Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited

On Jun 21, 9:06 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<kens...@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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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@xxxxxxxxxxx

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.

Ken is talking about closing speed. SR says that the train observers
measure the speed of light to be isotropic c, but the track observers
calculate a closing speed of c+v for light with the train using track
coordinates.

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.

And since other theories do not agree with that assumption it would be
improper to use it to verify one way light speed isotropy.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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? ... two clocks moving in the opposite directions will remain synchronized. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Train gedanken pitfall
    ... from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from ... do you see the distance AB? ... times are NOT per clocks. ... I would say it is more likely because despite being in the same frame ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A challenge to non-SRians
    ... > All GPS clocks are E-synched in the ECI frame. ... > I count one bounce and two traversals of the distance, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Debian und Interfacenamen
    ... abgesehen. ... Wo verwaltet Debian das denn? ... das ist bis auf den konkreten dateinamen keine Debian-spezialitaet, ...
    (de.comp.os.unix.linux.misc)
  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... in every frame .. ... It does claim that relative to the moving object the speed of light will be c. ... >>> clocks....SR says that both clocks will remain synchroneous. ... improper to use it to verify one way light speed isotropy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading