can demonstrate that the attractive force > of the cars moving away from you is not matched > by the attractive force the cars moving toward you > then I suppose you can advance an argument against > the principle of relativity. If you had enough mass you would be dragged toward the car that is heading towards you simply because the G would be getting stronger from that car and your mass would have stopped you from moving fast enough to stay within the car moving aways gravity effect. So???. Tada. :) > The walker establishes one frame. The parking lot establishes another > frame. > What would we represent with additional frames ? A frame that contained both from a further view away. In short, thinking out of the box for each time you need to. think out and look in or you are just stuck in the box completely. :) -- James M Drsicoll Jr Spaceman > > You can find it walking across a large > > *homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to jump out of the way. > :) Cars are a bit small but your inner ear *does* have an appropriate mechanism for more massive objects. If your remark is not in jest, then you are alluding to a violation of the relativity principle. > > If you can demonstrate that the attractive force > > of the cars moving away from you is not matched [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Tada. > :) An increase in the walker's (or better roller skater's) mass causes an increase in the forces from behind as well as the forces from ahead. Is m1 * m2 the same as m2 * m1 ? http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html > > The walker establishes one frame. The parking lot establishes another > > frame. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you are just stuck in the box completely. > :) The box that has the product of masses (Mm) in it is quite comfortable. What is your alternative for gravitational force between two masses? Sue... > -- > James M Drsicoll Jr > Spaceman > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > James M Drsicoll Jr > > Spaceman Citing Arthur Clarke 2001: "Oh my God.....it's full of trolls...." Miguel Rios >> > You can find it walking across a large >> > *homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If your remark is not in jest, then you are alluding > to a violation of the relativity principle. Why not, it violated newton I am hearing. what makes it invulnerable to fact? the funny thing is it violated newton by using rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks. silly relativity. Great for "observation" but will only get you splatted against a planet that could care lesss about what you think it's clock would read. >> If you had enough mass you would be dragged toward the car >> that is heading towards you simply because the G would be getting [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > m2 * m1 the increase in mass slows the forces propagation time. It takes a bit more time to yank the higher mass from it's rest spot. :) > The box that has the product of masses (Mm) > in it is quite comfortable. What is your > alternative for gravitational force between > two masses? Alternative? none for the gravity equations themselves.. but.... I want to find a physical cause for it . not that stupid a.s mathematical "space-time" bullshit cause that relativity has, lacking "physical cause" completely. space is lack of objects or space where objects are and time is a periodic counting method If such is a physical cause.. it sure lacks the physical part. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message [...] > >> > You can find it walking across a large > >> > *homogenous* parking lot. Half the cars will be [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > the increase in mass slows the forces propagation time. > It takes a bit more time to yank the higher mass from it's rest spot. So... Anvils fall faster or slower than feathers? Hint: When you increase the mass, you increse the generator of the force. ( in all directions ) ;-) > :) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Alternative? > none for the gravity equations themselves.. Then it looks like you are stuck with feathers and anvils that fall together and you need to rethink your response about the skater's mass. > but.... > I want to find a physical cause for it . > not that stupid a.s mathematical "space-time" > bullshit cause that relativity has, lacking "physical cause" > completely. Here is a plausible mechanism that doesn't get much applause from the black hole community. THE ORIGIN OF GRAVITY C.P. Kouropoulos http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1 See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity > space is lack of objects or space where objects are > and time is a periodic counting method > If such is a physical cause.. > it sure lacks the physical part. You are not the first to notice that. << Already Newton recognized that the law of inertia is unsatisfactory in a context so far unmentioned in this exposition, namely that it gives no real cause for the special physical position of the states of motion of the inertial frames relative to all other states of motion. It makes the observable material bodies responsible for the gravitational behaviour of a material point, yet indicates no material cause for the inertial behaviour of the material point but devises the cause for it (absolute space or inertial ether). This is not logically inadmissible although it is unsatisfactory. For this reason E. Mach demanded a modification of the law of inertia in the sense that the inertia should be interpreted as an acceleration resistance of the bodies against one another and not against "space". This interpretation governs the expectation that accelerated bodies have concordant accelerating action in the same sense on other bodies (acceleration induction). This interpretation is even more plausible according to general relativity which eliminates the distinction between inertial and gravitational effects. It amounts to stipulating that, apart from the arbitrariness governed by the free choice of coordinates, the gm v -field shall be completely determined by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured in general relativity by the circumstance that acceleration induction in accordance with the gravitational field equations really exists, although of such slight intensity that direct detection by mechanical experiments is out of the question. >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html Sue... > :) > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > So... Anvils fall faster or slower than feathers? > Hint: > When you increase the mass, you increse the > generator of the force. ( in all directions ) ;-) Hint, to move an object. the larger mass will accelerate slower especially with the same force on both. So, If you have 2 magnets one moving toward and one moving away. Try the same with a static electric field and a ping pong ball if you want.. and you have a heavy iron chunk of metal evenly in between at first.. what will happen. Mass wants to stay still. Remember that really old physics stuff? :) > Then it looks like you are stuck with feathers > and anvils that fall together and you need > to rethink your response about the skater's mass. No you need to start thinking of old physics like above that you must have forgot with all the rubber ruler stuff in your brain. you really should flush that stuff so you can actually think on your own all over again. :) BTW: Mass would rather stay still, and the larger the mass, the harder it is to move it at all so again, the "coming toward you gravity" will win. :) > Here is a plausible mechanism that doesn't get much > applause from the black hole community. Black holes as in rubber ruler world? Or in a mass so large that gravity is so great, vibrations can not occur to cause nor reflect light? > THE ORIGIN OF GRAVITY > C.P. Kouropoulos [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You are not the first to notice that. I know. I just like to fight for it against the fools that think they have "physical" causes at all. apparently they were not taught what a physical cause it at all. :) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html Poor guy.. He was so smart and yet so stupid at the same time. As I said. Try the magnets. or Try with static electric fields start balanced, then move one field or magnet away while moving the other towards... the object heading towards.. always wins.. unless all were in "one frame of uniform motion". :) On Jun 18, 7:02 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > So... Anvils fall faster or slower than feathers? > > Hint: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Mass wants to stay still. > Remember that really old physics stuff? I don't remember magnets having a 1:1 inertial coupling nor a attenuation of 1/r^2. > :) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you really should flush that stuff so you can actually > think on your own all over again. Where have I mentioned a rubber ruler ? If you are four hours from London, it probably means you have an aeroplane, not a rubber ruler. > :) > BTW: > Mass would rather stay still, and the larger the > mass, the harder it is to move it at all so > again, the "coming toward you gravity" will win. How does mass know when it is still ? > :) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > THE ORIGIN OF GRAVITY > > C.P. Kouropoulos http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 BTW the older versions might be easier reading with more classical and less quantum treatment. (not sure where they are archived) > > See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity > >> space is lack of objects or space where objects are > >> and time is a periodic counting method [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > apparently they were not taught what a physical cause it > at all. You need a few more arrows in your quiver if you like to fight. (And they need to diminish by 1/r^2 rather than 1/r^3 or your maths are bogus out of starting gate.) > :) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le... > Poor guy.. > He was so smart and yet so stupid at the same time. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the object heading towards.. always wins.. > unless all were in "one frame of uniform motion". You can try it yourself: http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm Sue... > :) > I don't remember magnets having a > 1:1 inertial coupling nor a attenuation > of 1/r^2. I used magnets because I did not have 2 planets handy to let you borrow. Sheesh! > Where have I mentioned a rubber ruler ? > > If you are four hours from London, it probably > means you have an aeroplane, not a rubber ruler. You mentioned relativity, that is saying rubber ruler basically. Too bad you don't get it. > How does mass know when it is still ? to itself it is always still. otherwise, it like to be that way unless it is being moved by something. You really did forget all that old physics stuff? Or you just never learned it right and got that milled diploma maybe? > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1 > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 > BTW the older versions might be easier reading > with more classical and less quantum treatment. > (not sure where they are archived) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity all nice space-time rubber ruler crap. too bad it all lacks "physical causes" for anything. > You need a few more arrows in your quiver if you > like to fight. (And they need to diminish by > 1/r^2 rather than 1/r^3 or your maths are > bogus out of starting gate.) >> > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le... a link for no reason at all, Wooopeee! >> Poor guy.. >> He was so smart and yet so stupid at the same time. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You can try it yourself: > http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm Try what? A broken math page that forgets that more mass takes more force to move so the heading toward you planet always wins the gravity tug of war? LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 19, 12:19 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > I don't remember magnets having a > > 1:1 inertial coupling nor a attenuation [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you borrow. > Sheesh! Call the maintenance department and ask them to put bigger doors on your lab so you can get planets on your bench. or <<the standard procedure for deriving the Van der Waals forces, along with an electrokinetic coupling, provides the only presently known derivation of a 1/r attractive potential between coupled dipoles, or oscillating charges. >> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 > > Where have I mentioned a rubber ruler ? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > basically. > Too bad you don't get it. The laws of physics are the same today, tomorrow at my house, at your house, on the ISS and on the lorry that delivers freeze dried melons to the ISS. Fundamental quantities are conserved. Agree? If so, you'll also accecpt << * the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum; * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law of conservation of angular momentum; * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications Will you dispute: <<All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html ??? > > How does mass know when it is still ? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Or you just never learned it right and got that > milled diploma maybe? All matter has radiating fields so it is never "to itself" Pay the Red Queen $200, do not pass go shine the Hatters shoes and knock off the nonsense. > >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1 > >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all nice space-time rubber ruler crap. > too bad it all lacks "physical causes" for anything. Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html > > You need a few more arrows in your quiver if you > > like to fight. (And they need to diminish by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > a link for no reason at all, They decay in the Google truncator and become unclickable unless refreshed. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html > Wooopeee! Wooopee indeed. Clickable links are easy to supress if they bother you. Polite responses are also easy to supress. > >> Poor guy.. > >> He was so smart and yet so stupid at the same time. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > You can try it yourself: http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm > Try what? > A broken math page that forgets that more > mass takes more force to move so the heading toward > you planet always wins the gravity tug of war? > LOL <<Here are examples of other physical problems that MD-GRAPE can accelerate : * Molecular Dynamics : it calculates any forces specified by the user, but existing libraries handle the Coulomb and van der Waals forces, and in addition to all of the real-space operations involved with the Ewald method. * Plasma Physics (charged particle interactions) * Self-gravitating systems, including cosmology, galaxies, and planets * Hydrodynamics (using Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics or the particle-vortex method) And any other problem involving interparticle forces... >> http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/index.html Sue... > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jun 19, 12:19 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > put bigger doors on your lab so you can get > planets on your bench. I said, I don't have the planets, I never said I don't have the room. It would be nice if you actualyl read what is stated. but of course, rubber ruler worshippers always have trouble with reading what is actually stated, unless it matches the rubber ruler bible they are brainwashed by. > <<the standard procedure for deriving the > Van der Waals forces, along with an electrokinetic > coupling, provides the only presently known derivation of a > 1/r attractive potential between coupled dipoles, > or oscillating charges. >> > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 So, you think math proves that a larger mass will not take longer to start moving with the same force on either large or small mass? That is pretty sad. > The laws of physics are the same today, tomorrow > at my house, at your house, on the ISS and on [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > sense between different inertial frames. >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Oh, I see, you are pulling the old fundamental sh.t but still using "rubber rulers" and "malfunctioning clocks" as fundemental standards. LOL Poor thing. You truly like "no physical" cause stuff huh? > All matter has radiating fields so it is > never "to itself" any matter is "itself" and anything IT has, is to itself, Why are you so asleep? Sheesh! > Do you consider electrons physical ? > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html I consider them a mass of smaller physical particles. (like a cloud so to say) > Wooopee indeed. Clickable links are easy to supress if they > bother you. Polite responses are also easy to supress. Links that are just a note to Einstein are not "thinking" for yourself. That is what I asked you to do, but you keep proving you can not do that. > <<Here are examples of other physical problems that MD-GRAPE can > accelerate : [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And any other problem involving interparticle forces... >> > http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/index.html rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks and all measurements infected by lightspeed. Totally useless. curved straight lines in the long run, Pure bullshit is all it is about "illusions" of what would happen. Did you try the magnets on a chunk of iron? No.. I can tell. Poor Sue, Won't even do an experiment at all. Afraid to knock down her house of cards. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On 19 jun, 10:07, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 12:19 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Real fun watching a Clockwork Orange ruberized troll fighting a Parkinsonian troll (her fingers hit the wrong internet pages providing irrelevant information). Miguel Rios On Jun 19, 10:07 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > Do you consider electrons physical ? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html > I consider them a mass of smaller physical particles. > (like a cloud so to say) Do you have any evidence of the smaller particles? Are electrons un-physical if you don't have such evidence? Sue... [...] > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jun 19, 10:07 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you have any evidence of the smaller particles? > Are electrons un-physical if you don't have such evidence? They act just like pressure differentials in gases. so. that is "kinda" evidence. What do you think they are made of? non physicals? On Jun 19, 2:46 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 10:07 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What do you think they are made of? > non physicals? I think they are the absence of a positron. http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/mbitu/electron-posi tron.htm ...But the more you treat leptons as real and the less you treat Newton's inertial ether as real the less need you'll have for "rubber rulers". Sue... > On Jun 19, 2:46 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I think they are the absence of a positron. http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/mbitu/electron-posi tron.htm So you think the electron is just space? absense of something means "nothing in place of it" doesn't it? all that smashing up stuff to see how it works.. That is a shame really. We will never find out what an electron is "made of" by smashing it into something at all. I wish I could find out how things were made by smashing them up at super high speeds.. but ... it does not work that way in my world. :) > ...But the more you treat leptons as real and the > less you treat Newton's inertial ether as real > the less need you'll have for "rubber rulers". Well, that will be pretty hard because Newton has the mechanical locked up pretty well. But getting rid of the rubber rulers is the first step to anything better. right now as it is, we have a meter that is sadly based upon a speed. That is a gigantic joke to science right away. and with a clock that malfunctions are OK, we lost science completely and that is where all the time travel and wormhole and bullshit comes from Remove the rubber ruler and fix the clocks. It is what we did a long time ago. and sadly, we need to do it again. :) On Jun 19, 11:13 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2:46 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > them up at super high speeds.. but ... it does not work that > way in my world. If you think you can descrbe a fundamental particle as a collection of composite particles you should first try using the floor plan of a house to explain the structural properties of a brick. > :) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, that will be pretty hard because Newton > has the mechanical locked up pretty well. Then you don't know Newton very well and you have made that apparent in this thread. Even he knew the instant communication he assumed was a problem but he had no better alternative. > But getting rid of the rubber rulers is the first step to anything > better. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It is what we did a long time ago. > and sadly, we need to do it again. I gave you an EM course that doesn't use "rubber rulers" and funny clocks. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html Excuse me now, but it is pearl feeding time down at the swine house and it is my favorite chore. :o) Sue... > :) > If you think you can descrbe a fundamental particle > as a collection of composite particles you should > first try using the floor plan of a house to > explain the structural properties of a brick. So you are saying you can not smash up an electron at all? whenyou throw it against things it stays a complete electron all the time? Wow.. you got a super electron there. :) > Then you don't know Newton very well and you > have made that apparent in this thread. > > Even he knew the instant communication he assumed > was a problem but he had no better alternative. There was no problem with it, he just did not have an accurate enough system to see the non instantness of it. some people must think Newton had his own atomic clock and billion dollar lab.. LOL > I gave you an EM course that doesn't use "rubber rulers" > and funny clocks. > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html Funny, it uses Newtons stuff then.. but you can't tell that huh? :) > Excuse me now, but it is pearl feeding time down at the > swine house and it is my favorite chore. :o) Make sure they feed you well and don't let them use rubber rulers when measuring your mud pen. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Then you don't know Newton very well and you >> have made that apparent in this thread. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There was no problem with it, he just did not have > an accurate enough system to see the non instantness of it. No, that wasn't the problem. Newton knew that his theory would predict unstable orbits for the planets if the speed of communication of the gravitational force was not instantaneous. The problem doesn't arise in General Relativity which is a geometric interpretation of gravity. >>> Then you don't know Newton very well and you >>> have made that apparent in this thread. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > if the speed of communication of the gravitational > force was not instantaneous. He had no way to find out that there was already gravity there so of course it would be instantaneous since it did not have to travel anywhere to work where it was already. But of course, gravity moving things is not instantaneous. It has an accelration rate that starts at 0 and does not jump to any instant motion number. Gravitational force is not instantaneous and it is a force. > The problem doesn't arise in General Relativity > which is a geometric interpretation of gravity. Ya ok, math causes gravity.. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 19, 10:07 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jun 19, 12:19 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Spaceman, Sue is a computer. > Spaceman, > Sue is a computer. Good, then hopefully I can re-program it a bit to make her see the "rubber ruler faults" If she truly is a computer that uses logic, then she should be able to see how making a meter based upon a speed is just plain stupid. and trying to use malfunctioning clocks to time stuff is also just plain stupid. :) Imagine if some super space dragsters used internal clocks to see who won.. the faster one would lose every time.. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > If 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving toward the clock > and 1/2 the mass in the universe is moving away from the > clock, can there be any resultant gravito-inertial force on any part > of the clock ? Where is that happening? nowhere.. Or do you have a special clock set up in an unknown spot of the universe? > In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment > which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html but Einstein forgot that clocks can goof up so he fiddled and fiddled and instead of causes, he found mathamatical proof of how we see the world using light. The greatest illusional theory so far. > On Jun 18, 7:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > is the cause that acts on the moving clock > in the gravitational field ???!!! It is, It is also the oldest know problem with a clock and only fools won't see that the clocks are "screwing" up. and.. It is also a change in kinetic energy of the ticker the mass of the ticker gains more kinetic energy as it moves and it also changes such when any g-force on it is changed. > (not on 'time' but on the material of the clock > even if it is an Atomic clock ???!!! Yes, It is a physical problem with the clock. It is freaking crazy that these morons have no clue about how a clock has to work and just refuse to look simply because they have a warped theory already.. You would think some of these guys think they are Einstein himself fighting so hard for the theories that are crap for finding physical causes. > the Atomic clock has electrons and Protons > that its motion might be affected ??!!! Yup good old Newtonian stuff still getting in the way. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > again you are making sense !!! > time is a human invention [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the Atomic clock has electrons and Protons > that its motion might be affected ??!!! The clock is goofing up (Malfunctioning) from any g-force changes. It is the oldest problem with clocks. Only silly rubber ruler people ignore such a simple fact and keep repeating history. ;) [...] Should we celebrate when you reach 15 years of arguing about SR even though you still clearly have no idea what you are talking about? Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message 2cf1ef97-41c7-4b78-872d-f95c3439c25c@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com > [...] > > Should we celebrate when you reach 15 years of arguing about SR even > though you still clearly have no idea what you are talking about? Ken Seto, the Wild Goose King: http://www.opendustpublish.com/images/Wild%20Goose%20King_Eng_email.jpg Dirk Vdm > The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase: > TIME (duration) is what the clock measures. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Ken Seto I would feel much better if the theory was published in a journal rather than a vanity press book! K. On Jun 13, 6:49 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase: > > TIME (duration) is what the clock measures. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > I would feel much better if the theory was published in a journal > rather than a vanity press book! So are you saying that you can't think for yourself???? kenseto wrote:> > So are you saying that you can't think for yourself???? What he means is that your work should be checked for errors by competent professionals. Have your theories been thoroughly tested experimentally. If not, you are just blowing smoke. Experimental test is the hallmark of valid science. Bob Kolker On Jun 13, 6:43 am, kenshito <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: >1. It appears that SR is making contradictory claims. >2. IRT includes SRT as a subset. > Ken Shito Shito, If IRT indeed includes SR as a subset and if Sr is indeed self- contradictory as you claim, this means that IRT is self- contradictory :-) > The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase: > TIME (duration) is what the clock measures. > > This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same > amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock > second is an interval of universal TIME. What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that a clock second is a universal interval of time. > This, in turn, leads to the > assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at > different rates when they are in different frames. Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch to characterize it as "time is flexible". > On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second > in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock > second in the observed B clock. And that's correct too (assuming A is doing the measuring and B is in motion relative to A). > This means that a clock second is not > an interval of universal TIME. > It appears that SR is making contradictory claims. It's anybody's guess what you mean by "universal TIME", but your "time is flexible" and "passage of time is less" observations above, certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a universal interval of time - in fact they require it. > The correct SR interpretation of TIME should be as follows: > 1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > interval of absolute time. > 4. Clocks in relative motion run at different rates intrinsically. That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/ interpretation. In fact, it's the LET interpretation. [snip Setoland fantasy] > > The SR definition led physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase: > > TIME (duration) is what the clock measures. > > > This SR definition implies that a clock second represents the same > > amount of TIME (duration) in different frames. This means that a clock > > second is an interval of universal TIME. > What the SR definition of time actually implies is that a clock second > represents the same amount of time on every standard clock, i.e., that > a clock second is a universal interval of time. By "standard clock" do you mean the observer's clock? In that case how is it become a standard since every observer can claim that his clock is the standard clock and at the same time the flow of clock seconds through every observer's clock is at different rates. Also what do you mean a clock second is a universal interval of time? Do you mean that the passage of a clock second in A's frame corresponds to the passage of a clock second in B's frame?? > > This, in turn, leads to the > > assertion that time is flexible. This means that when two clocks are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > accumulated by each clock is not due to that the clocks are running at > > different rates when they are in different frames. > Well, that is a correct interpretation of SR, although it's a stretch > to characterize it as "time is flexible". If a clock second is an interval of universal time then time must be flexible (the passage of clock seconds) in order for two clocks in relative motion to accumulate different clock seconds. > > On the other hand SR also asserts that the passage of a clock second > > in observer A's clock corresponds to the passage of less than a clock [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > certainly don't contradict the SR implication that a clock second is a > universal interval of time - in fact they require it. You definition that a clock second is a universal interval of time needs to be defined more clearly. Do you mean that a clock second will have the same duration in all frames? In other words the time (duration) required to complete a transition by the Cs atom is the same in all frames? If that is what you mean then I disagree. > > The correct SR interpretation of TIME should be as follows: > > 1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's not the "correct" interpretation - it's merely a /different/ > interpretation. In fact, it's the LET interpretation. No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. Ken Seto > [snip Setoland fantasy] No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation says that the observer's clock is in a state of absolute motion in the ether. That's why every IRT observer does not claim that his clock is the fastest running clock in the universe. He claims that some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. Ken Seto ...................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................... Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train experiement)? Please review. Thanks! Spirit of Truth > No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the > observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > moving wrt him are running slow and some are running fast. > Ken Seto ............................................................................ .......................... ............................................................................ .......................... > Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train > experiement)? If it uses absolute time, it would have to get rid of the lack of it, since absolute time can make things happen simultaneously very easily. (or as close to technically possible at least) :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the > observer's clock in the rest frame of the ether. My interpretation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train > experiement)? Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows: 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train frame. 2. In the track frame the lightning strikes occur simultaneously at time 0.5L/c where L is the length of the train. 3. From the track observer's point of view the strikes also occur simultaneously in the train as follows: The light path length in the train = 0.5L*gamma Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously at time 0.5L*gamma/c. Ken Seto >> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message >> No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously > at time 0.5L*gamma/c. Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed observer before reaching the train-rinding observer. Light from the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer before reaching the track-fixed observer. Ken Seto's theory has light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which doesn't work. Theory flushed. Signature--Bryan >>> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message >>> No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> fast. >>> Ken Seto ........................................................................... ........................... ........................................................................... ........................... >>> Ken, does IRT get rid of lack of simultaneity (Einstein's train >>> experiement)? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which > doesn't work. Theory flushed. Then you better flush Relativity too, It says lightspeed is constant, the only way Ken could be wrong is if lightspeed is not constant. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>> Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows: >>> 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously >>> at time 0.5L*gamma/c. >> Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed >> observer before reaching the train-rinding observer. Light from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Then you better flush Relativity too, Relativity has no such contradictions. > It says lightspeed is constant, > the only way Ken could be wrong is if lightspeed is not constant. > LOL You guys are a hoot. Signature--Bryan >>>> Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows: >>>> 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Relativity has no such contradictions. LOL typicle brainwashed response. simultaniety is not impossible. You really should try to walk and chew gum simultaneously some day. It is possible for some. LOL >> It says lightspeed is constant, >> the only way Ken could be wrong is if lightspeed is not constant. >> LOL > > You guys are a hoot. Actually, it is the brainwashed rubber ruler land that is "real" hoot. Do you also think "time changes" when a clock goofs up? ROFLOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > >>> Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows: > >>> 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You guys are a hoot. You are a runt of the SRians. Definition for a runt of the SRians: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto > Then you better flush Relativity too, > It says light-speed is constant, No. It says that a moving observer and a stationary observer both _measure_ light as moving at c, _in_their_own_frame_of_reference. That does NOT imply that they both see the lighting flashes as simultaneous. As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the rear strike must pass the stationary observer before it can reach the moving observer. As Bryan correctly points out, the light from the front strike must pass the moving observer before it can reach the stationary observer. This forces a 'non simultaneous' judgement on the moving observer while the track side observer sees the strikes as simultaneous. If the strikes are 'simultaneous' in the track frame, taking place as the observers pass, then the moving observer must see the strike on the engine before he sees the strike on the rear of the train. There IS one way that both observers could see the flashes at the same time. If the train carried it's own lightning machine that, in the trains frame, fired a flash at the front and rear of the train at the right time for the flashes to appear "simultaneously" just as the train passed the track side observer, both observers would see the flashes as simultaneous. To do this, at some point _before_ the observers pass, a signal must be triggered that will fire the flashes at right time so that the flashes arrive at 'the observers coincide' point at the exact instant that the observers are next to each other. In other words, the trigger to the flashes must give the signal time to travel from one end of the train to the other end. In other words a signal must travel from center of train, half the length of the train, to each end, and then the flash must travel half the length of the train. In this case, the observers will see the flashes as simultaneous because the observers are in the same place when the flashes arrive. They won't agree, however, on _when_ the flashes were triggered. Did you ever understand that the earth's axial tilt makes the seasons? Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > >> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message > >> No its not the LET interpretation. The LET interpretation place the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed > observer before reaching the train-rinding observer. Sure that's why the light fronts takes a longer time of 0.5L*gamma/c seconds to reach the train observer simultaneously. >Light from > the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer > before reaching the track-fixed observer. No...this naive assertion is wrong. The speed of light is isotropic in the train. That means that the light fronts must arrive at the train observer simultaneously to maintain the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. >Ken Seto's theory has > light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which > doesn't work. Theory flushed. Your brain is flushed. Ken Seto >>> Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows: >>> 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> Therefore the strike will arrive at the train observer simultaneously >>> at time 0.5L*gamma/c. >> Light from the strike at the rear has to pass the track-fixed >> observer before reaching the train-rinding observer. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No...this naive assertion is wrong. What could be going on in your head? Between the times when the light starts from the front of the train to the time it reaches the track-fixed observer, the train riding observer is between the two locations. How does the light get from one place to another without passing a point in between? > The speed of light is isotropic in > the train. That means that the light fronts must arrive at the train > observer simultaneously to maintain the isotropy of the speed of light > in the train. While the paths of the observers the arrivals of the lights from the front and rear cannot be simultaneous for both observers. Contradictory outcomes from Seto-theory. >> Ken Seto's theory has >> light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which >> doesn't work. Theory flushed. > > Your brain is flushed. Same thing, over and over. They say they've found some refutation of relativity, then show that they'd get a big red X in sophomore physics. Signature--Bryan > >>> Yes....in IRT simultaneity is absolute as follows: > >>> 1. The speed of light is isotropic in the track frame and the train [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > is between the two locations. How does the light get from > one place to another without passing a point in between? Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations. For the track observer the spheres meet simultaneously at time 0.5L/c. For the train observer the light spheres meet at a later time of 0.5L*gamma/c. Your naive concept how light propagate is laughable. > > The speed of light is isotropic in > > the train. That means that the light fronts must arrive at the train [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from the front and rear cannot be simultaneous for both > observers. Contradictory outcomes from Seto-theory. No ....light does not propagate as you described above. It appears that it is your naive understanding of physics is the problem. What you said violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train or the track. What you said is based on the erroneous assumption that the strikes have only one light path length and that the train observer is moving wrt these light fronts. <shrug> Ken Seto > >> Ken Seto's theory has > >> light from both ends reaching each observer simultaneously, which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of relativity, then show that they'd get a big red X in sophomore > physics. > Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light > spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations. For [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ken Seto Says the clown that does not know any mathematics or physics, or English by the way. What in the world means "the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere"? Can you make even a diagram of what that mean? Are you suggesting that the back strike is like a big balloon that finds the train observer in a point where the front strike is now a smaller balloon? According to your funny and ridiculous IRT those light strokes suffer from Doppler shift or not? Can you explain what in the world is for you the meaning of "violates the isotropy of the speed of light"? Miguel Rios On Jun 17, 8:12 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sigh....the lightning strikes occur as a light sphere. These light > > spheres will meet simultaneously at infinite number of locations. For [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > train observer in a point where the front strike is now a smaller > balloon? Are you too stupid to understand that each strike is an expanding light sphere at a speed of c? > According to your funny and ridiculous IRT those light strokes suffer > from Doppler shift or not? Not according to the observer in the track or the train. Why? Because the speed of light in both frames are isotropic. > Can you explain what in the world is for you the meaning of "violates > the isotropy of the speed of light"? Einstein said that the train observer is rushing toward the light front from the front of the train and receding away from the light front from the rear. This statement destroys the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. What this mean is that the SR postulates said that the speed of light in the train is isotropic......in order to derive the concept of relativity of simultaneity he put in new conditions that destroy the isotropy of the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Ken Seto On 18 jun, 09:00, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 8:12 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Are you too stupid to understand that each strike is an expanding > light sphere at a speed of c? No, I'm clever enough to understand that a lightning strike is an event happening at a very precise location and, for sure, it is not "an expanding light sphere" as your stupid assertion says. What you should say is that the light, carrying the information of the strike, propagates in a spherical form away from the location of the strike. > > According to your funny and ridiculous IRT those light strokes suffer > > from Doppler shift or not? > > Not according to the observer in the track or the train. Why? Because > the speed of light in both frames are isotropic. So it does not matters a bit both observers are moving one with respect the other at relativistic speed? > > Can you explain what in the world is for you the meaning of "violates > > the isotropy of the speed of light"? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ken Seto So what is the meaning for you of "speed of light in the train is isotropic"? Also, what is the meaning for you of "destroy the isotropy of the isotropy of the speed of light in the train"? It appears that you do not know the meaning of the words "isotropy", "isotropic", or "anisotropy", etc. Miguel Rios > No, I'm clever enough to understand that a lightning strike is an > event happening at a very precise location and, for sure, it is not > "an expanding light sphere" as your stupid assertion says. As the lightning hits the target spot, a sphere "grows" around it at the speed of light... this "expanding light sphere" he is talking about is the wave front of the lightsource. Sheesh people. WAKE UP! > What you should say is that the light, carrying the information of the > strike, propagates in a spherical form away from the location of the > strike. he said it fine, You said it your silly rubber ruler way. What the hell is the problem? If you knew what it meant, why bother making him say it "yourway" if both are the same things. Are you trolling for sci.phyics.relativity? SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On 18 jun, 10:20, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > papar...@gmail.com wrote: > > No, I'm clever enough to understand that a lightning strike is an [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman What's up...Are you the alter ego of Clown Seto? So all the responses to his "theories" are to be delivered to you? Another stupid clown perhaps? Miguel Rios > What's up...Are you the alter ego of Clown Seto? > So all the responses to his "theories" are to be delivered to you? > Another stupid clown perhaps? No, I am part of the audience that is laughing at the relativity clowns that are smacking each other over the head with rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks and saying "curvature of space-time" and thinking it means anything in reality. LOL You are a funny clown, but others are way more funny than you.. You will need to step up your act. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On 18 jun, 10:39, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > papar...@gmail.com wrote: > > What's up...Are you the alter ego of Clown Seto? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Yeah I was right...you are a clown... At least Seto has a theory...you are only vapor and with a bad smelling. Miguel Rios > Yeah I was right...you are a clown... > At least Seto has a theory...you are only vapor and with a bad > smelling. LOL Hit yourself over the head again with that rubber ruler! That is so funny! LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> Light from >>>> the strike at the front has to pass the train-riding observer >>>> before reaching the track-fixed observer. >>> No...th |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message