 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / January 2005local one ways speed of light
The local one ways speed of light as measured by the local observer, in his frame, using absolute synchrony are: C'(one way forth) = 1 / (C+V) * C; observer at .5 C ; C' = .66666666 C C''(one way back) = 1 / (C-V) * C; observer at .5 C ; C'' = 2 C The one-way travel time forth = 1 / .6666666 = 1.5 unit of time; The one-way travel time back = 1 / 2 = .5 unit of time; forth and back travel time = 1.5 + .5 = 2 unit of time. The relativistic local speed of light as measured by the local observer using Einstein synchrony are: C'(one way forth) = 1 / (C+V) * C; observer at .5 C ; C' = .66666666 C C''(one way back) = 1 / (C-V) * C; observer at .5 C ; C'' = 2 C The one-way travel time forth = 1 / .6666666 = 1.5 unit of time; this is Esynchro to 1 The one-way travel time back = 1 / 2 = .5 unit of time; this is Esynchro to1 The relativistic local speed of light is forced to appear C by the Esynchro forth and back travel time = 1 + 1 = 2 unit of time. The man modified one ways transit time, both corrected to 1, leads to SR isotropy of the speed of light in all frames and leads to the SR symmetries: a manipolation. best regards beda pietanza Dear beda pietanza: > The local one ways speed of light as measured by the local observer, in > his > frame, using absolute synchrony are: Please define "absolute synchrony". > C'(one way forth) = 1 / (C+V) * C; observer at .5 C ; C' = .66666666 C > > C''(one way back) = 1 / (C-V) * C; observer at .5 C ; C'' = 2 C Please show a single measurement of c as large as this. I've got the results of 183 published values, and not one of them is much more than 1.2c. And all of those values have *huge* error bars. David A. Smith xxein: What! The principle doesn't apply? Well then, Einstein's theories are straw. "Please show a single measurement...". I think your consideration of logic needs a lot of work. I would call your's a belief system. Prove me wrong. > xxein: What! The principle doesn't apply? Well then, Einstein's > theories are straw. "Please show a single measurement...". > > I think your consideration of logic needs a lot of work. I would call > your's a belief system. Prove me wrong. I have the feeling that if you comment the content of my post we may are not so tuned up, let me know. thanks regards beda pietanza xxein: I was replying to David A. Smith, not you. If you don't provide quotes, many people don't know who you are responding to. Dirk Vdm xxein: In Google groups, the structure is clear. It has been (except for temporary glitches) for as long as I know it existed. There were some drawbacks until a month or so ago when it was stated that replies generally take 3 to 7 hours to appear. Now, I can see some replies in 3 mins. I don't know how or why conditions like this exist, but they seem to be getting better. I don't even know if they are Google specific. Hope this helps > xxein: In Google groups, the structure is clear. That does not help for those who don't use google groups. > It has been (except > for temporary glitches) for as long as I know it existed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hope this helps You must be joking. Dirk Vdm xxein: Don't make an effort to obtain a NR that works. I don't care if you don't. > Dear beda pietanza: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please define "absolute synchrony". The absolute synchrony I speak about is what nature implies when we don't introduce man made manipulated clocks. After all the so called light cone implies that the enlarging cone has its boundaries absolutely synchronized (this doesn't belong to my bag, for the cone is distorted by the distortions of the local ether), anyways if you imagine the measured length as sitting transversely on the edge of the cone, you can assume the measured length is done with absolute synchro hence absolutely correct (to the eye of God: we are made at His image). > > C'(one way forth) = 1 / (C+V) * C; observer at .5 C ; C' = .66666666 C > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > David A. Smith I hope you didn't check all 183 published values just for me. In Rome 21 centuries ago "Tabula rasa" was what the schoolboys did when the "tabula" covered with wax was full: with wooden stick they smoothed the wax and erased what they had written on it in order to write it over again. As a metaphor it is used today to mean the need to clean up your mind when is too crammed to think properly. After reading so many publications you must do "tabula rasa". As you sure know the synchro is what do a lot of a difference in the measurement of the local speed of light in a frame. I agree with absolutely dilated clocks and with absolutely contracted ruler, therefore if a observer ( I think that anything goes faster than a small fraction of the speed of light would melt to plasma) or better a particle accelerated to close to C would cross the entire universe with the particle atomic clocks ticking a time rate million times slower then the same particle clocks at rest in the ether. Talking about that particle going at close to C or according to its clocks at 1 million times C is matter of point of view. The light crosses the universe (almost unchanged) so we could say that light goes at (almost) infinite speed (saving "the tired light" hypothesis). best regards beda pietanza Dear beda pietanza: >> Dear beda pietanza: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > you can assume the measured length is done with absolute synchro hence > absolutely correct (to the eye of God: we are made at His image). If we are not currently in contact with God, but are required to use the materials over which we have dominion, how would one achieve "absolute synchrony"? >> Please show a single measurement of c as large as this. I've got the >> results of 183 published values, and not one of them is much more than >> 1.2c. And all of those values have *huge* error bars. > > I hope you didn't check all 183 published values just for me. No, Setterfield did it. > In Rome 21 centuries ago "Tabula rasa" was what the schoolboys did when > the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when > is too crammed to think properly. Like unobservable creations, based on models that are quite arbitrary, to cover phenomenon that all particles (not just photons) exhibit? David A. Smith > Dear beda pietanza: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > materials over which we have dominion, how would one achieve "absolute > synchrony"? Absolute synchrony, I take it for granted, conceptually, in working things out on paper. Operatively, at low speed, you must choose a frame as preferred frame and this can be done with good approximation using: the far away stars or the CBMR or whatever you want (you won't make a great error) then synchronize the preferred frame with Esynchro; Then measure the speed of the frame in which you want to apply the absolute synchro (vs the preferred frame) and set the clocks of this last frame according to the real local speed of light that would be ( for the line of the movement ) C-V forwards and C+V backwards. This synchrony is anchored to the timing of the chosen preferred frame and is as approximate as the preferred frame is to the real local ether. If you accept the ether hypothesis, in my opinion, you must accept approximation in absolute clock synchro, since the ether for many reason is not easy to be detect with high precision. > >> Please show a single measurement of c as large as this. I've got the > >> results of 183 published values, and not one of them is much more than [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Like unobservable creations, based on models that are quite arbitrary, to > cover phenomenon that all particles (not just photons) exhibit? Sorry, I don't understand you here Best regards Beda pietanza > David A. Smith Dear beda pietanza: ... >> > The absolute synchrony I speak about is what nature implies >> > when we don't introduce man made manipulated clocks. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > approximation in absolute clock synchro, since the ether for many > reason is not easy to be detect with high precision. Now I will quote a famous person: > As a metaphor it is used today to mean the need to clean up your > mind when is too crammed to think properly. You carefully write in an *arbitrary* "absolute frame", so that you can manipulate it around, with a result that is "not in great error", OR you use formulae that have been shown agree with experiment, confirm either no aether or Lorentz aether, and invoke no "intellectually cluttered" "inaccurate" model. And our dialog went on: ... >> > As a metaphor it is used today to mean the need to clean up >> > your mind when is too crammed to think properly. >> >> Like unobservable creations, Lorentz aether. >> based on models that are quite arbitrary, Your "absolute frame", tied to "distant stars" or "CMBR", that results in "not a great error". >> to cover phenomenon that all particles (not just photons) >> exhibit? Wave models for light started to explain diffraction. Yet all quantum objects can be made to form diffraction patterns, as simply a function of their momentum. So a medium is NOT the answer, when the MODEL is incorrect. > Sorry, I don't understand you here Perhaps this is more clear? David A. Smith > Dear beda pietanza: > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > Perhaps this is more clear? Yes I bit more, we are condemned to a lot of misunderstandings for we know too little and our language is inadequate, but there is a rule to follow to discern: we should try to get the most from the little we have: the ether hypothesis (at least, to explain the light speed limit) is the best in the economy of thinking. best regards beda pietanza Dear beda pietanza: >> Dear beda pietanza: >> [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > have: the ether hypothesis (at least, to explain the light speed limit) > is the best in the economy of thinking. There are some difficulties here in "best in economy of thinking". In English, this would seem to imply that it was an improved method, that perhaps arrived at an answer more simply. You have already indicated that it had small errors, as you implement it. It is as you describe it, far more complex, involving first calculating into a "best guess" absolute frame, only to have such "adjustments" fall out in further analysis (to agree with experiment). So it does not seem to be "best". I will assume that what you meant to say is: "This is the method I find intellectually satisfying, and I intend to both use it, and try and convince others to use it." David A. Smith > Dear beda pietanza: > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > English, this would seem to imply that it was an improved method, that > perhaps arrived at an answer more simply. Not necessarily: many times we are bound to set back to the starting point and try it over again in another direction. > You have already indicated that it had small errors, as you implement it. > It is as you describe it, far more complex, involving first calculating > into a "best guess" absolute frame, only to have such "adjustments" fall > out in further analysis (to agree with experiment). So it does not seem to > be "best". I would like to have physics as an font of Knowledge than have it trapped in a "cul the sac", brought there by powerful "principle theories": for a fuzzy world are more fit fuzzy theories. > I will assume that what you meant to say is: "This is the method I find > intellectually satisfying, and I intend to both use it, and try and > convince others to use it." Home: Collective wrongness is the humus on which truth sprouts for few. Masses collective behavior is beyond the "good and the evil" they are ahead in the path made by their own stampede to survival. A genius to lead many to a short cut to truth can come about at any time: the short cuts have always headed to a new collective mental entrapment: hopefully on a higher level of "civilization" but very often is not so: If not return to Home (iteratively). I am not such above mentioned genius: (not ready yet(?)). Best regards Beda pietanza > David A. Smith > Dear beda pietanza: > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > English, this would seem to imply that it was an improved method, that > perhaps arrived at an answer more simply. Not necessarily: many times we are bound to set back to the starting point and try it over again in another direction. > You have already indicated that it had small errors, as you implement it. > It is as you describe it, far more complex, involving first calculating > into a "best guess" absolute frame, only to have such "adjustments" fall > out in further analysis (to agree with experiment). So it does not seem to > be "best". I would like to have physics as an font of Knowledge than have it trapped in a "cul the sac", brought there by powerful "principle theories": for a fuzzy world are more fit fuzzy theories. > I will assume that what you meant to say is: "This is the method I find > intellectually satisfying, and I intend to both use it, and try and > convince others to use it." Home: Collective wrongness is the humus on which truth sprouts for few. Masses collective behavior is beyond the "good and the evil" they are ahead in the path made by their own stampede to survival. A genius to lead many to a short cut to truth can come about at any time: the short cuts have always headed to a new collective mental entrapment: hopefully on a higher level of "civilization" but very often is not so: If not return to Home (iteratively). I am not such above mentioned genius: (not ready yet(?)). Best regards Beda pietanza > David A. Smith |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.