A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
Next: Simultaneity of Relativity
From: kenseto on 13 Oct 2009 10:33 On Oct 9, 6:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:4eb66b31-d4b0-4ccb-a5f6-02775986dc2a(a)k41g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Oct 7, 6:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:90f8a1e3-5260-4619-9804-d84ad16ab59d(a)p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Oct 7, 9:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:893458a8-b057-49d6-a6d1-7f488b9d65a6(a)b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Oct 7, 7:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Oct 6, 7:11 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:> A clock > >> >> >> second > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> not a universal interval of time. > >> >> >> > What does this mean? > > >> >> >> ------------------- > >> >> >> it means that there is not at all > >> >> >> a universal interval of time !! > > >> >> > No....it means that a clock second does not measure the same > >> >> > interval > >> >> > of universal time in different frames. > > >> >> What universal time? Does any clock measure universal time? How > >> >> could > >> >> you > >> >> tell if it did? How can it be called a universal time if it doesn't > >> >> correspond to what we measure time to be? > > >> > Universal time (or absolute time) is the only time that exists. A > >> > clock second will contain a specific interval of universal time > >> > (absolute time) in A's frame and a clock second will cntain a > >> > different interval of universal time in B's frame. > > >> Doesn't work. > > >> > That's why clocks > >> > in different frame run at different rates. > > >> That doesn't explain mutual time dilation. > > > There is no such thing as mutual time dilation. All clocks in relative > > motion are running at different rates. That's why the passage of a > > clock second in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a > > clock second in B's frame. > > And so you don't get isotropy of light speed. Unless your theory has RoS. Sure you do get isotropy of the speed of light without the RoS. Why? Because speed is a ratio of length/absolute time content for a clock second. RoS destroys isotropy by asserting that light from the front is arriving at M' at c+v and from the rear arriving at M' at c-v. > > Tell me .. if you have two synchronized clocks together, and then you move > them apart with the same speed but opposite directions and then bring them > to a halt .. does your theory say they will remain synchronized? Sure my theory agrees with SR that they will remain synchronize. For that matter why don't they use such pair of clock to measure the one- way speed of light? > > >> > This is illustrated clearly > >> > by the GPS ststem...a GPS second had to redfined to have 4.15 more > >> > periods of the Cs 133 radiation than a ground clock second. The > >> > purpose of this redefinition is to make the GPS second contain the > >> > same anount of absolute time (universal time) as the ground clock > >> > second. > > >> GPS is mostly a GR effect. At different gravitational potentials time > >> run > >> slower or faster. SR is a mutual effect on measurement due to motion. > > > This shows me that you don't understand SR/GR. > > As YOU clearly don't understand it .. what you think it shows you is > incorrect. > > > The GPS is a combined > > SR/GR effect. > > GR includes SR, so every SR effect is also a GR effect. The Sr effect is calculated using SR math. > > But yes. . there is a SR component of the GR effect (as I said) due to the > relative motion of ground and satellite. So you agree that SR effect is calculated separately....right? > > > The gravitational effect is 45 us/day running fast and > > the velocity effect (SR effect) is 7 us/day running slow and the > > combined effect is 38 us/day running fast. > > Yeup (assuming you have the correct figures). So you now agree thatthe SR claim of mutual time dilation is bogus ....right? > > > This is converted to 4.15 > > more periods of Cs 133 radiation for the GPS second. This redefinition > > of the GPS second > > It isn't redefining a second. The end result is that, wrt the satellite > itself, the GPS clock does not 'tick' at the correct rate wrt the time in > the satellite. As you said .. 38 us/day fast. Sure it is redefining a second....The GPS second is redfined to have 4.15 more periods of Cs 133 radiation then the standard ground clock second. > > > is to make the passage of a GPS second corresponds > > to the passage of a ground clokc second. > > If by "GPS second" you mean the not-exactly-a-second period due to adjusted > rate, then yes, that is fine. And no need for any notion of some third > 'absolute time' .. just making those two correspond. It not merely an adjustment....it is a perminent redefinition. Ken seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Oct 2009 23:18 kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote: > On Oct 8, 3:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> That, my dear Seto, has nothing to do (and is independent of) length. >> PERIOD! > > What is your point? In a second got nothing to do with length then how > come they use second of light speed to define length? The point is that the definition of length is dependent on the second. However, the definition of second IS NOT DEPENDENT ON LENGTH. > >> >> Decades ago the speed of light was measured as you say. NOW THAT IS NO >> LONGER THE CASE. Light and light speed inherent in the phenomenon is the >> NEW STANDARD. Sorry... my shift key stuck. > > The one-way speed of light was never measured. 3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an æther frame. In all of these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called Edwards frames). Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821. Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated. Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s. Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731734, (1990). Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a 21-km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s. Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241. Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965). Isaak et al., Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255. Uses a rotating Mössbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252. Uses a rotating source and fixed Mössbauer detector to place an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/s. Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), pg 1767. A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent with SR. T.W. Cole, Astronomical Tests for the Presence of an Ether, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. (1976), 175 93P-96P. Several VLBI tests sensitive to first-order effects of an æther are described. No æther is detected, with a sensitivity of 70 m/s. Ragulsky, Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125. A one-way test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in glass and the return ray in air. The interferometer is by design particularly robust against mechanical perturbations, and temperature controlled. The limit on the anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s. > > Ken seto >
