Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited

On Jun 21, 8:46 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:bad51823-6460-48db-8732-0d2a487ce34c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Jun 21, 4:21 pm, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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

The Hafele-Keating experiment says that clocks transported east and
west tick at different rates because the velocity of there move is
added or subtracted from the velocity of the earth's surface relative
to the earth centered inertial system.  If you are conducting your
experiment on the earth's surface the same thing applies.  Your clocks
will have different velocities in the earth centered inertial system
and will tick at different rates.

But what if we are not doing the experiment in that inertial frame?  And
doing it in terms of the non-inertial (but not far off it :) frame of a lab
on the earth (as we do with most experiments we perform on earth)?

The Hafele-Keating experiment *was* conducted in the non inertial
frame of the earth's surface. That is why the two directions did not
give the same result.

 How
significant would that effect be?

The person that would not agree that clocks could be moved slow enough
to prevent them from going out of sync is asking me this? ;)

 And would it be more or less significant
if we move the clocks quickly in opposite directions?  I don't fancy doing
the math :):)

I don't feel like playing with calculus right now either, but my guess
would be that higher speeds would have more effect at first, then less
after exceeding the velocity of the earth's surface.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Loading