Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 09:12 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:d1fbbc7c-04a9-4f1f-813d-8ae9bc0040b5(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 8:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:08e3de29-d204-468e-831e-45ff14abe0d4(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 8:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >>news:6305349b-3cdb-49b7-b4dd-a5e6e48a46f4(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 7:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> > [...] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> talking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> about >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> additonal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> optical illusions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > No, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes .. you were. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ================= >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > which >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > already >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > agreed >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > are >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "illusions". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> illusion. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> same >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that i >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> already described in detail before >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In view of Noether's work with GR and the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > might fly relative to another aeroplane on >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > some course that would weaken an air marshal's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > bullet. That would violate PoR. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path >> >> >> >> >> >> > that is changing length under the term "illusion" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > but you say there is some other effect that >> >> >> >> >> >> > causes a clock to slow. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> To be measured as slow .. yes >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Just to be clear to >> >> >> >> >> >> > what you are referring we need to be more >> >> >> >> >> >> > specific about the *process* that marks time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Doesn't matter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both >> >> >> >> >> >> > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors >> >> >> >> >> >> > connected with long wires to that dynamo. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a >> >> >> >> >> >> > revolution of both clocks motors. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > What part of the voyage and by what *process* >> >> >> >> >> >> > do the clocks get out of sync? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> They are never IN sync in the frames in which they are out >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> sync. >> >> >> >> >> >> So >> >> >> >> >> >> its >> >> >> >> >> >> not a matter of an process changing the sync when it was >> >> >> >> >> >> never >> >> >> >> >> >> there >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> start with. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Are they always in sync when comoving, >> >> >> >> >> >> If you mean before they changed motion, then we can assume so >> >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> >> >> as >> >> >> >> >> long >> >> >> >> >> as >> >> >> >> >> we need to consider. >> >> >> >> >> >> > regardless >> >> >> >> >> > of there history? >> >> >> >> >> >> Unless they were not always accurate clocks, or at some time >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> past >> >> >> >> >> their settings were changed. As this is a Gedanken, we can >> >> >> >> >> imagine >> >> >> >> >> them >> >> >> >> >> as >> >> >> >> >> existing and ticking for as long as we want. >> >> >> >> >> > I am as baffled as Ste. >> >> >> >> >> Not surprising >> >> >> >> >> > We have a constant length >> >> >> >> > path to the master clock (dynamo) that never looses >> >> >> >> > a tick. >> >> >> >> >> What master clock.. That is not in the scenario being >> >> >> >> discussed. >> >> >> >> We >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> two clocks in sync a fixed distance apart .. then they move >> >> >> >> toward >> >> >> >> each >> >> >> >> other, and finnally meet each other and remain in sync. >> >> >> >> > If you don't understand the *process* by which >> >> >> >> You are off topic again >> >> >> > It is not off topic to inquire about the >> >> > clock mechanism. >> >> >> Yes it is .. in a gedanken like this e assume clock mechanism keep >> >> correct >> >> time .. we don't need to know how the clock is made. >> >> > We may as well assume the pizza slice is photo >> > sensitive and the slice offered on e-bay with >> > the image of the Virgin Mary is the real thing. >> >> Nonsense .. as usual from Sue >> >> > I have offered three valid mechanism >> >> Which don't make any difference >> >> > none of >> > which confirm any effects other than >> > consistency with the principle of relativity. >> >> Which is just what I am claiming .. the effects are consistent with the >> PoR. >> They are SR predictions. Your clock mechanisms, the details of which are >> irrelevant anyway, don't change that. > > OK... If they irrelevant then choose one > at random. > > A) Gun and metre stick > > B) Synchronous motors with shared dynamo. They are irrelevant, so it doesn't matter. Do you not understand the word 'irrelevant' .. silly me, look who I'm talking to .. the queen of irrelevance. As long as the clock marks time accurately and reliably, its mechanism is unimportant. This is a gedanken.
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 09:28 On Apr 12, 9:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:d1fbbc7c-04a9-4f1f-813d-8ae9bc0040b5(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 12, 8:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >>news:08e3de29-d204-468e-831e-45ff14abe0d4(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Apr 12, 8:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >> >>news:6305349b-3cdb-49b7-b4dd-a5e6e48a46f4(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Apr 12, 7:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >> > [...] > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> talking > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> about > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> additonal > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> optical illusions. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > No, > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes .. you were. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ================= > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > which > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > already > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > agreed > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > are > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "illusions". > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> illusion. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> same > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that i > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> already described in detail before > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In view of Noether's work with GR and the > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > might fly relative to another aeroplane on > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > some course that would weaken an air marshal's > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > bullet. That would violate PoR. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path > >> >> >> >> >> >> > that is changing length under the term "illusion" > > >> >> >> >> >> >> It is > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > but you say there is some other effect that > >> >> >> >> >> >> > causes a clock to slow. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> To be measured as slow .. yes > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Just to be clear to > >> >> >> >> >> >> > what you are referring we need to be more > >> >> >> >> >> >> > specific about the *process* that marks time. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Doesn't matter > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both > >> >> >> >> >> >> > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors > >> >> >> >> >> >> > connected with long wires to that dynamo. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a > >> >> >> >> >> >> > revolution of both clocks motors. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > What part of the voyage and by what *process* > >> >> >> >> >> >> > do the clocks get out of sync? > > >> >> >> >> >> >> They are never IN sync in the frames in which they are out > >> >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> >> sync. > >> >> >> >> >> >> So > >> >> >> >> >> >> its > >> >> >> >> >> >> not a matter of an process changing the sync when it was > >> >> >> >> >> >> never > >> >> >> >> >> >> there > >> >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> >> start with. > > >> >> >> >> >> > Are they always in sync when comoving, > > >> >> >> >> >> If you mean before they changed motion, then we can assume so > >> >> >> >> >> for > >> >> >> >> >> as > >> >> >> >> >> long > >> >> >> >> >> as > >> >> >> >> >> we need to consider. > > >> >> >> >> >> > regardless > >> >> >> >> >> > of there history? > > >> >> >> >> >> Unless they were not always accurate clocks, or at some time > >> >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> past > >> >> >> >> >> their settings were changed. As this is a Gedanken, we can > >> >> >> >> >> imagine > >> >> >> >> >> them > >> >> >> >> >> as > >> >> >> >> >> existing and ticking for as long as we want. > > >> >> >> >> > I am as baffled as Ste. > > >> >> >> >> Not surprising > > >> >> >> >> > We have a constant length > >> >> >> >> > path to the master clock (dynamo) that never looses > >> >> >> >> > a tick. > > >> >> >> >> What master clock.. That is not in the scenario being > >> >> >> >> discussed. > >> >> >> >> We > >> >> >> >> have > >> >> >> >> two clocks in sync a fixed distance apart .. then they move > >> >> >> >> toward > >> >> >> >> each > >> >> >> >> other, and finnally meet each other and remain in sync. > > >> >> >> > If you don't understand the *process* by which > > >> >> >> You are off topic again > > >> >> > It is not off topic to inquire about the > >> >> > clock mechanism. > > >> >> Yes it is .. in a gedanken like this e assume clock mechanism keep > >> >> correct > >> >> time .. we don't need to know how the clock is made. > > >> > We may as well assume the pizza slice is photo > >> > sensitive and the slice offered on e-bay with > >> > the image of the Virgin Mary is the real thing. > > >> Nonsense .. as usual from Sue > > >> > I have offered three valid mechanism > > >> Which don't make any difference > > >> > none of > >> > which confirm any effects other than > >> > consistency with the principle of relativity. > > >> Which is just what I am claiming .. the effects are consistent with the > >> PoR. > >> They are SR predictions. Your clock mechanisms, the details of which are > >> irrelevant anyway, don't change that. > > > OK... If they irrelevant then choose one > > at random. > > > A) Gun and metre stick > > > B) Synchronous motors with shared dynamo. > > They are irrelevant, so it doesn't matter. Do you not understand the word > 'irrelevant' .. silly me, look who I'm talking to .. the queen of > irrelevance. > > As long as the clock marks time accurately and reliably, its mechanism is > unimportant. This is a gedanken. For inertial effects, a gun and meter stick marks time accurately because: K.E. = 1/2 mc^2 Can you explain what "relativistic" effects we can observe that are not related to a changing optical path to a remote clock? "illusions" Does the meter stick tie itself in a knot? Do atoms in the bullet vaporise? Do space gremlins eat the powder? Sue...
