A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 00:20 On Feb 24, 12:11 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 10:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 9:44 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 8:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 12:25 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 21, 11:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 9:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > >news:dba2b7ab-670a-473f-a7f3-5447e3f01e53(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 12:27 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > >news:1c9cf786-36cc-4fce-8b57-7f45f5b88ddd(a)v1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative > > > > > > > > > > speed > > > > > > > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured speed > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > light then? > > > > > > > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the > > > > > > > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to > > > > > > > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c' > > > > > > > > > with respect to the aether. > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured > > > > > > > > > speed > > > > > > > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving > > > > > > > > > relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > Measured, yes. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________ > > > > > > > > OK, is the speed of light measured as 'c' in every inertial reference > > > > > > > > frame? > > > > > > > > Measured, yes. > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > > How about the rest of the predictions of SR? Will lengths and times measure > > > > > > > according to SR? You have no problem with the 80 foot ladder fitting inside > > > > > > > the 40 foot barn, or the twins "paradox" ? > > > > > > > I have already explained to you probably twenty times now the atomic > > > > > > clocks 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in which the exist.. There > > > > > > may be length contraction at speeds near 'c'. > > > > > > > What you fail to be able to understand is the rate at which a clock > > > > > > 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. For > > > > > > example, we have a clock on the embankment and a clock on a train and > > > > > > both the train and the embankment exist in the same three dimensional > > > > > > space. Since the state of the aether is determined by its connections > > > > > > with the matter the state of the aether is that it can be considered > > > > > > to be at rest with respect to the embankment. Since the train is > > > > > > moving relative to the embankment the train is not at rest with > > > > > > respect to the train. The clocks on the train will 'tick' slower than > > > > > > the clocks on the embankment. > > > > > > > This nonsense of the Observer on the train seeing the clock on the > > > > > > embankment 'tick' slower and the Observer on the embankment seeing the > > > > > > clock on the train 'tick' slower is exactly that, complete nonsense. > > > > > > You have progressed a long way from where you were. It's time to take > > > > > another step. From you previous posts I see you agree that the clocks > > > > > on the train are out of sync with the clocks on the embankment. Now > > > > > consider how the train observers measure the tick rate of a clock on > > > > > the embankment. Viewed from the train the clock at A on the > > > > > embankment passes along the length of the train. No single train > > > > > observer can deterimine the tick rate of A because he only sees A for > > > > > one instant. So the tick rate at A is determined by having multiple > > > > > observers record the reading on clock A and the time of that reading > > > > > *according to their own clock*. > > > > > > The clocks at A and A' are compared when they pass and the difference > > > > > in their readings noted. Next the clocks at A and B' are compared and > > > > > their difference in reading noted. If that difference has increased > > > > > the train observers must conclude that the clock at A is running slow > > > > > because it has lost time compared to the clock at B' *which is in sync > > > > > with the clock at A'*. > > > > > > The track observers see what the train observers are doing and realize > > > > > the train observers got a different result because *the clocks at A' > > > > > and B' are out of sync*. > > > > > > So now maybe you can see that the train observers can *measure* the > > > > > tick rate of the embankment clocks to be slower, even if it is in fact > > > > > faster. > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > When the clocks are moved on the train they wind up at A' and B' and > > > > read 12:00:01 and 12:00:00, respectively. Since the embankment is at > > > > rest with respect to the aether when the clocks are moved to A and B > > > > they both read 12:00:00. > > > > > If the train is moving fast enough the clocks on the train should be > > > > ticking slow enough that the difference in the times at A' and B' > > > > should be outweighed by the slowness of the ticking. For example, > > > > let's say B' and A are co-located at 12:00:00. It takes 3 seconds, as > > > > determined by the clock at B', to go from A to B. It takes 5 seconds > > > > as determined by the clock at A to go from B' to A'. When B' and B are > > > > co-located their clocks will read 12:00:03 and 12:00:05, respectively. > > > > When A' and A are co-located their clocks will read 12:00:04 and > > > > 12:00:05, respectively. All of the Observers conclude the clocks on > > > > the train 'tick' slower than the clocks on the embankment. > > > > There is no "fast enough" here. RoS works whenever there is a > > > relative speed between frames. > > > But what is different between AD and RoS is the unsynchronization of > > the clocks. In RoS it doesn't matter how the train is moving relative > > to the aether, the clocks when moved to A' and B' will still be > > synchronized with respect to each other and with respect to the train. > > This is not how it works in AD. Everything in AD is with respect to > > the aether. When the clocks are moved to A' and B' they are not > > synchronized with respect to each other. > > Einstein never said there is no ether, just that SR doesn't need to > consider it. So to explain this to you I will invoke an ether at rest > WRT the tracks. If A and B make note of when B' passes them, and what > the B' clock displayed for a time, they can calculate that the B' > clock is ticking slower than their own clocks. Note that there is no > direct comparison of the tick rates. The difference is determined by > calculation, and that calculation assumes that the clocks at A and B > display the same time. > > If you observer from the track frame the transport of clocks from M' > to A' and B' you will see the clocks changing sync as they are > transported. Slow transport of clocks results in the same sync as the > using light signals, which we know will be viewed from the tracks as > being out of sync. So your AD clocks are behaving the same as SR > clocks. > In AD, the clocks on the train are out of sync, in nature. They are not out of sync as viewed from the embankment. In SR, the clocks at A' and B' are still in sync with respect to the train frame of reference. This is what I am saying is different in AD. In AD, the clocks at A' and B' are physically out of sync. Not just as viewed from the embankment but on the train as well. However, the Observers at A' and B' on the train have no way of knowing their clocks are out of sync. > > > As for the slowness of the ticking > > > outweighing clock sync, you are just waving your arms. The two things > > > you time above tell you nothing about the tick rate of the clocks. > > > They aren't measuring the same thing. You wrote "It takes 3 seconds, > > > as determined by the clock at B', to go from A to B." What you need > > > to compare that to is the time for B' to go from A to B, as determined > > > by the clocks at A and B. That is where the clock sync comes in to > > > play. > > > If the train is moving fast enough the clocks on the train will be > > 'ticking' slow enough that when the Observers on the train at A' and > > B' get back together and discuss what time the clock at A said when > > they both saw it it will have increased more in time than the clock at > > A' does even after including its unsynchronizaion.- Hide quoted text - > > Stop waving your arms and type some numbers. SR and LET tell us > exactly how the clocks relate to each other. If AD is a real theory > you should be able to tell me how to calculate exactly how fast the > train clock runs. You should also be able to tell me exactly how the > lenght of the moving train compares to its length when stopped.
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 00:26 On Feb 24, 12:11 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 10:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 9:44 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 8:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 12:25 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 21, 11:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 9:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > >news:dba2b7ab-670a-473f-a7f3-5447e3f01e53(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 12:27 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > >news:1c9cf786-36cc-4fce-8b57-7f45f5b88ddd(a)v1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative > > > > > > > > > > speed > > > > > > > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured speed > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > light then? > > > > > > > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the > > > > > > > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to > > > > > > > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c' > > > > > > > > > with respect to the aether. > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured > > > > > > > > > speed > > > > > > > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving > > > > > > > > > relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > Measured, yes. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________ > > > > > > > > OK, is the speed of light measured as 'c' in every inertial reference > > > > > > > > frame? > > > > > > > > Measured, yes. > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > > How about the rest of the predictions of SR? Will lengths and times measure > > > > > > > according to SR? You have no problem with the 80 foot ladder fitting inside > > > > > > > the 40 foot barn, or the twins "paradox" ? > > > > > > > I have already explained to you probably twenty times now the atomic > > > > > > clocks 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in which the exist.. There > > > > > > may be length contraction at speeds near 'c'. > > > > > > > What you fail to be able to understand is the rate at which a clock > > > > > > 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. For > > > > > > example, we have a clock on the embankment and a clock on a train and > > > > > > both the train and the embankment exist in the same three dimensional > > > > > > space. Since the state of the aether is determined by its connections > > > > > > with the matter the state of the aether is that it can be considered > > > > > > to be at rest with respect to the embankment. Since the train is > > > > > > moving relative to the embankment the train is not at rest with > > > > > > respect to the train. The clocks on the train will 'tick' slower than > > > > > > the clocks on the embankment. > > > > > > > This nonsense of the Observer on the train seeing the clock on the > > > > > > embankment 'tick' slower and the Observer on the embankment seeing the > > > > > > clock on the train 'tick' slower is exactly that, complete nonsense. > > > > > > You have progressed a long way from where you were. It's time to take > > > > > another step. From you previous posts I see you agree that the clocks > > > > > on the train are out of sync with the clocks on the embankment. Now > > > > > consider how the train observers measure the tick rate of a clock on > > > > > the embankment. Viewed from the train the clock at A on the > > > > > embankment passes along the length of the train. No single train > > > > > observer can deterimine the tick rate of A because he only sees A for > > > > > one instant. So the tick rate at A is determined by having multiple > > > > > observers record the reading on clock A and the time of that reading > > > > > *according to their own clock*. > > > > > > The clocks at A and A' are compared when they pass and the difference > > > > > in their readings noted. Next the clocks at A and B' are compared and > > > > > their difference in reading noted. If that difference has increased > > > > > the train observers must conclude that the clock at A is running slow > > > > > because it has lost time compared to the clock at B' *which is in sync > > > > > with the clock at A'*. > > > > > > The track observers see what the train observers are doing and realize > > > > > the train observers got a different result because *the clocks at A' > > > > > and B' are out of sync*. > > > > > > So now maybe you can see that the train observers can *measure* the > > > > > tick rate of the embankment clocks to be slower, even if it is in fact > > > > > faster. > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > When the clocks are moved on the train they wind up at A' and B' and > > > > read 12:00:01 and 12:00:00, respectively. Since the embankment is at > > > > rest with respect to the aether when the clocks are moved to A and B > > > > they both read 12:00:00. > > > > > If the train is moving fast enough the clocks on the train should be > > > > ticking slow enough that the difference in the times at A' and B' > > > > should be outweighed by the slowness of the ticking. For example, > > > > let's say B' and A are co-located at 12:00:00. It takes 3 seconds, as > > > > determined by the clock at B', to go from A to B. It takes 5 seconds > > > > as determined by the clock at A to go from B' to A'. When B' and B are > > > > co-located their clocks will read 12:00:03 and 12:00:05, respectively. > > > > When A' and A are co-located their clocks will read 12:00:04 and > > > > 12:00:05, respectively. All of the Observers conclude the clocks on > > > > the train 'tick' slower than the clocks on the embankment. > > > > There is no "fast enough" here. RoS works whenever there is a > > > relative speed between frames. > > > But what is different between AD and RoS is the unsynchronization of > > the clocks. In RoS it doesn't matter how the train is moving relative > > to the aether, the clocks when moved to A' and B' will still be > > synchronized with respect to each other and with respect to the train. > > This is not how it works in AD. Everything in AD is with respect to > > the aether. When the clocks are moved to A' and B' they are not > > synchronized with respect to each other. > > Einstein never said there is no ether, just that SR doesn't need to > consider it. So to explain this to you I will invoke an ether at rest > WRT the tracks. If A and B make note of when B' passes them, and what > the B' clock displayed for a time, they can calculate that the B' > clock is ticking slower than their own clocks. Note that there is no > direct comparison of the tick rates. The difference is determined by > calculation, and that calculation assumes that the clocks at A and B > display the same time. > > If you observer from the track frame the transport of clocks from M' > to A' and B' you will see the clocks changing sync as they are > transported. Slow transport of clocks results in the same sync as the > using light signals, which we know will be viewed from the tracks as > being out of sync. So your AD clocks are behaving the same as SR > clocks. > The clocks in AD do not behave the same as SR clocks. In AD, the clocks on the train are out of sync, in nature. They are not just out of sync as viewed from the embankment. The clocks on the train, once moved from M' to A' and B' are physically out of sync. In SR, the clocks at A' and B' are still in sync with respect to the train frame of reference. This is what I am saying is different in AD. In AD, the clocks at A' and B' are physically out of sync. Not just as viewed from the embankment but on the train as well. However, the Observers at A' and B' on the train have no way of knowing their clocks are out of sync. > > > As for the slowness of the ticking > > > outweighing clock sync, you are just waving your arms. The two things > > > you time above tell you nothing about the tick rate of the clocks. > > > They aren't measuring the same thing. You wrote "It takes 3 seconds, > > > as determined by the clock at B', to go from A to B." What you need > > > to compare that to is the time for B' to go from A to B, as determined > > > by the clocks at A and B. That is where the clock sync comes in to > > > play. > > > If the train is moving fast enough the clocks on the train will be > > 'ticking' slow enough that when the Observers on the train at A' and > > B' get back together and discuss what time the clock at A said when > > they both saw it it will have increased more in time than the clock at > > A' does even after including its unsynchronizaion.- Hide quoted text - > > Stop waving your arms and type some numbers. SR and LET tell us > exactly how the clocks relate to each other. If AD is a real theory > you should be able to tell me how to calculate exactly how fast the > train clock runs. You should also be able to tell me exactly how the > lenght of the moving train compares to its length when stopped.
From: Bruce Richmond on 24 Feb 2010 00:38 On Feb 24, 12:26 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 12:11 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 10:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 9:44 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 8:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 21, 12:25 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 11:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 9:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > >news:dba2b7ab-670a-473f-a7f3-5447e3f01e53(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 12:27 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >news:1c9cf786-36cc-4fce-8b57-7f45f5b88ddd(a)v1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative > > > > > > > > > > > speed > > > > > > > > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured speed > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > light then? > > > > > > > > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the > > > > > > > > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to > > > > > > > > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c' > > > > > > > > > > with respect to the aether. > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured > > > > > > > > > > speed > > > > > > > > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving > > > > > > > > > > relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > Measured, yes. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________ > > > > > > > > > OK, is the speed of light measured as 'c' in every inertial reference > > > > > > > > > frame? > > > > > > > > > Measured, yes. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > > > How about the rest of the predictions of SR? Will lengths and times measure > > > > > > > > according to SR? You have no problem with the 80 foot ladder fitting inside > > > > > > > > the 40 foot barn, or the twins "paradox" ? > > > > > > > > I have already explained to you probably twenty times now the atomic > > > > > > > clocks 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in which the exist. There > > > > > > > may be length contraction at speeds near 'c'. > > > > > > > > What you fail to be able to understand is the rate at which a clock > > > > > > > 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. For > > > > > > > example, we have a clock on the embankment and a clock on a train and > > > > > > > both the train and the embankment exist in the same three dimensional > > > > > > > space. Since the state of the aether is determined by its connections > > > > > > > with the matter the state of the aether is that it can be considered > > > > > > > to be at rest with respect to the embankment. Since the train is > > > > > > > moving relative to the embankment the train is not at rest with > > > > > > > respect to the train. The clocks on the train will 'tick' slower than > > > > > > > the clocks on the embankment. > > > > > > > > This nonsense of the Observer on the train seeing the clock on the > > > > > > > embankment 'tick' slower and the Observer on the embankment seeing the > > > > > > > clock on the train 'tick' slower is exactly that, complete nonsense. > > > > > > > You