Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited

On Jun 20, 11:13 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 20, 9:18 am, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 19, 5:58 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:3316ab13-8dfb-45ea-9940-d67bfe6fb1b9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jun 19, 11:47 am, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:3823cbdf-57a9-475a-91c6-47f17d610537@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jun 19, 9:32 am, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:7bc938ee-a338-460d-bec0-8d2de8eec1c8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jun 18, 8:53 pm, "Dono." <sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 18, 1:43 pm, "kensh...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
 one-way isotropy does not mean one-way value of the speed of
light has the same values at different distance. I You can have
200000
km/sec isotropy or 300000 km isotropy.
Ken Seto
Ken Shito
What does OWLS isotropy mean if you already know that
TWLS=300,000km/
s?
Hey ***-head....it means nothing until you perform the OWLS
measurement directly.

Well, it has meaning .. it means the speed of light is independent of
direction.

But it does not mean that OWLS has the same value when the two
synchronized clocks are separated at different distances. That's the
reason why physicists refused to do any direct OWLS measurement.

No physicist (other than youself if we extend the term to include you)
thinks that

You can bring the clocks back by the conveying screws and if they show
the same elapsed time then they were synchroneous when they were
apart.

That proves nothing.  

It proved that the clocks were running at the same rate when they
were  apart. If they were running at different rates then the
accumulated clock seconds for both clocks should be different.

If moving them apart makes them go out of sync,

Clearly you don't understand SR and LET. Both Sr and LET say that
moving the clocks apart in the opposite directions with the same
velocity the clocks will remain synchronize.


Clearly you don't understand SR or LET.  According to the Hafele–
Keating experiment SR predicts that a clock moved eastward will lose
time while a clock moved westward will gain time.  Their experiment
confirmed this.

No idiot it is you who don't understand SR and LET. According to SR
two side by side and synched clocks moving with the same velocity in
the opposite directions and come to a stop simultaneously at equal
distance from the original point....these two clocks will remain
synchronous.
The Hafele-Keating experiment involved two continuously moving clocks.
They are moving with different individual velocities (due to the
earth's rotation) and that's why they are accumultrating different
clock seconds when that are re-united.

Ken Seto


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

"The published outcome of the experiment was consistent with special
relativity, and the observed time gains and losses were reportedly
different from zero to a high degree of confidence."

rreturning them can restore the sync.

Again you demonstrated your naive understanding of Sr and LET.

 You need to determine that they are
still in sync when apart.  How would you do that?  What does 'in sync' mean
to you for remote clocks?

They are in synch when both clock accumulate clock seconds at the same
rate while they were apart.

Considering the clocks in the Hafele–Keating experiment were out of
sync when they were brought back together it's a safe bet that they
were out of sync when apart.


Hey idiot.... the Hafele-Keating clocks were moving continuously at
different individual velocities. The clocks in my experiements are
stopped simultaneously after moving apart slowly. That means that they
are at rest in the same frame after they were moved.

Ken Seto





How do you *know* the clocks are synchronised after you move them apart ?
How do you define synchronised?

See above....if the clocks don't show different elapsed time when
they are re-united then they were synchroneous when they were apart..

See above.. it doesn't

It does.

How about we calculate the OWLS by using a light source with known
frequency
and one measures its wavelength ??  Then there's no clocks involved :)

Frequency is distance dependent.

What nonsense. Frequency is frequency

The nonsense is on your part. Example: rodio frequency is reduced with
increasing distance.

Where is your evidence for that?

The radio signals becomes weaker with increasing distance.....that
means that you are not getting all the broadcast signals (frequency).

The wavelength of a elementary source
such as sodium is a universal constant at 589 nm. The speed of sodium
light arriving at a distant detector is calculated as follows:
c' = (measured frequency of incoming sodium light)(universal
wavelength of sodium light 589 nm)

So you can calculate the speed of light c' that way .. no need to use
clocks.  What answer do you get?

You get varying OWLS.

How can you get it varying for a single calculation?  I take it that means
you have not done this.

Sigh.....because of the varying frequency.

So if you shine a known frequency/wavelength light from A to B and calculate
OWLS and shine it from B to A, you get different answers?

Ken Seto

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Quantcast