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 09:31 On Apr 12, 9:28 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 12, 9:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:d1fbbc7c-04a9-4f1f-813d-8ae9bc0040b5(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Apr 12, 8:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >>news:08e3de29-d204-468e-831e-45ff14abe0d4(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> > On Apr 12, 8:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:6305349b-3cdb-49b7-b4dd-a5e6e48a46f4(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups..com... > > > >> >> > On Apr 12, 7:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >> > [...] > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> talking > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> about > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> additonal > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> optical illusions. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > No, > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes .. you were. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > ================= > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > which > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > already > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > agreed > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > are > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "illusions". > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> illusion. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> same > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that i > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> already described in detail before > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In view of Noether's work with GR and the > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > might fly relative to another aeroplane on > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > some course that would weaken an air marshal's > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > bullet. That would violate PoR. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing? > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > that is changing length under the term "illusion" > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> It is > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > but you say there is some other effect that > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > causes a clock to slow. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> To be measured as slow .. yes > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Just to be clear to > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > what you are referring we need to be more > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > specific about the *process* that marks time. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Doesn't matter > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > connected with long wires to that dynamo. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > revolution of both clocks motors. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > What part of the voyage and by what *process* > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > do the clocks get out of sync? > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> They are never IN sync in the frames in which they are out > > >> >> >> >> >> >> of > > >> >> >> >> >> >> sync. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> So > > >> >> >> >> >> >> its > > >> >> >> >> >> >> not a matter of an process changing the sync when it was > > >> >> >> >> >> >> never > > >> >> >> >> >> >> there > > >> >> >> >> >> >> to > > >> >> >> >> >> >> start with. > > > >> >> >> >> >> > Are they always in sync when comoving, > > > >> >> >> >> >> If you mean before they changed motion, then we can assume so > > >> >> >> >> >> for > > >> >> >> >> >> as > > >> >> >> >> >> long > > >> >> >> >> >> as > > >> >> >> >> >> we need to consider. > > > >> >> >> >> >> > regardless > > >> >> >> >> >> > of there history? > > > >> >> >> >> >> Unless they were not always accurate clocks, or at some time > > >> >> >> >> >> in > > >> >> >> >> >> the > > >> >> >> >> >> past > > >> >> >> >> >> their settings were changed. As this is a Gedanken, we can > > >> >> >> >> >> imagine > > >> >> >> >> >> them > > >> >> >> >> >> as > > >> >> >> >> >> existing and ticking for as long as we want. > > > >> >> >> >> > I am as baffled as Ste. > > > >> >> >> >> Not surprising > > > >> >> >> >> > We have a constant length > > >> >> >> >> > path to the master clock (dynamo) that never looses > > >> >> >> >> > a tick. > > > >> >> >> >> What master clock.. That is not in the scenario being > > >> >> >> >> discussed. > > >> >> >> >> We > > >> >> >> >> have > > >> >> >> >> two clocks in sync a fixed distance apart .. then they move > > >> >> >> >> toward > > >> >> >> >> each > > >> >> >> >> other, and finnally meet each other and remain in sync. > > > >> >> >> > If you don't understand the *process* by which > > > >> >> >> You are off topic again > > > >> >> > It is not off topic to inquire about the > > >> >> > clock mechanism. > > > >> >> Yes it is .. in a gedanken like this e assume clock mechanism keep > > >> >> correct > > >> >> time .. we don't need to know how the clock is made. > > > >> > We may as well assume the pizza slice is photo > > >> > sensitive and the slice offered on e-bay with > > >> > the image of the Virgin Mary is the real thing. > > > >> Nonsense .. as usual from Sue > > > >> > I have offered three valid mechanism > > > >> Which don't make any difference > > > >> > none of > > >> > which confirm any effects other than > > >> > consistency with the principle of relativity. > > > >> Which is just what I am claiming .. the effects are consistent with the > > >> PoR. > > >> They are SR predictions. Your clock mechanisms, the details of which are > > >> irrelevant anyway, don't change that. > > > > OK... If they irrelevant then choose one > > > at random. > > > > A) Gun and metre stick > > > > B) Synchronous motors with shared dynamo. > > > They are irrelevant, so it doesn't matter. Do you not understand the word > > 'irrelevant' .. silly me, look who I'm talking to .. the queen of > > irrelevance. > > > As long as the clock marks time accurately and reliably, its mechanism is > > unimportant. This is a gedanken. > > For inertial effects, a gun and meter stick > marks time accurately because: > > K.E. = 1/2 mc^2 > > Can you explain what "relativistic" effects > we can observe that are not related to > a changing optical path to a remote clock? > "illusions" > > Does the meter stick tie itself in a knot? > Do atoms in the bullet vaporise? > Do space gremlins eat the powder? > > Sue... K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 09:55 On 12 Apr, 12:15, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:95400b2a-0896-4610-881b-0f5c32444782(a)z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > On 12 Apr, 11:50, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> Then that is your problem. It doesn't mean the physics is wrong ... > >> >> just > >> >> you > >> >> are unwilling to accept that it is right. > > >> > I didn't say physics was wrong. > > >> Yes .. you have > > > What I've suggested is that some interpretations may be faulty. > > Yes .. yours. Particularly about synchrnoisation. > > > > >> > I was alluding more to Paul's notions > >> > about premonition and cause, or about the universe not being governed > >> > by cause and effect, which I think is nonsense (and so would many > >> > physicists). > > >> Yet in the QM world, effect can precede cause. Lets not got there yet > >> :):) > > > Yes, we'll leave that for now, because I strongly disagree with the > > idea. > > Its not a matter of whether you agree with it or not .. it is a fact. It is a matter of whether I agree with it. But as I said, rather than kick off another argument on an unrelated issue, let's pin down SR first.
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 09:57
On 12 Apr, 12:52, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:383eec51-82b0-49b1-9dfb-93717d6eff77(a)u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 12 Apr, 09:23, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:62792735-a8f8-4444-beb9-08a9f2076d72(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > >> On 12 Apr, 05:09, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> > >> > to clarify is that, even if > >> > >> > there is only a negligible distance between them, if there is a > >> > >> > relativistic difference in velocity, then there will still be a > >> > >> > fixed > >> > >> > amount of time lag? > > >> > >> Of course, they will be moving, so they won't stay negligibly > >> > >> distant. > > >> > > Agreed, but the point is that even when they *are* negligibly > >> > > distant, > >> > > there will still be this fixed amount of lag based on relative > >> > > velocity, yes? In other words, velocity relative to the coordinate > >> > > system is the sole variable? > > >> > Not the sole variable. You need boy distance and velocity. If either or > >> > both are small, the effect is small. > > >> This is where I've become confused again. I'm trying to establish the > >> amount of retardation (or advance) in the distant (i.e. moving) clock > >> as against the local clock. We've accounted for propagation delays, > >> and we're disregarding them completely. > > >> Now, to what degree is the distant clock appearing retarded (or > >> advanced), and how (i.e. to what degree) is that retardation or > >> advance related to: > >> a) distance; and > >> b) velocity? > > >> __________________________________________ > >> If you are excluding propogation delays, why the word "appearing", which > >> implies what you see after propgation delays? > > > I was attributing no specialised meaning to the word "appearing". > > >> Assuming this was some kind of typo, the relative rate of clocks ticking > >> is > >> given by the Lorentz formula. This contains a variable for the relative > >> speed ("v"), but *not* the relative distance apart, which quite literally > >> doesn't enter the equation. > > > Then you'll understand my confusion, because Inertial said relative > > distance *did* enter into the equation. > > I suspect not. > > Inertial knows what he is talking about. > > But as is typical of you, you don't provide an exact quote; you are almost > certainly either lying or didn't understand what he said. > > I normally ask you for the direct quote, but you never provide it, so I > won't bother doing this again. > > > > > > > > >> > > And it's not relative distance (in the same way it is for propagation > >> > > delays), > > >> > Stop talking about propagation delays .. they are irrelevant here. > > >> I was using it to demarcate the variable involved (in this case, > >> relative distance, and in the case below with Doppler, change of > >> relative distance). > > >> __________________________________ > >> All you have done is muddy the waters. The difference in rate at which > >> clocks tick has *nothing* to do with their separation, only their > >> relative > >> velocity. What you will actually see does depend upon the separation, as > >> what you actually see includes a propogation delay, which is a function > >> of > >> their separation. > > >> Got it yet? > > > So if we disregard the propagation delay (and as far as I'm concerned, > > I thought we had already agreed to do so many posts ago), there is > > then a fixed (i.e. depending only on the one variable in question) > > retardation (or advancement?) of the distant clock that is dependent > > on relative velocity? > > No. The rate changes. It is not a "fixed" retardation. > > Is it poor comprehension on your part, or are you deliberately trying to not > understand? > > So many things get explained to you so many times, yet you never seem to > understand them. Has it ever occurred to you, even for a moment, that it may have something to do with how it is being explained? |