Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited

On Jun 20, 8:55 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:d9a7119a-63b8-4eb3-b26b-5412fcb833c4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Jun 19, 7:55 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 18, 8:58 am, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 17, 12:04 pm, G <gehan.ameresek...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 17, 6:01 pm, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 16, 9:23 am, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:58b41ffa-d497-4aa6-a6ef-aee7f0a1b2dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jun 15, 8:33 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in
messagenews:isjd351ova94klg0l8agkc9qcb958tsmjs@xxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:42:54 +1000, "Whoever"
<no...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"G" <gehan.ameresek...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6f7c6359-d9fd-4349-b660-5986a524af39@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
By the way, Einstein made mistakes

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes

Yes .. Einstein was human and his theories changed and
evolved.  Big
deal.

Einstein was a plagiarist and a hoaxer.

Doesn't really matter even if he was.  What matters is the SR
and GR
models
that he helped develop

His theory is just a disguised version of LET.

Its LET with the need for any mysterious physical shrinkage of
objects
and
distnaces, and slowing of processes with by their movement in
an
undetectable ether with properties that are inconsistent with
known
substances.  SR does not require that

Sigh....of course the ether unique and has unique properties
that no
known substance has.

If it existed.  Which by the nature of the properties it would
have to have,
we cannot show.  How convenient :)

You are wrong....SR does require the special properties of the
ether.

It requires no ether, nor does it say there cannot be one..  SR
works quite
happily with corpuscular/balistic theories, or wave/ether based
theories. SR
postulates that the speed of light is the same for observations
in all
inertial (non accelerating) frames.  It really doesn't give a
hoot about how
the light gets from point A to point B .. as long as the speed is
the same
for everyone.

Then why does physicists refused to measure the one-way speed of
light
directly??

For example: An SR observer claims that all the clocks in the
universe
moving wrt him are running slow and all the rod moving wrt him
are
contracted.....these are the exclusive properties of an
observer at
rest in the ether frame.

Not at all.  In SR it is a property of every inertial (non
accelerating)
frame.

That's the point: Every SR observer claims that he is in a state of
absolute rest and that's why he claims the unique properties of the
absolute rest frame. BTW that's why SR is incomplete.....No object
in
the universe is in a state of absolute rest.

Ken Seto

In ether theories, like LET, it is the property of a unique
frame. But SR is
not LET.  You're obviously confused about these two theories..-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 Maybe you have an experiment in mind to measure the one way speed of
light directly?

Yes.
1. Two touching and synchroneous clocks are moved very slowly in the
opposite directions at the same time with the same velocity and stop
these clocks at equal distance from the atarting point simultaneously.
These procedures can be accomplished by using opposite conveying
screws that are opertated by a common motor.
2. These two clocks will remain synchronized....according to SR and
LET.

Guess again Ken.

According to LET a clock moved in the same direction as the frame is
moving in relation to the ether will run a bit slower during the move
and will lose time.  A clock moved in the opposit direction will run
faster during the move and gain time.

These LET assertions have been disproved by experiments....namely the
speed of light is isotropic.

Thought you said light speed wasn't isotropic.

No I didn't say that. I said that the SR concept of Relativity of
Simultaneity asserts that the speed of light in the observed frame is
anisotropic.

 If it is, then OWLS is
always c, because TWLS is always c.

No the value of OWLS is distance dependent even though OWLS is
isotropic.


Thanks for playing

You are welcome.



In SR a slowly transported clock results in the same sync as light
signals.

Not quite....my proposed experiments involve two opposite moving
clocks....SR says that both clocks will remain synchroneous.

Only if you assume SR is correct,

No....clock rate is motion sensitive is not an SR assumption. It is
observed experimentally.

in which case there is no point in
performing the experiment because SR says OWLS is the same as TWLS and is
isotropic.  So you don't need to measure it.

But the value of OWLS is distance dependent and the value of TWLS is
not distance dependent. That's why you need to measure the value of
OWLS directly.




If we view from the tracks a clock on a train being moved
from A' to B' we will see that its setting does change.

Sigh....we are talking about getting two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame to measure OWLS.

If they are synchronized, then by definition of what synchronized means in
SR, the OWLS must by isotropic.  And as we know from experiment that the
TWLS is always c, then so is the OWLS.  It can't be anything else.

OWLS isotropy does not mean that the value of OWLS is not distance
dependent.


When at A'
the transported clock is in sync with the clock there, but not the one
at B'.  When it arrives at B' it is in sync with the clock there, but
not the one at A'.  When transported back to A' it will again be in
sync with the clock at A'.

3. Use these two spatially separated and synchronized clocks to
determine the one-way speed of light.

IRT predicts that the value for the one-way speed of light is distance
dependent.

And why would that be?

Because the target is in a state of absolute motion.

I thought you we using SR assumptions .. there is no absolute motion in SR.
But true, everything is in a various states of motion relative to everything
else

That means that
the larger the distance between the source and the detector the longer
time it takes for the light to reach the detector.

Larger time and larger distance ... so you can get the same speed.

If you use SR math, and Lorentz transforms, correctly measured OWLS *must*
by c.  Its that simple.

No.....OWLS can bed isotropic but the value of OWLS is distance
dependent.

Ken Seto
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Absolute Frame
    ... If it is c you SRians will surely claim that OWLS measures ... with two spatially synchronized clocks is c and you will not have to rely on ... > direction due to isotropy - that's from the very definition of what ... In a correct ether theory OWLS is isotropic in all inertial frames. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Absolute Frame
    ... If it is c you SRians will surely claim that OWLS ... > with two spatially synchronized clocks is c and you will not have to rely ... >> isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of ... >> rod you need to take notice of the time the light left the start of the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... km/sec isotropy or 300000 km isotropy. ... reason why physicists refused to do any direct OWLS measurement. ... If the clocks are not in synch and running at the same rate after they ... moving the clocks will keep them in sync. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... rest in the ether frame. ... Two touching and synchroneous clocks are moved very slowly in the ... distance, and does it increase with distance or decrease? ... improper to use it to verify one way light speed isotropy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... km/sec isotropy or 300000 km isotropy. ... What does OWLS isotropy mean if you already know that TWLS=300,000km/ ... You can bring the clocks back by the conveying screws and if they show ... that requires us to agree on how to synchronize them in a way that does ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading