Re: What is Proper Time?

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:51:35 GMT
<hq8rs31j1frdhuksnoq1pfqjtieaqg47n7@xxxxxxx>:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 05:21:11 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Artful
<artful@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote

No, it is relatively simple to acheive this. ...just use my 'instantaneous
universe' concept....(an infinite array of pre-synched clocks)

They will only remain be synchronized in the frame of reference where they
are all at rest.


If one assumes an array of presynchronized clocks in
accordance with a preferential frame, then, in this frame
(or a frame immobile thereto), one can pick an arbitrary
point as the origin, and then work with circles (or
intervals) of increasing radii, leading to a series of
pulses (L, -L/c) (where (x,t) is an event) from clock L
(which is conveniently L units distant, for an L > 0).

The clocks are in absolute synch in ALL frames, Ghost.

Certainly they are, in BaTH. I'm in SR.


The moving observer will see this as (Lg-vLg/c, -Lg/c-vLg/c^2)
= (Lsqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c), -(L/c)sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c))
or (L/j, -Lj/c) from the Lorentz, where I'm using the ad
hoc j = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c), and g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 1/(sqrt(1+v/c)sqrt(1-v/c)).

In the other direction, one can also see a series of pulses
(-L,-L/c) in the frame at rest, leading to
(-Lsqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c), -(L/c)sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c))
as expected.

Since sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) != 1 unless v = 0, the L-clock
will not be in sync with either the zero-clock (the clock
at the arbitrary origin) or the user's own clock, according
to SR.

In nBat theory, where light travels at c' = c-v, the clocks
will indeed be in sync.

I'm not sure what BaTH predicts. In BaTH, c' = c-v only
near the moving source; light eventually travels c' = c
far from the source.

You obviously don't fully understand the Ballistic theory of light.

Obviously.

My upgraded theory says that the speed of light can change over vast distances
but generally not at a very fast rate.

Got a formula? Even better, an estimate? "vast distances" and "not
very fast rate" isn't much to go on; might as well have the following
conversation:

Q: How fast is lightspeed?
A: Very very fast.
Q: OK, how fast is that really?
A: Really fast.
Q: But that doesn't tell me anything!
A: It tells you lightspeed is fast.

and so on.

Perhaps if you want to put some numbers, like "over the course of 1
light year" and "1 m/s per AU", that would make a little more sense, and
be a *lot* more testable.

Also, what happens if light is going slower than c to begin with?
Where does it get the extra energy to *speed up*?

Thus all starlight moving in any one
direction TENDS TOWARDS a unified speed...but doesn't always get anywhere near
it. Most speed unification from an orbiting star seems to occur in the vicinity
of the star itself but the actual 'extinction rate' depends very much on the
orbit diameter and period.

The transition formula is (at least
to me) unknown; the most logical one would be a variant
of c' = c-v*exp(-d*k), where d is the distance between
source and observer at the time of the pulse, and k is
a constant.

One would expect some kind of exponential approach to the average.

So OK then. What is the value of k, given SI units? Or, if you prefer,

c' = c-v*exp(-t*k2)

where t is the light transit time; k2 would then be a (different)
constant.


Not that this would work all that well either.

It works.

Handwaving isn't quite the same as mathematical predictions.


Incidentally, George Dishman seems to have disappeared from this NG. Any news?
This is a quite a loss as he was one of the few who could actually discuss a
subject sensibly.

Can't say I know.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95.


--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >>in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion ... you are saying that Einstein assumed the observer using the Lorentz ... same speed in all directions in his own frame. ... plugging numbers into the Lorentz transformation, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >>in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion ... you are saying that Einstein assumed the observer using the Lorentz ... same speed in all directions in his own frame. ... plugging numbers into the Lorentz transformation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The genius of the Absolute
    ... ray is growing using k's rulers and clocks, it is growing at the rate c. ... suppose we want to transform into a new coordinate system moving at ... depend on the rest frame of the aether) should strike both clocks at the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... but can B define "light path length" in his frame by looking only at ... moving stick is moving parallel to a ruler which is at rest in B's ... >>clocks to measure the time, he will get a different time for the light ... assuming that each observer defines coordinates by the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... but can B define "light path length" in his frame by looking only at ... moving stick is moving parallel to a ruler which is at rest in B's ... >>clocks to measure the time, he will get a different time for the light ... assuming that each observer defines coordinates by the ...
    (sci.physics)