From: kenseto on 14 Oct 2009 09:51 On Oct 13, 11:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kens...(a)erinet.com wrote: > > On Oct 8, 3:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> That, my dear Seto, has nothing to do (and is independent of) length. > >> PERIOD! > > > What is your point? In a second got nothing to do with length then how > > come they use second of light speed to define length? > > The point is that the definition of length is dependent on the second. > > However, the definition of second IS NOT DEPENDENT ON LENGTH. > > > > >> Decades ago the speed of light was measured as you say. NOW THAT IS NO > >> LONGER THE CASE. Light and light speed inherent in the phenomenon is the > >> NEW STANDARD. Sorry... my shift key stuck. > > > The one-way speed of light was never measured. > > 3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they > are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of > light is anisotropic. These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light > is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an æther > frame. In all of these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the > effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are > experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for > these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are > called Edwards frames). One-way isotropy is not the same as one-way measurement for the value of the speed of light. For example: You can have 100000 km/sec isotropy , 200000 km/sec isotropy .....etc. Ken Seto > > Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821. > Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for variations in their > interference pattern as the table is rotated. Places an upper limit on any one-way > anisotropy of 0.9 m/s. > > Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731734, (1990). > Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a 21-km fiber-optic link to > look for variations in the phase between them. They put an upper limit on the one-way > linear anisotropy of 100 m/s. > > Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241. > Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965). > Isaak et al., Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255. > Uses a rotating Mössbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an upper limit on any > one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. > > Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252. > Uses a rotating source and fixed Mössbauer detector to place an upper limit on any one-way > anisotropy of 10 m/s. > > Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), pg 1767. > A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent with SR. > > T.W. Cole, Astronomical Tests for the Presence of an Ether, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. > (1976), 175 93P-96P. > Several VLBI tests sensitive to first-order effects of an æther are described. No æther is > detected, with a sensitivity of 70 m/s. > > Ragulsky, Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation, Phys. > Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125. > A one-way test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in glass and the return ray > in air. The interferometer is by design particularly robust against mechanical > perturbations, and temperature controlled. The limit on the anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s. > > > > > > > Ken seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 14 Oct 2009 10:59 On Oct 14, 8:51 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 11:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > > kens...(a)erinet.com wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 3:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > >> That, my dear Seto, has nothing to do (and is independent of) length. > > >> PERIOD! > > > > What is your point? In a second got nothing to do with length then how > > > come they use second of light speed to define length? > > > The point is that the definition of length is dependent on the second. > > > However, the definition of second IS NOT DEPENDENT ON LENGTH. > > > >> Decades ago the speed of light was measured as you say. NOW THAT IS NO > > >> LONGER THE CASE. Light and light speed inherent in the phenomenon is the > > >> NEW STANDARD. Sorry... my shift key stuck. > > > > The one-way speed of light was never measured. > > > 3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > > Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they > > are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of > > light is anisotropic. These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light > > is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an æther > > frame. In all of these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the > > effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are > > experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for > > these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are > > called Edwards frames). > > One-way isotropy is not the same as one-way measurement for the value > of the speed of light. For example: You can have 100000 km/sec > isotropy , 200000 km/sec isotropy .....etc. But you cannot have 200000 km/sec isotropy AND a 300000 km/sec two-way light measurement. Try it! You'll see it can't happen! > > Ken Seto > > > > > Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821. > > Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for variations in their > > interference pattern as the table is rotated. Places an upper limit on any one-way > > anisotropy of 0.9 m/s. > > > Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731734, (1990). > > Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a 21-km fiber-optic link to > > look for variations in the phase between them. They put an upper limit on the one-way > > linear anisotropy of 100 m/s. > > > Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241. > > Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965). > > Isaak et al., Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255. > > Uses a rotating Mössbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an upper limit on any > > one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. > > > Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252. > > Uses a rotating source and fixed Mössbauer detector to place an upper limit on any one-way > > anisotropy of 10 m/s. > > > Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), pg 1767. > > A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent with SR.. > > > T.W. Cole, Astronomical Tests for the Presence of an Ether, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. > > (1976), 175 93P-96P. > > Several VLBI tests sensitive to first-order effects of an æther are described. No æther is > > detected, with a sensitivity of 70 m/s. > > > Ragulsky, Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation, Phys. > > Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125. > > A one-way test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in glass and the return ray > > in air. The interferometer is by design particularly robust against mechanical > > perturbations, and temperature controlled. The limit on the anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s. > > > > Ken seto- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 14 Oct 2009 12:22
kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote: > > One-way isotropy is not the same as one-way measurement for the value > of the speed of light. For example: You can have 100000 km/sec > isotropy , 200000 km/sec isotropy .....etc. > > Ken Seto > Isotropy is uniformity in all directions, specifically the the measured speed of light is uniform in all direction. 3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests "Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an æther frame. In all of these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called Edwards frames). http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Test_Theories There is no measurement that indicates any light speed anisotropy. It is not observed. Tests of Einstein's two Postulates http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates |