Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: Strich.9 on 22 Dec 2008 08:53 On Dec 19, 6:18 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > b7505a8d-ecca-4b68-9d67-a19315554...(a)a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 3:14 pm,(bjones) wrote: > >> On 12 Dec 2008, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> bjones wrote: > > <<< 1. Use synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way speed.>>> > > > << First you need to define what you mean by "synchronous". >> > > > "Synchronous": Synchronous clocks are those whose hands are set > > identically at a given epoch and remain so at successive instants. > > > <<In particular, you must specify precisely how to set two identical > > clocks separated by some distance so they are "synchronous". >> > > > HOW to do that is NOT part of the definition. (It was the way > > Einstein confused his followers into thinking his contrary definition > > is valid.) > > > << As I have pointed out many times, this is not going to be very > > useful, because the accuracy of atomic clocks is insufficient to your > > purpose. >> > > > Einstein's definition of how to set clocks is independent of their > > accuracy. > > > < "c invariance" by definition means the same measured light speed c > > in all frames. To show it, you need at least two frames (to comply > > with the "invariance" part). For example, let Frame A have a light > > source S located at the origin, along with an origin clock. When Frame > > B's origin clock is at Frame A's, S emits a light ray toward two > > distant clocks. ... Here is the diagram: > > Frame A [0]---------------x----------------[x/c] > > S~~> > > Frame B [0]---------------x----------------[x/c] > > I will cut you some slack here by accepting the assumption that the > > light's speed is c in Frame A. This justifies Einstein's placement of > > the time "x/c" on A's distant clock. > > > > Einstein repeatedly stipulated that frame A (his system K) is a > > stationary system. As such, the speed of light in any direction in it > > would indeed be c, regardless of how or if it was measured. Even so, > > for the sake of others, let me clarify your example, B. J. > > Let frame A (x,y,z; t) be at rest in the "empty space" in which > > Einstein postulated that the speed of light is a constant, c = 1 unit/ > > second. Let rod rAB, attached to frame A, be one unit long with a > > clock attached at each end. Let end A be at x = 0 and end B at x = 1. > > Let frame B (xi,eta,zeta; tau) be moving to the right at .6c as > > measured by frame A. Let rod rA'B', which is identical to rAB, be > > attached to frame B; with end A' and its clock A' at xi = 0 and end B' > > and its clock B' at xi = 1. Let the origins coincide with a light > > source S at t = tau = 0; when S emits a ray of light toward clocks B > > and B', which coincide at that instant. Here is the diagram: > > Frame A 0-------------x--------------B, at x = 1 > > Ray ~~> > > Frame B 0-------------x--------------B', at xi = 1 > > > < Now, all you have to do is justify Einstein's placement of the time > > "x/c" on B's distant clock, bearing in mind that B is moving relative > > to S.> > > > Einstein didn't do that, BJ. He set the time on STATIONARY clock B > > to t = x/c = 1. Then in accord with HIS DEFINITION adjusted the > > time on THE MOVING clock B' to REGISTER tau = 1 when the ray arrived. > > In the following explanation we will let lengths remain constant > > regardless of velocity. {Anyone who disagrees is invited either to > > quote anything in the 1905 paper that supports his argument or to shut > > up.} > > At tA = tauA' = 0 a ray emits from the coinciding origins toward > > clocks B and B'. It will take the ray t = x/c = 1/1 = 1 second to get > > to clock B. If clock B has a different time than that when the ray > > arrives, it is adjusted by hand to say "t = 1". > > Since clock B' is moving to the right at .6c it will take the ray xi/ > > (c-v) = 1/.4 = 2.5 seconds to get to it. In order for frame B to plot > > this as tauB' = xi/c = 1, Einstein's definition requires that the time > > of clock B' be adjusted to be in accord with the following two > > equations: > > tautB' - tauA' = tau2 - tauB' and .5[tauA' + tau2) = > > tauB'; > > in which tau2 is the time of clock A' when the ray returns to it. The > > left side of the first equation denotes the one way time outbound and > > the right side denotes the one way return time. The left side of the > > second equation denotes the total roundtrip time and the right side > > denotes the one way time outbound. Hence, as he wrote in his 1905 > > paper, .5[1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]delta tau/delta t = delta tau/delta x' + > > [1/(c-v)]delta tau/delta t. > > Other than for the prior stipulation that "x' = x - vt", Einstein > > never verbally or mathematically defined the expressions delta tau/ > > delta t or delta tau/delta x'. I will do so now. > > delta tau/delta t = dtau/dt denotes the ratio of rates of clocks of > > the two systems, as measured by frame A. In delta tau/delta x' = dtau/ > > dx' = dtau/d(x-vt), dtau denotes the difference between the adjusted > > time of clock B' compared to that of clock A' of frame B; delta x' = > > dx' = d(x - vt) is the distance between clocks A' and B' of frame B as > > plotted by frame A; where x is the position of each moving clock on X > > at a time t, and v is the velocity of frame B relative to frame A. > > > <<< 4. Try to apply Einstein's "synchronization" definition to more > > than one frame. > >> > > << That definition cannot possibly be applied to clocks at rest in > > different frames. >> > > < Einstein disagrees with you - > > "Also the definition of simultaneity can be given relative to the > > train in exactly the same way as with respect to the embankment." > > > > Einstein didn't define "simultaneity' OR "synchronism". He defined a > > method of setting the hands of individual clocks of a given system so > > they will MEASURE the speed of light as a constant in all directions > > even though, as HIS findings proved, it isn't. > > > <<There's no hope of your doing anything relevant to physics while you > > remain so willfully ignorant of experiments, definitions, and > > theories. Tom Roberts >> > > > There's no hope of Tom Roberts or any physicist doing anything > > relevant at all, while remaining so willfully ignorant of experiments, > > definitions, and theories. > > Right, just what we need here... a dementing imbecile trying > to educate a demented one - good grief. > > Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - With a side comment from a dementing creep
From: PD on 22 Dec 2008 09:23 On Dec 21, 5:03 am, schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > Tom Roberts > > Roberts knows only what he has been exposed to. > > Black ops people know the current physics is a bunch of nonsense as > far as it being "the truth", but it does have limited commercial > applications. > I believe the "black ops" comment tells us everything we need to know about your mental state, thanks very much.
From: Strich.9 on 22 Dec 2008 10:22 On Dec 22, 9:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 21, 5:03 am, schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > Roberts knows only what he has been exposed to. > > > Black ops people know the current physics is a bunch of nonsense as > > far as it being "the truth", but it does have limited commercial > > applications. > > I believe the "black ops" comment tells us everything we need to know > about your mental state, thanks very much. Your beliefs are irrelevant. Unless you speak from the inside, your comments are worthless.
From: PD on 22 Dec 2008 10:27 On Dec 22, 9:22 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 9:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 21, 5:03 am, schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > Roberts knows only what he has been exposed to. > > > > Black ops people know the current physics is a bunch of nonsense as > > > far as it being "the truth", but it does have limited commercial > > > applications. > > > I believe the "black ops" comment tells us everything we need to know > > about your mental state, thanks very much. > > Your beliefs are irrelevant. Unless you speak from the inside, your > comments are worthless. "Unless you speak from the inside...." Hmmm... Well, Strich9, it's nice to see that at least the sedatives are kicking in this morning for you.
From: Strich.9 on 22 Dec 2008 11:21
On Dec 22, 10:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 9:22 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 21, 5:03 am, schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > Roberts knows only what he has been exposed to. > > > > > Black ops people know the current physics is a bunch of nonsense as > > > > far as it being "the truth", but it does have limited commercial > > > > applications. > > > > I believe the "black ops" comment tells us everything we need to know > > > about your mental state, thanks very much. > > > Your beliefs are irrelevant. Unless you speak from the inside, your > > comments are worthless. > > "Unless you speak from the inside...." > Hmmm... > > Well, Strich9, it's nice to see that at least the sedatives are > kicking in this morning for you.- Are you desperately trying to imply you have clairvoyance, crackpot PD? |