have progressed a long way from where you were. It's time to take > > > > > > another step. From you previous posts I see you agree that the clocks > > > > > > on the train are out of sync with the clocks on the embankment. Now > > > > > > consider how the train observers measure the tick rate of a clock on > > > > > > the embankment. Viewed from the train the clock at A on the > > > > > > embankment passes along the length of the train. No single train > > > > > > observer can deterimine the tick rate of A because he only sees A for > > > > > > one instant. So the tick rate at A is determined by having multiple > > > > > > observers record the reading on clock A and the time of that reading > > > > > > *according to their own clock*. > > > > > > > The clocks at A and A' are compared when they pass and the difference > > > > > > in their readings noted. Next the clocks at A and B' are compared and > > > > > > their difference in reading noted. If that difference has increased > > > > > > the train observers must conclude that the clock at A is running slow > > > > > > because it has lost time compared to the clock at B' *which is in sync > > > > > > with the clock at A'*. > > > > > > > The track observers see what the train observers are doing and realize > > > > > > the train observers got a different result because *the clocks at A' > > > > > > and B' are out of sync*. > > > > > > > So now maybe you can see that the train observers can *measure* the > > > > > > tick rate of the embankment clocks to be slower, even if it is in fact > > > > > > faster. > > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > > When the clocks are moved on the train they wind up at A' and B' and > > > > > read 12:00:01 and 12:00:00, respectively. Since the embankment is at > > > > > rest with respect to the aether when the clocks are moved to A and B > > > > > they both read 12:00:00. > > > > > > If the train is moving fast enough the clocks on the train should be > > > > > ticking slow enough that the difference in the times at A' and B' > > > > > should be outweighed by the slowness of the ticking. For example, > > > > > let's say B' and A are co-located at 12:00:00. It takes 3 seconds, as > > > > > determined by the clock at B', to go from A to B. It takes 5 seconds > > > > > as determined by the clock at A to go from B' to A'. When B' and B are > > > > > co-located their clocks will read 12:00:03 and 12:00:05, respectively. > > > > > When A' and A are co-located their clocks will read 12:00:04 and > > > > > 12:00:05, respectively. All of the Observers conclude the clocks on > > > > > the train 'tick' slower than the clocks on the embankment. > > > > > There is no "fast enough" here. RoS works whenever there is a > > > > relative speed between frames. > > > > But what is different between AD and RoS is the unsynchronization of > > > the clocks. In RoS it doesn't matter how the train is moving relative > > > to the aether, the clocks when moved to A' and B' will still be > > > synchronized with respect to each other and with respect to the train.. > > > This is not how it works in AD. Everything in AD is with respect to > > > the aether. When the clocks are moved to A' and B' they are not > > > synchronized with respect to each other. > > > Einstein never said there is no ether, just that SR doesn't need to > > consider it. So to explain this to you I will invoke an ether at rest > > WRT the tracks. If A and B make note of when B' passes them, and what > > the B' clock displayed for a time, they can calculate that the B' > > clock is ticking slower than their own clocks. Note that there is no > > direct comparison of the tick rates. The difference is determined by > > calculation, and that calculation assumes that the clocks at A and B > > display the same time. > > > If you observer from the track frame the transport of clocks from M' > > to A' and B' you will see the clocks changing sync as they are > > transported. Slow transport of clocks results in the same sync as the > > using light signals, which we know will be viewed from the tracks as > > being out of sync. So your AD clocks are behaving the same as SR > > clocks. > > The clocks in AD do not behave the same as SR clocks. > > In AD, the clocks on the train are out of sync, in nature. They are > not just out of sync as viewed from the embankment. The clocks on the > train, once moved from M' to A' and B' are physically out of sync. In > SR, the clocks at A' and B' are still in sync with respect to the > train frame of reference. This is what I am saying is different in AD. > In AD, the clocks at A' and B' are physically out of sync. Not just as > viewed from the embankment but on the train as well. However, the > Observers at A' and B' on the train have no way of knowing their > clocks are out of sync. > What you are describing is exactly the same as LET which results in the same math as SR. > > > > > As for the slowness of the ticking > > > > outweighing clock sync, you are just waving your arms. The two things > > > > you time above tell you nothing about the tick rate of the clocks. > > > > They aren't measuring the same thing. You wrote "It takes 3 seconds, > > > > as determined by the clock at B', to go from A to B." What you need > > > > to compare that to is the time for B' to go from A to B, as determined > > > > by the clocks at A and B. That is where the clock sync comes in to > > > > play. > > > > If the train is moving fast enough the clocks on the train will be > > > 'ticking' slow enough that when the Observers on the train at A' and > > > B' get back together and discuss what time the clock at A said when > > > they both saw it it will have increased more in time than the clock at > > > A' does even after including its unsynchronizaion.- Hide quoted text - > > > Stop waving your arms and type some numbers. SR and LET tell us > > exactly how the clocks relate to each other. If AD is a real theory > > you should be able to tell me how to calculate exactly how fast the > > train clock runs. You should also be able to tell me exactly how the > > lenght of the moving train compares to its length when stopped.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 00:55 On Feb 24, 12:38 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 12:26 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The clocks in AD do not behave the same as SR clocks. > > > In AD, the clocks on the train are out of sync, in nature. They are > > not just out of sync as viewed from the embankment. The clocks on the > > train, once moved from M' to A' and B' are physically out of sync. In > > SR, the clocks at A' and B' are still in sync with respect to the > > train frame of reference. This is what I am saying is different in AD. > > In AD, the clocks at A' and B' are physically out of sync. Not just as > > viewed from the embankment but on the train as well. However, the > > Observers at A' and B' on the train have no way of knowing their > > clocks are out of sync. > > What you are describing is exactly the same as LET which results in > the same math as SR. > In LET there is an absolutely stationary space. In AD, Einstein said it best, "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". In AD, everything is with respect to the state of the aether. In LET the clocks on the train are being moved to A' and B' with respect to an absolutely stationary space. In AD, the clocks on the train are being moved with respect to the aether whose state is determined by its connections with the matter where the matter in this case is mainly the Earth. In AD, the aether is at rest, or almost at rest, with respect to the surface of the Earth. The aether can be considered to be at rest with respect to the surface of the Earth because the aether exists around each and every nuclei which is the matter which is the Earth. The aether is most connected to the Earth. Since the aether is at rest with respect to the surface of the Earth the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. Since the train is moving relative to the Earth's surface the train is less at rest with respect to the aether. Clocks being moved to A and B on the embankment will still be physically in sync when they arrive at A and B. Clocks being moved to A' and B' on the train will not be physically in sync when they arrive at A' and B'. The clock being moved to B' is being moved against the 'flow' of aether which increases the aether pressure on the clock, causing the clock to 'tick' slower than the clock being walked to A' and the clock at M'. The clock being walked to A' is being walked with the 'flow' of aether and will 'tick' faster than the clock at M' and the clock being walked to B'. When the clocks arrive at A' and B' they then 'tick' at the same rate as the clock at M' because they are all at rest with respect to the train and they are all under the same amount of aether pressure.
From: Peter Webb on 24 Feb 2010 01:02
"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f2c18327-9c66-48eb-9088-07bd98b058c5(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Feb 23, 11:20 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:5d46b213-167c-46a8-9206-cdbefe14ce2c(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 23, 10:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > This is not how it works in AD. Everything in AD is with respect to > > the aether. When the clocks are moved to A' and B' they are not > > synchronized with respect to each other. > > > ___________________________ > > How do you work out your speed "relative to the ether"? What makes you > > think > > it exists at all? > > What you can determine is your state, or approximate state, with > respect to the aether. > > _________________________________ > How, exactly? How can you work out your speed relative to the ether? The speed of one reference frame with respect to the aether can be determined relative to another reference frame. ______________________ How? Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists. An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether pressure. The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 �s/day". ________________________________ GPS satellites cannot be used to measure ether speed. Time dilation for GPS satellites is exactly as predicted by Relativity, which does not include a component for ether speed. So if that is your test of ether theory, it failed. Can you describe a single experiment which you believe would show a different result from SR if your theory was correct? |