Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited

<kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4ff9c265-bb13-4cf8-b924-15e21a264c61@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

No .. it says it is isotropic.. it must be because the speed is a constant c in every frame .. so if the average speed if c, that means the speed all the time must be c.

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.

Please show where SR says that .. or if SR show the formulas that you believe do show this, and how much is the speed of light affected by distance, and does it increase with distance or decrease?

>> 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.

We've observed time dilation due to movement. So its is not valid to say clock motion does not affect clock reading from the inertial frame in which the clock is moving. SR says that the effect is independant of direction tho, only speed, so you can move clocks in opposite directions at the same speed (relative to the inertial frame) and they will stay in sync in that frame. According to SR.

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.

OWLS being distant dependant means speed can travel faster than c. Do you claim light travels faster than c?

If OWLS is isotropic, but varies with distance, then TWLS *must* also istropic and varies with distance. There is no evidence of this .. indeed it has been shown the c is the same despite distance. So your assertion is already disproved. There is no need to measure OWLS to know this.

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

Sorry .. experimental evidence says NO.. Your theory is refuted.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Partners in crime pull off art heist
    ... for a man in his 50s with short gray hair and glasses, ... was wearing a tan trench coat. ... high-dollar art theft is generally a steal-to-order or ransom ... and woman were wearing under the golf jacket and trench coat - ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: SR length contraction - the train example reworked.
    ... this distance comes up with the speed of light. ... running slower than in the embankment rest frame. ... units of measurement - length and time, fiddled so that it be so. ... slower that another identical clock - which is physically absurd. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... runs slower than a clock around which the moving clock is rotating, ... in both frames of reference, does the altitude of the rotating clock ... same from either frame of reference according to Einstein's theory. ... So with the distance contraction, the circumfrence of the orbit is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... runs slower than a clock around which the moving clock is rotating, ... in both frames of reference, does the altitude of the rotating clock ... same from either frame of reference according to Einstein's theory.. ... So with the distance contraction, the circumfrence of the orbit is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... runs slower than a clock around which the moving clock is rotating, ... in both frames of reference, does the altitude of the rotating clock ... same from either frame of reference according to Einstein's theory. ... So with the distance contraction, the circumfrence of the orbit is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading