From: Inertial on
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf19c-9501-4621-b5b8-9e5f470557a4(a)6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 19, 12:42 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b32a301e-9d09-4a36-abfb-c56cb1793fba(a)g1g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 16, 9:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:0e598f70-20d2-4b74-a35f-49051d91c33d(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 16, 5:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:2b2d79e3-ad4e-4786-8a75-9ad65827df01(a)k17g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> > On Jun 16, 1:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Jun 16, 1:37 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 15, 8:43 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> [...]
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Well, every morning I see the sun rise and say, It is a
>> >> >> >> >> >> > new
>> >> >> >> >> >> > day.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > The fact that I do this does not diminish my mental
>> >> >> >> >> >> > capacity.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > When
>> >> >> >> >> >> > the sun comes up, it actually is a new day where I am.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Posting
>> >> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Galileantransformation equations is a similar process.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > There
>> >> >> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> >> >> > really no harm in repeating anything that is true.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> So you are autistic.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > I have been called a lot of things, but you are the first
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> > call
>> >> >> >> >> > me
>> >> >> >> >> > autistic.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> If you were not autistic, or a sociopath, you would take a
>> >> >> >> >> moment
>> >> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> >> consider why people keep calling you names.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> The answer is not 'because I'm right'.
>>
>> >> >> >> > If people keep calling me names, it would appear that they are
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > sociopaths, not me.
>>
>> >> >> >> Thanks for playing.
>>
>> >> >> > You think this is a game, Eric?
>>
>> >> >> Do you mean you are really serious about the nonsense you post?
>> >> >> You
>> >> >> need
>> >> >> some counselling and education.
>>
>> >> > I am dead serious. t'=t is the equation for time coordinates in the
>> >> >Galileantransformation equations.
>>
>> >> So a correct clock in S' will show the time in S' which it t'. And t'
>> >> =
>> >> t'
>> >> according toGalileantransforms. So there is no slowing of moving
>> >> correct
>> >> clocks (or rather, of measuring a single correct clock from two
>> >> different
>> >> frames of reference .. which is what aGalileantransform tells you)
>>
>> > Sorry, inertial, the equation is t'=t.
>>
>> Yes it is. Typo on my part. So you agree thatGalileantransforms give
>> you
>> t' = t for any pair of frames of reference .. so time is the same
>> everywhere
>> and regardless of motion. That is what t' = t means. And as we know
>> from
>> experiment that that is NOT the case,Galileantransforms are refuted.
>> Wrong. Need replacing.
>
> No, t'=t only refers to two frames of reference, S and S'.

And they are any pair of frames we wish to choose .. so it means ANY pair of
(inertial) frames of reference.

You really have no idea about physics


From: rbwinn on
On Jun 20, 2:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9fa7f53a-cbf2-4cd0-ac45-69c6821cc47e(a)y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 9:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:7c0e24b6-8c14-472a-bbfc-e8d4408b6d8c(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > On Jun 19, 7:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:bf9c809a-1cbd-42ac-9ed1-4a77858493a4(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 19, 12:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:b0eec1c0-3967-4690-a5ad-42458893fa10(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups..com...
>
> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >>news:a4cf3177-76db-41a9-9521-78a222a48ae2(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> [...]
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation
> >> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> >> > coordinates.  Time can be measured about any way
> >> >> >> >> >> > imaginable.
> >> >> >> >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> So is it your opinion that t and t' are just symbols devoid
> >> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> >> >> physical
> >> >> >> >> >> meaning?
>
> >> >> >> >> > t'=t has a physical meaning.  It is what is called an identity
> >> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> >> > algebra.  It means that t' is time on a clock in S.
>
> >> >> >> >> No .. it means t is the time shown on a correct clock in S and
> >> >> >> >> t'
> >> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> time shown on a correct clock in S' .. and that these two times
> >> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> >> always
> >> >> >> >> the same.
>
> >> >> >> >> Do you disagree ?
>
> >> >> >> > Certainly, I disagree.
>
> >> >> >> Then go learn some physics until you agree.
>
> >> >> >> >  Experiment shows that a clock in S' is
> >> >> >> > slower.
>
> >> >> >> Yes
>
> >> >> >> >  If Isaac Newton or Galileo had been given that information do
> >> >> >> > you think they would have continued to claim that the two times
> >> >> >> > were
> >> >> >> > always the same?
>
> >> >> >> No .. they would probably have come up with something other
> >> >> >> thanGalilean
> >> >> >> transforms.  Are you not clever enough for that?
>
> >> >> >> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> >> >> Nothing left to comment on
>
> >> >> > Anything else would have a length contraction.
>
> >> >> No .. there are other transforms one could write with no length
> >> >> contraction.
> >> >> You could also write transforms with length contraction and still with
> >> >> t'
> >> >> =
> >> >> t.
>
> >> >> >  Sorry.
>
> >> >> No .. you're not
>
> >> >> >  TheGalilean
> >> >> > transformation equations are the only transformation equations that
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > not have a length contraction.
>
> >> >> No, they aren't the only ones.   But regardless, they are proven to be
> >> >> WRONG
> >> >> by the very experiments you site (as have I) because the t' = t
> >> >> ofGalilean
> >> >> transforms MEANS that all synchonized correct clocks tick at the same
> >> >> rate
> >> >> and show the same time no matter where they are or how they (or those
> >> >> reading them) are moving.  That is what t' = t means.  So you cannot
> >> >> havea
> >> >> valid transform with t' = t in it.  You need to CHANGE theGalilean
> >> >> transforms to something OTHER than t' = t for them to be consistent
> >> >> with
> >> >> know experimental evidence.  Your denial of those facts is your
> >> >> problem.
> >> >> Claiming otherwise is a lie.
>
> >> > I don't use clocks.
>
> >> Liar .. you explicitly talked about clocks
>
> >> >  I tell time by the rate of motion of S' relative
> >> > to S.
>
> >> Then that is your clock
>
> >> >  For example, if S' has a velocity of 10 feet per minute
> >> > relative to S, then I can put marks every ten feet on S', and every
> >> > minute a mark on S' will line up with a single mark on S.
>
> >> Then that is your clock
>
> >> >   Or I can
> >> > put marks every ten feet on S and every minute a mark on S will line
> >> > up with a single mark on S'.
>
> >> Then that is your clock
>
> >> >  That is what I mean by t'=t.
>
> >> It doesn't matter what YOU mean .. it matters what it means in terms of
> >> theGalileantransforms (which you claim to be using).  It means time is
> >> the
> >> same, and ticking rates the same, regardless of position or velocity.
> >> And
> >> as we know that is NOT the case, we know thatGalileantransforms are
> >> wrong.
>
> >> >  We are
> >> > going to do away with clocks because they confuse scientists.
>
> >> No .. they show you to be wrong.  Here's a tip: either get used to being
> >> wrong, or learn physics.
>
> > Well, I did learn the physics of this.
>
> Unlikely
>
> >  Now you have said that my
> > marks on S' and S constitute a clock, two clocks, to be exact, one
> > showing t and one showing t'.
>
> If you have something going at a known velocity in a given frame, then you
> can use the distance it travels in that frame as a clock .. yes.
>
> >    If you see nothing wrong with these two clocks, then perhaps we
> > might proceed.
> >    Now you have some sort of device in S' which repeats itself at
> > some rate which is not synchronized with t and t'.
>
> So its not a clock .. just some arbitrary thing
>
> >  You want to call
> > the rate of that device t'.
>
> Why?  That makes no sense .. t' is the time in S' .. not a ticking rate..
>
> >  You cannot do that because the variable
> > t' is already taken to denote the rate of advance of the marks on S
> > relative to a single mark on S'.
>
> No ... t' is the time in S'.  It doesn't mean it is the marks on S' .. those
> marks (along with some moving object) let you calculate the time.
>
> >  There is an axiom of algebra which
> > forbids the use of the same variable to show rates which differ from
> > each other, even if they are said to be measuring the same thing.
>
> These ones aren't.  Anf if theyu differ, then its not the same thing
>
> >  If
> > you are going to call the rate of the device in S' by the variable t',
>
> You don't.
>
> > then you first have to convert that rate of measurement so that it
> > agrees with the marks on S and S', which you agreed were clocks.  We
> > know one thing about the rate of the device in S'.  It shows the speed
> > of light to be 300,000 km/sec as counted by the device.
>
> Just as do the clock we have in S and S' already.
>
> Inventing some new device that does NOT keep correct time isn't going to be
> useful for working out a correct speed.
>
> > That means
> > that during a second counted by the device, light proceeds 300,000
> > km.
>
> No .. during one second of time t' it proceeds that far.  You said this
> other device is not  correct (not synched with the correct time in S')  So
> you cannot use it to calculate the speed.
>
> > We can show how this relates to t'=t by the fact that light in S
> > proceeds 300,000 km/sec of time measured by t in that frame of
> > reference.
>
> And 300,000 km/sec in S' using distance travelled and time t'
>
> > In other words using the correct equations for Einstein's
> > analysis of the situation,
>
> >                     x'=x-vt
> >                    cn'=ct-vt
>
> > where n' is time as counted by the device in S'.
>
> n' isn't time .. its some other ticking rate that doesn't show correct time.
> So it doesn't give you a speed of c.
>
> Try again

Well, then we are not going beyond the marks on the two frames of
reference. You were the one who said the marks on S' measured against
a single mark on S constituted a clock. But marks on S measured
against a single mark on S' do not constitute a clock because they
show t'=t. So here is where science differs from reality, and there
is nothing to be gained from trying to discuss it further with
scientists.
However, just to show that it is not me who does not want to
discuss this, we can stipulate that the arbitrary device in S' shows
light to be traveling at 300,000 miles per second as measured by the
arbitrary device. Since you have said that an arbitrary device is
worthless in science, maybe we should measure the speed of light in S'
relative to the marks on the frames of reference. Has that ever been
done?
You claim it has. So if we set up an experiment in S' to
measure speed of light, then according to the marks on S measured
against the single mark on S', light in S' will be traveling at
300,000 km/sec.
The problem you have is that there appears to be no such
experiment, and all experiments run in S' have been done with the
arbitrary device.
So back to the arbitrary device. We can determine by experiment
that its rate appears constant relative to S' and that it always shows
light to be traveling at 300,000 km for every tick of the arbitrary
device. By this we can conclude that if an experiment is run to
determine whether light is traveling at 300,000 km/sec as measured by
our marks on S', then the light would be traveling at a slower speed
than 300,000 km/sec. We do not know this for certain because
scientists have never run the experiment and can only conclude this
would be the result because that is what mathematics shows.
So what we had better do for the time being is just wait until
science destroys itself and watch the marks on S and S' to make sure
that they always match up because scientists have gone off into
witchcraft and are saying that if they get all scientists to agree
that the marks on S and S' do not match up, then there will be a
length contraction, and no one will be able to do a thing about it.
So that is what I intend to do. I am going to watch the marks on S
and S'. Science can decide for itself what to do with the arbitrary
devices.
From: Inertial on
"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c8903b3-3aeb-4795-8aa1-2e6aaa247603(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 2:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9fa7f53a-cbf2-4cd0-ac45-69c6821cc47e(a)y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 19, 9:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:7c0e24b6-8c14-472a-bbfc-e8d4408b6d8c(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 19, 7:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:bf9c809a-1cbd-42ac-9ed1-4a77858493a4(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> > On Jun 19, 12:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >>news:b0eec1c0-3967-4690-a5ad-42458893fa10(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >> >>news:a4cf3177-76db-41a9-9521-78a222a48ae2(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> [...]
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with
>> >> >> >> >> >> > transformation
>> >> >> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> >> > coordinates. Time can be measured about any way
>> >> >> >> >> >> > imaginable.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> So is it your opinion that t and t' are just symbols
>> >> >> >> >> >> devoid
>> >> >> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> >> >> physical
>> >> >> >> >> >> meaning?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > t'=t has a physical meaning. It is what is called an
>> >> >> >> >> > identity
>> >> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> >> > algebra. It means that t' is time on a clock in S.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> No .. it means t is the time shown on a correct clock in S
>> >> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> >> t'
>> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> time shown on a correct clock in S' .. and that these two
>> >> >> >> >> times
>> >> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> >> always
>> >> >> >> >> the same.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Do you disagree ?
>>
>> >> >> >> > Certainly, I disagree.
>>
>> >> >> >> Then go learn some physics until you agree.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Experiment shows that a clock in S' is
>> >> >> >> > slower.
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes
>>
>> >> >> >> > If Isaac Newton or Galileo had been given that information do
>> >> >> >> > you think they would have continued to claim that the two
>> >> >> >> > times
>> >> >> >> > were
>> >> >> >> > always the same?
>>
>> >> >> >> No .. they would probably have come up with something other
>> >> >> >> thanGalilean
>> >> >> >> transforms. Are you not clever enough for that?
>>
>> >> >> >> [snip irrelevance]
>>
>> >> >> >> Nothing left to comment on
>>
>> >> >> > Anything else would have a length contraction.
>>
>> >> >> No .. there are other transforms one could write with no length
>> >> >> contraction.
>> >> >> You could also write transforms with length contraction and still
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> t'
>> >> >> =
>> >> >> t.
>>
>> >> >> > Sorry.
>>
>> >> >> No .. you're not
>>
>> >> >> > TheGalilean
>> >> >> > transformation equations are the only transformation equations
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > do
>> >> >> > not have a length contraction.
>>
>> >> >> No, they aren't the only ones. But regardless, they are proven to
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> WRONG
>> >> >> by the very experiments you site (as have I) because the t' = t
>> >> >> ofGalilean
>> >> >> transforms MEANS that all synchonized correct clocks tick at the
>> >> >> same
>> >> >> rate
>> >> >> and show the same time no matter where they are or how they (or
>> >> >> those
>> >> >> reading them) are moving. That is what t' = t means. So you
>> >> >> cannot
>> >> >> havea
>> >> >> valid transform with t' = t in it. You need to CHANGE theGalilean
>> >> >> transforms to something OTHER than t' = t for them to be consistent
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> know experimental evidence. Your denial of those facts is your
>> >> >> problem.
>> >> >> Claiming otherwise is a lie.
>>
>> >> > I don't use clocks.
>>
>> >> Liar .. you explicitly talked about clocks
>>
>> >> > I tell time by the rate of motion of S' relative
>> >> > to S.
>>
>> >> Then that is your clock
>>
>> >> > For example, if S' has a velocity of 10 feet per minute
>> >> > relative to S, then I can put marks every ten feet on S', and every
>> >> > minute a mark on S' will line up with a single mark on S.
>>
>> >> Then that is your clock
>>
>> >> > Or I can
>> >> > put marks every ten feet on S and every minute a mark on S will line
>> >> > up with a single mark on S'.
>>
>> >> Then that is your clock
>>
>> >> > That is what I mean by t'=t.
>>
>> >> It doesn't matter what YOU mean .. it matters what it means in terms
>> >> of
>> >> theGalileantransforms (which you claim to be using). It means time is
>> >> the
>> >> same, and ticking rates the same, regardless of position or velocity.
>> >> And
>> >> as we know that is NOT the case, we know thatGalileantransforms are
>> >> wrong.
>>
>> >> > We are
>> >> > going to do away with clocks because they confuse scientists.
>>
>> >> No .. they show you to be wrong. Here's a tip: either get used to
>> >> being
>> >> wrong, or learn physics.
>>
>> > Well, I did learn the physics of this.
>>
>> Unlikely
>>
>> > Now you have said that my
>> > marks on S' and S constitute a clock, two clocks, to be exact, one
>> > showing t and one showing t'.
>>
>> If you have something going at a known velocity in a given frame, then
>> you
>> can use the distance it travels in that frame as a clock .. yes.
>>
>> > If you see nothing wrong with these two clocks, then perhaps we
>> > might proceed.
>> > Now you have some sort of device in S' which repeats itself at
>> > some rate which is not synchronized with t and t'.
>>
>> So its not a clock .. just some arbitrary thing
>>
>> > You want to call
>> > the rate of that device t'.
>>
>> Why? That makes no sense .. t' is the time in S' .. not a ticking rate.
>>
>> > You cannot do that because the variable
>> > t' is already taken to denote the rate of advance of the marks on S
>> > relative to a single mark on S'.
>>
>> No ... t' is the time in S'. It doesn't mean it is the marks on S' ..
>> those
>> marks (along with some moving object) let you calculate the time.
>>
>> > There is an axiom of algebra which
>> > forbids the use of the same variable to show rates which differ from
>> > each other, even if they are said to be measuring the same thing.
>>
>> These ones aren't. Anf if theyu differ, then its not the same thing
>>
>> > If
>> > you are going to call the rate of the device in S' by the variable t',
>>
>> You don't.
>>
>> > then you first have to convert that rate of measurement so that it
>> > agrees with the marks on S and S', which you agreed were clocks. We
>> > know one thing about the rate of the device in S'. It shows the speed
>> > of light to be 300,000 km/sec as counted by the device.
>>
>> Just as do the clock we have in S and S' already.
>>
>> Inventing some new device that does NOT keep correct time isn't going to
>> be
>> useful for working out a correct speed.
>>
>> > That means
>> > that during a second counted by the device, light proceeds 300,000
>> > km.
>>
>> No .. during one second of time t' it proceeds that far. You said this
>> other device is not correct (not synched with the correct time in S')
>> So
>> you cannot use it to calculate the speed.
>>
>> > We can show how this relates to t'=t by the fact that light in S
>> > proceeds 300,000 km/sec of time measured by t in that frame of
>> > reference.
>>
>> And 300,000 km/sec in S' using distance travelled and time t'
>>
>> > In other words using the correct equations for Einstein's
>> > analysis of the situation,
>>
>> > x'=x-vt
>> > cn'=ct-vt
>>
>> > where n' is time as counted by the device in S'.
>>
>> n' isn't time .. its some other ticking rate that doesn't show correct
>> time.
>> So it doesn't give you a speed of c.
>>
>> Try again
>
> Well, then we are not going beyond the marks on the two frames of
> reference.

OK .. tho it is an odd way to tell time, as you need to make observations
at different locations to tell what the time is.

> You were the one who said the marks on S' measured against
> a single mark on S constituted a clock.

I said, that if you have an object moving with a known speed in S' past
known separation marks, then you can use that as a clock

> But marks on S measured
> against a single mark on S' do not constitute a clock because they
> show t'=t.

Why do you claim that? Show your working why these two different clocks
must show the same time at all times and in all places and regardless of
motion (which is what t' = t says about the time in S' and S)

> So here is where science differs from reality,

It doesn't

> and there
> is nothing to be gained from trying to discuss it further with
> scientists.

Because they show your claims to be nonsense. You cannot use a transform
that predicts the same time showing on all correct clocks regardless of
location and speed, as it contradicts experiment.

Science doesn't claim you can do this. You do. You are wrong

> However, just to show that it is not me who does not want to
> discuss this, we can stipulate that the arbitrary device in S' shows
> light to be traveling at 300,000 miles per second as measured by the
> arbitrary device.

We aren't talking about arbitrary devices .. we are talking about correct
clocks. If this 'device' is not showing correct time, then it cannot be
used (with distance travelled) to calculate correct speed.

> Since you have said that an arbitrary device is
> worthless in science,

It is as you are claiming to use it

> maybe we should measure the speed of light in S'
> relative to the marks on the frames of reference. Has that ever been
> done?

We need to calculate the speed by how far it has travelled in a given time
(or how long it takes to travel a given distance)

> You claim it has. So if we set up an experiment in S' to
> measure speed of light, then according to the marks on S measured
> against the single mark on S', light in S' will be traveling at
> 300,000 km/sec.

It travels at that speed in all inertial frames of reference (like S and S')

> The problem you have is that there appears to be no such
> experiment, and all experiments run in S' have been done with the
> arbitrary device.

This 'device' is simply a fiction you have invented.

> So back to the arbitrary device.

Irrelevant. We need to use correct clocks.

> We can determine by experiment
> that its rate appears constant relative to S' and that it always shows
> light to be traveling at 300,000 km for every tick of the arbitrary
> device.

So it is ticking at the correct rate

> By this we can conclude that if an experiment is run to
> determine whether light is traveling at 300,000 km/sec as measured by
> our marks on S', then the light would be traveling at a slower speed
> than 300,000 km/sec.

Wrong

> We do not know this for certain because
> scientists have never run the experiment and can only conclude this
> would be the result because that is what mathematics shows.

There have been many experiments measuring the speed of light. Try doing
some research

> So what we had better do for the time being is just wait until
> science destroys itself

I'd rather see you destroy yourself ... more likely to happen soon

> and watch the marks on S and S' to make sure
> that they always match up because scientists have gone off into
> witchcraft and are saying that if they get all scientists to agree
> that the marks on S and S' do not match up, then there will be a
> length contraction, and no one will be able to do a thing about it.
> So that is what I intend to do. I am going to watch the marks on S
> and S'. Science can decide for itself what to do with the arbitrary
> devices.

Ok .. you go and watch imaginary marks on imaginary frames and talk about
your imaginary devices.

Leave the science for those who understand it.


From: rbwinn on
On Jun 20, 6:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9c8903b3-3aeb-4795-8aa1-2e6aaa247603(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 20, 2:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:9fa7f53a-cbf2-4cd0-ac45-69c6821cc47e(a)y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > On Jun 19, 9:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:7c0e24b6-8c14-472a-bbfc-e8d4408b6d8c(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 19, 7:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:bf9c809a-1cbd-42ac-9ed1-4a77858493a4(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 12:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >>news:b0eec1c0-3967-4690-a5ad-42458893fa10(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >> >>news:a4cf3177-76db-41a9-9521-78a222a48ae2(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> [...]
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > transformation
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > coordinates.  Time can be measured about any way
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > imaginable.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> So is it your opinion that t and t' are just symbols
> >> >> >> >> >> >> devoid
> >> >> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> physical
> >> >> >> >> >> >> meaning?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > t'=t has a physical meaning.  It is what is called an
> >> >> >> >> >> > identity
> >> >> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> >> >> > algebra.  It means that t' is time on a clock in S.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> No .. it means t is the time shown on a correct clock in S
> >> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> >> t'
> >> >> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> >> time shown on a correct clock in S' .. and that these two
> >> >> >> >> >> times
> >> >> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> >> >> always
> >> >> >> >> >> the same.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Do you disagree ?
>
> >> >> >> >> > Certainly, I disagree.
>
> >> >> >> >> Then go learn some physics until you agree.
>
> >> >> >> >> >  Experiment shows that a clock in S' is
> >> >> >> >> > slower.
>
> >> >> >> >> Yes
>
> >> >> >> >> >  If Isaac Newton or Galileo had been given that information do
> >> >> >> >> > you think they would have continued to claim that the two
> >> >> >> >> > times
> >> >> >> >> > were
> >> >> >> >> > always the same?
>
> >> >> >> >> No .. they would probably have come up with something other
> >> >> >> >> thanGalilean
> >> >> >> >> transforms.  Are you not clever enough for that?
>
> >> >> >> >> [snip irrelevance]
>
> >> >> >> >> Nothing left to comment on
>
> >> >> >> > Anything else would have a length contraction.
>
> >> >> >> No .. there are other transforms one could write with no length
> >> >> >> contraction.
> >> >> >> You could also write transforms with length contraction and still
> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> t'
> >> >> >> =
> >> >> >> t.
>
> >> >> >> >  Sorry.
>
> >> >> >> No .. you're not
>
> >> >> >> >  TheGalilean
> >> >> >> > transformation equations are the only transformation equations
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > do
> >> >> >> > not have a length contraction.
>
> >> >> >> No, they aren't the only ones.   But regardless, they are proven to
> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >> WRONG
> >> >> >> by the very experiments you site (as have I) because the t' = t
> >> >> >> ofGalilean
> >> >> >> transforms MEANS that all synchonized correct clocks tick at the
> >> >> >> same
> >> >> >> rate
> >> >> >> and show the same time no matter where they are or how they (or
> >> >> >> those
> >> >> >> reading them) are moving.  That is what t' = t means.  So you
> >> >> >> cannot
> >> >> >> havea
> >> >> >> valid transform with t' = t in it.  You need to CHANGE theGalilean
> >> >> >> transforms to something OTHER than t' = t for them to be consistent
> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> know experimental evidence.  Your denial of those facts is your
> >> >> >> problem.
> >> >> >> Claiming otherwise is a lie.
>
> >> >> > I don't use clocks.
>
> >> >> Liar .. you explicitly talked about clocks
>
> >> >> >  I tell time by the rate of motion of S' relative
> >> >> > to S.
>
> >> >> Then that is your clock
>
> >> >> >  For example, if S' has a velocity of 10 feet per minute
> >> >> > relative to S, then I can put marks every ten feet on S', and every
> >> >> > minute a mark on S' will line up with a single mark on S.
>
> >> >> Then that is your clock
>
> >> >> >   Or I can
> >> >> > put marks every ten feet on S and every minute a mark on S will line
> >> >> > up with a single mark on S'.
>
> >> >> Then that is your clock
>
> >> >> >  That is what I mean by t'=t.
>
> >> >> It doesn't matter what YOU mean .. it matters what it means in terms
> >> >> of
> >> >> theGalileantransforms (which you claim to be using).  It means time is
> >> >> the
> >> >> same, and ticking rates the same, regardless of position or velocity.
> >> >> And
> >> >> as we know that is NOT the case, we know thatGalileantransforms are
> >> >> wrong.
>
> >> >> >  We are
> >> >> > going to do away with clocks because they confuse scientists.
>
> >> >> No .. they show you to be wrong.  Here's a tip: either get used to
> >> >> being
> >> >> wrong, or learn physics.
>
> >> > Well, I did learn the physics of this.
>
> >> Unlikely
>
> >> >  Now you have said that my
> >> > marks on S' and S constitute a clock, two clocks, to be exact, one
> >> > showing t and one showing t'.
>
> >> If you have something going at a known velocity in a given frame, then
> >> you
> >> can use the distance it travels in that frame as a clock .. yes.
>
> >> >    If you see nothing wrong with these two clocks, then perhaps we
> >> > might proceed.
> >> >    Now you have some sort of device in S' which repeats itself at
> >> > some rate which is not synchronized with t and t'.
>
> >> So its not a clock .. just some arbitrary thing
>
> >> >  You want to call
> >> > the rate of that device t'.
>
> >> Why?  That makes no sense .. t' is the time in S' .. not a ticking rate.
>
> >> >  You cannot do that because the variable
> >> > t' is already taken to denote the rate of advance of the marks on S
> >> > relative to a single mark on S'.
>
> >> No ... t' is the time in S'.  It doesn't mean it is the marks on S' ...
> >> those
> >> marks (along with some moving object) let you calculate the time.
>
> >> >  There is an axiom of algebra which
> >> > forbids the use of the same variable to show rates which differ from
> >> > each other, even if they are said to be measuring the same thing.
>
> >> These ones aren't.  Anf if theyu differ, then its not the same thing
>
> >> >  If
> >> > you are going to call the rate of the device in S' by the variable t',
>
> >> You don't.
>
> >> > then you first have to convert that rate of measurement so that it
> >> > agrees with the marks on S and S', which you agreed were clocks.  We
> >> > know one thing about the rate of the device in S'.  It shows the speed
> >> > of light to be 300,000 km/sec as counted by the device.
>
> >> Just as do the clock we have in S and S' already.
>
> >> Inventing some new device that does NOT keep correct time isn't going to
> >> be
> >> useful for working out a correct speed.
>
> >> > That means
> >> > that during a second counted by the device, light proceeds 300,000
> >> > km.
>
> >> No .. during one second of time t' it proceeds that far.  You said this
> >> other device is not  correct (not synched with the correct time in S')
> >> So
> >> you cannot use it to calculate the speed.
>
> >> > We can show how this relates to t'=t by the fact that light in S
> >> > proceeds 300,000 km/sec of time measured by t in that frame of
> >> > reference.
>
> >> And 300,000 km/sec in S' using distance travelled and time t'
>
> >> > In other words using the correct equations for Einstein's
> >> > analysis of the situation,
>
> >> >                     x'=x-vt
> >> >                    cn'=ct-vt
>
> >> > where n' is time as counted by the device in S'.
>
> >> n' isn't time .. its some other ticking rate that doesn't show correct
> >> time.
> >> So it doesn't give you a speed of c.
>
> >> Try again
>
> > Well, then we are not going beyond the marks on the two frames of
> > reference.
>
> OK .. tho it is  an odd way to tell time, as you need to make observations
> at different locations to tell what the time is.
>
> > You were the one who said the marks on S' measured against
> > a single mark on S constituted a clock.
>
> I said, that if you have an object moving with a known speed in S' past
> known separation marks, then you can use that as a clock
>
> >  But marks on S measured
> > against a single mark on S' do not constitute a clock because they
> > show t'=t.
>
> Why do you claim that?  Show your working why these two different clocks
> must show the same time at all times and in all places and regardless of
> motion (which is what t' = t says about the time in S' and S)
>
> >  So here is where science differs from reality,
>
> It doesn't
>
> > and there
> > is nothing to be gained from trying to discuss it further with
> > scientists.
>
> Because they show your claims to be nonsense.  You cannot use a transform
> that predicts the same time showing on all correct clocks regardless of
> location and speed, as it contradicts experiment.
>
> Science doesn't claim you can do this.  You do.  You are wrong
>
> >     However, just to show that it is not me who does not want to
> > discuss this, we can stipulate that the arbitrary device in S' shows
> > light to be traveling at 300,000 miles per second as measured by the
> > arbitrary device.
>
> We aren't talking about arbitrary devices .. we are talking about correct
> clocks.  If this 'device' is not showing correct time, then it cannot be
> used (with distance travelled) to calculate correct speed.
>
> > Since you have said that an arbitrary device is
> > worthless in science,
>
> It is as you are claiming to use it
>
> > maybe we should measure the speed of light in S'
> > relative to the marks on the frames of reference.  Has that ever been
> > done?
>
> We need to calculate the speed by how far it has travelled in a given time
> (or how long it takes to travel a given distance)
>
> >      You claim it has.  So if we set up an experiment in S' to
> > measure speed of light, then according to the marks on S measured
> > against the single mark on S', light in S' will be traveling at
> > 300,000 km/sec.
>
> It travels at that speed in all inertial frames of reference (like S and S')
>
> >      The problem you have is that there appears to be no such
> > experiment, and all experiments run in S' have been done with the
> > arbitrary device.
>
> This 'device' is simply a fiction you have invented.
>
> >     So back to the arbitrary device.
>
> Irrelevant.  We need to use correct clocks.
>
> >  We can determine by experiment
> > that its rate appears constant relative to S' and that it always shows
> > light to be traveling at 300,000 km for every tick of the arbitrary
> > device.
>
> So it is ticking at the correct rate
>
> >  By this we can conclude that if an experiment is run to
> > determine whether light is traveling at 300,000 km/sec as measured by
> > our marks on S', then the light would be traveling at a slower speed
> > than 300,000 km/sec.
>
> Wrong
>
> >  We do not know this for certain because
> > scientists have never run the experiment and can only conclude this
> > would be the result because that is what mathematics shows.
>
> There have been many experiments measuring the speed of light.  Try doing
> some research
>
> >      So what we had better do for the time being is just wait until
> > science destroys itself
>
> I'd rather see you destroy yourself ... more likely to happen soon
>
> > and watch the marks on S and S' to make sure
> > that they always match up because scientists have gone off into
> > witchcraft and are saying that if they get all scientists to agree
> > that the marks on S and S' do not match up, then there will be a
> > length contraction, and no one will be able to do a thing about it.
> > So that is what I intend to do.  I am going to watch the marks on S
> > and S'.  Science can decide for itself what to do with the arbitrary
> > devices.
>
> Ok .. you go and watch imaginary marks on imaginary frames and talk about
> your imaginary devices.
>
> Leave the science for those who understand it.

I understand what you are doing. I defined t'=t by marks on S' and
S. Now you claim that I cannot do that because it is only imaginary.
I don't even have to make imaginary marks. I can go to the store and
buy two rulers with marks already on them. Then I put the rulers
together on the table and slide one next to the other. The marks on
the rulers match up with t'=t during the entire process. I can take
the same reasoning and apply it to long distances and see why your
mathematics does not work. Suppose we have an astronaut in orbit
around the earth. A scientist on earth measures the speed of the
satellite using his clock on earth. He divides the length of an orbit
by the time his clock shows it takes for an orbit. Then he
communicates with the astronaut.
"Calculate your speed," he tells him.
So the astronaut looks at his altimeter, determines the length
of his orbit, and divides it by the time his clock shows for one
orbit.
According to scientists, he gets exactly the same speed the
scientist on the ground gets.
Now I am going to explain reality to you. The length of the
orbit is the same measured from the satellite or from the ground. If
the clock in the satellite shows less time, the astronaut will get a
faster speed for the satellite than the scientist on the ground. That
is just the way mathematics works.
So you think you can run a thimblerig game on me by just saying
you are a scientist. Go sell it somewhere else. There is no length
contraction. All you have is a slower clock in S', and the Galilean
transformation equations treat all slower clocks the same way. Figure
out how much slower your clock is, convert that time to t'=t, and use
the Galilean transformation equations.
It is not complicated at all.
From: Inertial on


"rbwinn" <rbwinn3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0209454-4c69-46a5-8191-922e405684f8(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 6:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9c8903b3-3aeb-4795-8aa1-2e6aaa247603(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 20, 2:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:9fa7f53a-cbf2-4cd0-ac45-69c6821cc47e(a)y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 19, 9:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:7c0e24b6-8c14-472a-bbfc-e8d4408b6d8c(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> > On Jun 19, 7:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >>news:bf9c809a-1cbd-42ac-9ed1-4a77858493a4(a)t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 12:40 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >> >>news:b0eec1c0-3967-4690-a5ad-42458893fa10(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>news:a4cf3177-76db-41a9-9521-78a222a48ae2(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, eric gisse
>> >> >> >> >> >> > <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> [...]
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > transformation
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > coordinates. Time can be measured about any way
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > imaginable.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> So is it your opinion that t and t' are just symbols
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> devoid
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> physical
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> meaning?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > t'=t has a physical meaning. It is what is called an
>> >> >> >> >> >> > identity
>> >> >> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> >> >> > algebra. It means that t' is time on a clock in S.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> No .. it means t is the time shown on a correct clock in S
>> >> >> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> >> >> t'
>> >> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> >> time shown on a correct clock in S' .. and that these two
>> >> >> >> >> >> times
>> >> >> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> >> >> always
>> >> >> >> >> >> the same.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Do you disagree ?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Certainly, I disagree.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Then go learn some physics until you agree.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Experiment shows that a clock in S' is
>> >> >> >> >> > slower.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Yes
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > If Isaac Newton or Galileo had been given that information
>> >> >> >> >> > do
>> >> >> >> >> > you think they would have continued to claim that the two
>> >> >> >> >> > times
>> >> >> >> >> > were
>> >> >> >> >> > always the same?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> No .. they would probably have come up with something other
>> >> >> >> >> thanGalilean
>> >> >> >> >> transforms. Are you not clever enough for that?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> [snip irrelevance]
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Nothing left to comment on
>>
>> >> >> >> > Anything else would have a length contraction.
>>
>> >> >> >> No .. there are other transforms one could write with no length
>> >> >> >> contraction.
>> >> >> >> You could also write transforms with length contraction and
>> >> >> >> still
>> >> >> >> with
>> >> >> >> t'
>> >> >> >> =
>> >> >> >> t.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Sorry.
>>
>> >> >> >> No .. you're not
>>
>> >> >> >> > TheGalilean
>> >> >> >> > transformation equations are the only transformation equations
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > do
>> >> >> >> > not have a length contraction.
>>
>> >> >> >> No, they aren't the only ones. But regardless, they are proven
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> be
>> >> >> >> WRONG
>> >> >> >> by the very experiments you site (as have I) because the t' = t
>> >> >> >> ofGalilean
>> >> >> >> transforms MEANS that all synchonized correct clocks tick at the
>> >> >> >> same
>> >> >> >> rate
>> >> >> >> and show the same time no matter where they are or how they (or
>> >> >> >> those
>> >> >> >> reading them) are moving. That is what t' = t means. So you
>> >> >> >> cannot
>> >> >> >> havea
>> >> >> >> valid transform with t' = t in it. You need to CHANGE
>> >> >> >> theGalilean
>> >> >> >> transforms to something OTHER than t' = t for them to be
>> >> >> >> consistent
>> >> >> >> with
>> >> >> >> know experimental evidence. Your denial of those facts is your
>> >> >> >> problem.
>> >> >> >> Claiming otherwise is a lie.
>>
>> >> >> > I don't use clocks.
>>
>> >> >> Liar .. you explicitly talked about clocks
>>
>> >> >> > I tell time by the rate of motion of S' relative
>> >> >> > to S.
>>
>> >> >> Then that is your clock
>>
>> >> >> > For example, if S' has a velocity of 10 feet per minute
>> >> >> > relative to S, then I can put marks every ten feet on S', and
>> >> >> > every
>> >> >> > minute a mark on S' will line up with a single mark on S.
>>
>> >> >> Then that is your clock
>>
>> >> >> > Or I can
>> >> >> > put marks every ten feet on S and every minute a mark on S will
>> >> >> > line
>> >> >> > up with a single mark on S'.
>>
>> >> >> Then that is your clock
>>
>> >> >> > That is what I mean by t'=t.
>>
>> >> >> It doesn't matter what YOU mean .. it matters what it means in
>> >> >> terms
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> theGalileantransforms (which you claim to be using). It means time
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> same, and ticking rates the same, regardless of position or
>> >> >> velocity.
>> >> >> And
>> >> >> as we know that is NOT the case, we know thatGalileantransforms are
>> >> >> wrong.
>>
>> >> >> > We are
>> >> >> > going to do away with clocks because they confuse scientists.
>>
>> >> >> No .. they show you to be wrong. Here's a tip: either get used to
>> >> >> being
>> >> >> wrong, or learn physics.
>>
>> >> > Well, I did learn the physics of this.
>>
>> >> Unlikely
>>
>> >> > Now you have said that my
>> >> > marks on S' and S constitute a clock, two clocks, to be exact, one
>> >> > showing t and one showing t'.
>>
>> >> If you have something going at a known velocity in a given frame, then
>> >> you
>> >> can use the distance it travels in that frame as a clock .. yes.
>>
>> >> > If you see nothing wrong with these two clocks, then perhaps we
>> >> > might proceed.
>> >> > Now you have some sort of device in S' which repeats itself at
>> >> > some rate which is not synchronized with t and t'.
>>
>> >> So its not a clock .. just some arbitrary thing
>>
>> >> > You want to call
>> >> > the rate of that device t'.
>>
>> >> Why? That makes no sense .. t' is the time in S' .. not a ticking
>> >> rate.
>>
>> >> > You cannot do that because the variable
>> >> > t' is already taken to denote the rate of advance of the marks on S
>> >> > relative to a single mark on S'.
>>
>> >> No ... t' is the time in S'. It doesn't mean it is the marks on S' ..
>> >> those
>> >> marks (along with some moving object) let you calculate the time.
>>
>> >> > There is an axiom of algebra which
>> >> > forbids the use of the same variable to show rates which differ from
>> >> > each other, even if they are said to be measuring the same thing.
>>
>> >> These ones aren't. Anf if theyu differ, then its not the same thing
>>
>> >> > If
>> >> > you are going to call the rate of the device in S' by the variable
>> >> > t',
>>
>> >> You don't.
>>
>> >> > then you first have to convert that rate of measurement so that it
>> >> > agrees with the marks on S and S', which you agreed were clocks. We
>> >> > know one thing about the rate of the device in S'. It shows the
>> >> > speed
>> >> > of light to be 300,000 km/sec as counted by the device.
>>
>> >> Just as do the clock we have in S and S' already.
>>
>> >> Inventing some new device that does NOT keep correct time isn't going
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >> useful for working out a correct speed.
>>
>> >> > That means
>> >> > that during a second counted by the device, light proceeds 300,000
>> >> > km.
>>
>> >> No .. during one second of time t' it proceeds that far. You said
>> >> this
>> >> other device is not correct (not synched with the correct time in S')
>> >> So
>> >> you cannot use it to calculate the speed.
>>
>> >> > We can show how this relates to t'=t by the fact that light in S
>> >> > proceeds 300,000 km/sec of time measured by t in that frame of
>> >> > reference.
>>
>> >> And 300,000 km/sec in S' using distance travelled and time t'
>>
>> >> > In other words using the correct equations for Einstein's
>> >> > analysis of the situation,
>>
>> >> > x'=x-vt
>> >> > cn'=ct-vt
>>
>> >> > where n' is time as counted by the device in S'.
>>
>> >> n' isn't time .. its some other ticking rate that doesn't show correct
>> >> time.
>> >> So it doesn't give you a speed of c.
>>
>> >> Try again
>>
>> > Well, then we are not going beyond the marks on the two frames of
>> > reference.
>>
>> OK .. tho it is an odd way to tell time, as you need to make
>> observations
>> at different locations to tell what the time is.
>>
>> > You were the one who said the marks on S' measured against
>> > a single mark on S constituted a clock.
>>
>> I said, that if you have an object moving with a known speed in S' past
>> known separation marks, then you can use that as a clock
>>
>> > But marks on S measured
>> > against a single mark on S' do not constitute a clock because they
>> > show t'=t.
>>
>> Why do you claim that? Show your working why these two different clocks
>> must show the same time at all times and in all places and regardless of
>> motion (which is what t' = t says about the time in S' and S)
>>
>> > So here is where science differs from reality,
>>
>> It doesn't
>>
>> > and there
>> > is nothing to be gained from trying to discuss it further with
>> > scientists.
>>
>> Because they show your claims to be nonsense. You cannot use a transform
>> that predicts the same time showing on all correct clocks regardless of
>> location and speed, as it contradicts experiment.
>>
>> Science doesn't claim you can do this. You do. You are wrong
>>
>> > However, just to show that it is not me who does not want to
>> > discuss this, we can stipulate that the arbitrary device in S' shows
>> > light to be traveling at 300,000 miles per second as measured by the
>> > arbitrary device.
>>
>> We aren't talking about arbitrary devices .. we are talking about correct
>> clocks. If this 'device' is not showing correct time, then it cannot be
>> used (with distance travelled) to calculate correct speed.
>>
>> > Since you have said that an arbitrary device is
>> > worthless in science,
>>
>> It is as you are claiming to use it
>>
>> > maybe we should measure the speed of light in S'
>> > relative to the marks on the frames of reference. Has that ever been
>> > done?
>>
>> We need to calculate the speed by how far it has travelled in a given
>> time
>> (or how long it takes to travel a given distance)
>>
>> > You claim it has. So if we set up an experiment in S' to
>> > measure speed of light, then according to the marks on S measured
>> > against the single mark on S', light in S' will be traveling at
>> > 300,000 km/sec.
>>
>> It travels at that speed in all inertial frames of reference (like S and
>> S')
>>
>> > The problem you have is that there appears to be no such
>> > experiment, and all experiments run in S' have been done with the
>> > arbitrary device.
>>
>> This 'device' is simply a fiction you have invented.
>>
>> > So back to the arbitrary device.
>>
>> Irrelevant. We need to use correct clocks.
>>
>> > We can determine by experiment
>> > that its rate appears constant relative to S' and that it always shows
>> > light to be traveling at 300,000 km for every tick of the arbitrary
>> > device.
>>
>> So it is ticking at the correct rate
>>
>> > By this we can conclude that if an experiment is run to
>> > determine whether light is traveling at 300,000 km/sec as measured by
>> > our marks on S', then the light would be traveling at a slower speed
>> > than 300,000 km/sec.
>>
>> Wrong
>>
>> > We do not know this for certain because
>> > scientists have never run the experiment and can only conclude this
>> > would be the result because that is what mathematics shows.
>>
>> There have been many experiments measuring the speed of light. Try doing
>> some research
>>
>> > So what we had better do for the time being is just wait until
>> > science destroys itself
>>
>> I'd rather see you destroy yourself ... more likely to happen soon
>>
>> > and watch the marks on S and S' to make sure
>> > that they always match up because scientists have gone off into
>> > witchcraft and are saying that if they get all scientists to agree
>> > that the marks on S and S' do not match up, then there will be a
>> > length contraction, and no one will be able to do a thing about it.
>> > So that is what I intend to do. I am going to watch the marks on S
>> > and S'. Science can decide for itself what to do with the arbitrary
>> > devices.
>>
>> Ok .. you go and watch imaginary marks on imaginary frames and talk about
>> your imaginary devices.
>>
>> Leave the science for those who understand it.
>
> I understand what you are doing.

No .. you don't

> I defined t'=t by marks on S' and
> S.

No .. you didn't

> Now you claim that I cannot do that because it is only imaginary.

Of course they are

> I don't even have to make imaginary marks. I can go to the store and
> buy two rulers with marks already on them.

Fine .. off you go then

> Then I put the rulers
> together on the table and slide one next to the other.

Fine .. go do it

> The marks on
> the rulers match up with t'=t during the entire process.

At such low speed you'll find the marks line up with each other. That
doesn't mean t' = t. It has nothing to do with time (other than it taking
some amount of time to slide the rulers)

> I can take
> the same reasoning and apply it to long distances and see why your
> mathematics does not work.

It works just fine

> Suppose we have an astronaut in orbit
> around the earth. A scientist on earth measures the speed of the
> satellite using his clock on earth.

Fine

> He divides the length of an orbit
> by the time his clock shows it takes for an orbit. Then he
> communicates with the astronaut.
> "Calculate your speed," he tells him.
> So the astronaut looks at his altimeter, determines the length
> of his orbit, and divides it by the time his clock shows for one
> orbit.

So?

> According to scientists, he gets exactly the same speed the
> scientist on the ground gets.

No .. he doesn't. The equivalent of this has been done with GPS satellites.

And you're in the realm of SR now, with time affected by gravitational
potential.

> Now I am going to explain reality to you.

You don't understand it

> The length of the
> orbit is the same measured from the satellite or from the ground. If
> the clock in the satellite shows less time, the astronaut will get a
> faster speed for the satellite than the scientist on the ground. That
> is just the way mathematics works.
> So you think you can run a thimblerig game on me by just saying
> you are a scientist.

Nope.

> Go sell it somewhere else.

No need

> There is no length
> contraction.

Prove it

> All you have is a slower clock in S',

Which refutes Galilean Transforms

>and the Galilean
> transformation equations treat all slower clocks the same way.

Nope

> Figure
> out how much slower your clock is, convert that time to t'=t, and use
> the Galilean transformation equations.
> It is not complicated at all.

You wouldn't know. You're ignorant.