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: Inertial on 15 Oct 2009 07:08 <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:4b5c7caf-309b-42c6-a0f5-393a9f24887c(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > 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. Wrong > Why? > Because speed is a ratio of length/absolute time content for a clock > second. Wrong > 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. Wrong >> >> 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? If you move apart two clocks in appropriate opposite directions, according to your theory, one will have greater absolute motion then the other and so one will tick slower than the other, and so not be in sync. Haven't you read your own theory? >> >> > 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. Or GR math, which includes 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? You can if you like. >> > 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? Nope .. why would I say something as silly as that? >> >> > 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.... No .. it is adjusting the ticking rate of a clock to so it will be observer as the same as earth clocks. > The GPS second is redfined to have > 4.15 more periods of Cs 133 radiation then the standard ground clock > second. It's rate is adjusted to match the rate of earth clocks. >> > 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. No
From: kenseto on 15 Oct 2009 10:23 On Oct 14, 12:22 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kens...(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. As I said before you can have one-way isotropy...but the value for the one-way speed of light is distance dependent. That's why Physicists refuse to report the value for the one-way speed of light when they tested for one-way isotropy. Ken Seto > > 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). > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > 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#...
From: Sam Wormley on 15 Oct 2009 11:06 kenseto wrote: > On Oct 14, 12:22 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Isotropy is uniformity in all directions, specifically the the measured >> speed of light is uniform in all direction. > > As I said before you can have one-way isotropy...but the value for the > one-way speed of light is distance dependent. Nope, Seto, you are wrong. There is no evidence that the value for the speed of light is distance dependent, nor is anything but constant in time and space. That's why Physicists > refuse to report the value for the one-way speed of light when they > tested for one-way isotropy. > > Ken Seto > >> 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). >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... >> >> 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#... >
From: PD on 15 Oct 2009 13:04 On Oct 15, 10:06 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Oct 14, 12:22 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> Isotropy is uniformity in all directions, specifically the the measured > >> speed of light is uniform in all direction. > > > As I said before you can have one-way isotropy...but the value for the > > one-way speed of light is distance dependent. > > Nope, Seto, you are wrong. There is no evidence that the value for > the speed of light is distance dependent, nor is anything but constant > in time and space. And in fact we have considerable evidence that the speed of light is NOT distance-dependent. This comes from measurements of planets and comets that vary in distance from the Earth observers. If there were a distance-dependence to c, then there would be certain measurable orbital artifacts due to delay gradients in light from them to here. In particular, one such artifact would be an apparent violation of conservation of angular momentum. Since this is not observed and would be REQUIRED by distance-dependence of c, then we can rule out that distance dependence. Then, once that is ruled out, then it becomes impossible for one-way speed of light to be different than the two-way speed of light, because the speed is also measured to be isotropic. > > That's why Physicists > > > refuse to report the value for the one-way speed of light when they > > tested for one-way isotropy. > > > Ken Seto > > >> 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). > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments..html#... > > >> 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#....
From: kenseto on 16 Oct 2009 10:33
On Oct 15, 11:06 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Oct 14, 12:22 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> Isotropy is uniformity in all directions, specifically the the measured > >> speed of light is uniform in all direction. > > > As I said before you can have one-way isotropy...but the value for the > > one-way speed of light is distance dependent. > > Nope, Seto, you are wrong. There is no evidence that the value for > the speed of light is distance dependent, nor is anything but constant > in time and space. How do you know? The one-way speed of light never been measured. Ken Seto > > That's why Physicists > > > > > refuse to report the value for the one-way speed of light when they > > tested for one-way isotropy. > > > Ken Seto > > >> 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). > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments..html#... > > >> 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#....- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |