Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 25 Jul 2010 22:49 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 24, 9:49 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The speed of light, a fundamental constant of the universe, does not >> need any human originated units to exist. It is a constant, Seto! All >> observer measure is speed the same, c! >Hey idiot....how can the speed of light be a fundamental constant when >the clock second use to measure light speed is not a universal >interval of time?? But it is. >....for example the passage of a clcok second in A's >frame corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame. Wrong. A simply measures B's clock as running slow as far as A's clock is concerned. In A's frame, A's clock is just fine. Similarly, B simply measures A's clock as running slow as far as B's clock is concerned. In B's frame, B's clock is just fine.
From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 04:51 On 25 Juli, 20:51, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/25/10 1:31 PM, JT wrote: > > > > > > > On 25 Juli, 18:25, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/25/10 8:42 AM, JT wrote: > > >>> On 25 Juli, 15:40, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/25/10 6:21 AM, JT wrote: > > >>>>> ... if there really is any such creature like time dilation by Lorentz gamma > >>>>> factor which is highly suspectfull. > > >>>> Time dilation measurement are made in supernovae explosions, in > >>>> cosmic ray muons, etc. Do you not read the literature, JT? > > >>>> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > >>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > >>> Bwahahahaha you are funny Sam. > > >>> JT > > >> Glad you find verification of time dilation so funny, JT! Enjoy your > >> ignorance. > > > Well if you measure it with a banana i guess you measured banana > > units. > > > JT > > Actually a banana can be used for DISTANCE measurements, whereas > TIME measure is the way to go for time dilation.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Of course Sam but would it not be nice if the ***AIRHEADS*** used bananas of same length in their gedankens, before they draw the faulthy conclusion that light moves invariant at c thru space? You see even in SR that is only valid for observers measuring light in their inertial frame, not from a third party observer, watching velocity of the infalling light AKA closing speed relative an object. Throw out the airheads from physic. JT
From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 04:54 On 25 Juli, 15:01, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 24, 11:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >On Jul 24, 6:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >> >On Jul 23, 10:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >> >wrote: > > >> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > >> >> >> Nevertheless, Ken, if there is a difference in the absolute motion > > >> >> >> from top to bottom, then this means that there is a relative motion. > > >> >> >No absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. At the > > >> >> >bottom of the buidling the source is at a standard frequency....light > > >> >> >from the bottom to the top shows a frequency shift that means that the > > >> >> >top is in a different state of absolute motion. > > > >> >> If there is a difference in motion between two objects, there is *always* > > >> >> a relative motion between them. > > >> >Helloooo....idiot, absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt > > >> >light. > > > >> OK, so everything in the universe has an absolute motion velocity of c. > > >> Sounds like a pretty useless concept, because light always moves at c > > >> relative to all observers. > > >No....the speed of light in the aether is c. > > > Well, since the speed of light in a vacuum is c, we must conclude that > > what you call "aether" is really the vacuum, therefore you are stating the > > aether doesn't exist. I'll add "aether" to the list of words you've > > redefined. > > Uou are an idiot....the aether occupies all of space (vacuum). > > > > > > The absolute motion of an > > >object is V_a which is less than c. > > > Well, yes, any object with mass cannot move at c. > > > > The relativevelocity of an object > > >wrt light is c-/+V_a > > > Nope, all observers always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c. > > This is a fundamental basis of physics, and has been measured to high > > accuracy for years. > > Hey idiot the one-way speed of light never been measured. The reason > is that the value for the one-way speed of light is distance > dependent. The speed of light is a defined constant ratio as follows: > 1-light-second/1 second. > > > > > So, in order for your statement to be true, we can only conclude the > > variable you call V_a must always be zero, therefore the "absolute motion" > > of all objects is zero, so "absolute motion" is a meaningless term. > > No idiot....frequency shift between the source and the detector is > indication of difference in absolute motion between the source and the > detector. > > > > > In fact the reason why the meter has been redefined in terms of c is > > because of the fact that c is a fundamental constant of the universe, like > > h, or G, or alpha or several others. > > No the speed of light is defined to be c to fix SR. the mesure one-way > speed of light using physical ruler does not have a constant value of > c.....it is distance dependent. > > >The earlier definitions of the meter > > (the length of some bar in Paris, or the number of waves of a krypton > > atom) means that trying to measure a velocity has two sources of error, > > the error in the definition of a second, and the error in the definition > > of a meter. Since c is a fundamental constant of the universe, it makes > > sense to define the meter and second in terms of each other. Since we can > > measure the second to better accuracy than the length of a bar in Paris or > > even the length of a bunch of wavelengths of krypton light, it makes more > > sense to define the meter in terms of the second than the other way > > around. > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Hello again Ken i am really keen on knowing what received framerates at ***earth***, does your IRT theory predict for two transmitters leaving earth at 0.3 c respective 0.6 c. Ooops forgot to say the transmissions is PAL 24 FPS. It is a very interesting subject Ken, so please answer. JT
From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 05:06 On 25 Juli, 20:51, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/25/10 1:31 PM, JT wrote: > > > > > > > On 25 Juli, 18:25, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/25/10 8:42 AM, JT wrote: > > >>> On 25 Juli, 15:40, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/25/10 6:21 AM, JT wrote: > > >>>>> ... if there really is any such creature like time dilation by Lorentz gamma > >>>>> factor which is highly suspectfull. > > >>>> Time dilation measurement are made in supernovae explosions, in > >>>> cosmic ray muons, etc. Do you not read the literature, JT? > > >>>> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > >>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > >>> Bwahahahaha you are funny Sam. > > >>> JT > > >> Glad you find verification of time dilation so funny, JT! Enjoy your > >> ignorance. > > > Well if you measure it with a banana i guess you measured banana > > units. > > > JT > > Actually a banana can be used for DISTANCE measurements, whereas > TIME measure is the way to go for time dilation.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Actually the second part is wrong to Sam you cannot measure time dilation, the only way to prove time dilation is by comparisson by synched clocks and notice a discrepancy between them. JT
From: kenseto on 26 Jul 2010 10:45
On Jul 26, 4:54 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 25 Juli, 15:01, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 11:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > wrote: > > > > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > >On Jul 24, 6:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > >wrote: > > > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > >> >On Jul 23, 10:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > >> >wrote: > > > >> >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > > > >> >> >> Nevertheless, Ken, if there is a difference in the absolute motion > > > >> >> >> from top to bottom, then this means that there is a relative motion. > > > >> >> >No absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt light. At the > > > >> >> >bottom of the buidling the source is at a standard frequency.....light > > > >> >> >from the bottom to the top shows a frequency shift that means that the > > > >> >> >top is in a different state of absolute motion. > > > > >> >> If there is a difference in motion between two objects, there is *always* > > > >> >> a relative motion between them. > > > >> >Helloooo....idiot, absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt > > > >> >light. > > > > >> OK, so everything in the universe has an absolute motion velocity of c. > > > >> Sounds like a pretty useless concept, because light always moves at c > > > >> relative to all observers. > > > >No....the speed of light in the aether is c. > > > > Well, since the speed of light in a vacuum is c, we must conclude that > > > what you call "aether" is really the vacuum, therefore you are stating the > > > aether doesn't exist. I'll add "aether" to the list of words you've > > > redefined. > > > Uou are an idiot....the aether occupies all of space (vacuum). > > > > > The absolute motion of an > > > >object is V_a which is less than c. > > > > Well, yes, any object with mass cannot move at c. > > > > > The relativevelocity of an object > > > >wrt light is c-/+V_a > > > > Nope, all observers always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c. > > > This is a fundamental basis of physics, and has been measured to high > > > accuracy for years. > > > Hey idiot the one-way speed of light never been measured. The reason > > is that the value for the one-way speed of light is distance > > dependent. The speed of light is a defined constant ratio as follows: > > 1-light-second/1 second. > > > > So, in order for your statement to be true, we can only conclude the > > > variable you call V_a must always be zero, therefore the "absolute motion" > > > of all objects is zero, so "absolute motion" is a meaningless term. > > > No idiot....frequency shift between the source and the detector is > > indication of difference in absolute motion between the source and the > > detector. > > > > In fact the reason why the meter has been redefined in terms of c is > > > because of the fact that c is a fundamental constant of the universe, like > > > h, or G, or alpha or several others. > > > No the speed of light is defined to be c to fix SR. the mesure one-way > > speed of light using physical ruler does not have a constant value of > > c.....it is distance dependent. > > > >The earlier definitions of the meter > > > (the length of some bar in Paris, or the number of waves of a krypton > > > atom) means that trying to measure a velocity has two sources of error, > > > the error in the definition of a second, and the error in the definition > > > of a meter. Since c is a fundamental constant of the universe, it makes > > > sense to define the meter and second in terms of each other. Since we can > > > measure the second to better accuracy than the length of a bar in Paris or > > > even the length of a bunch of wavelengths of krypton light, it makes more > > > sense to define the meter in terms of the second than the other way > > > around. > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > Hello again Ken i am really keen on knowing what received framerates > at ***earth***, does your IRT > theory predict for two transmitters leaving earth at 0.3 c respective > 0.6 c. IRT uses the same equation as SRT: f'=f_o[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]^1/2 For source receding at 0.3c: f'=24[(1-0.3)/(1+0.3)]^1/2=17.61 FPS For source receding at 0.6c: f'=24[(1-0.6)/(1+0.6)]^1/2=12.0 FPS > > Ooops forgot to say the transmissions is PAL 24 FPS. > > It is a very interesting subject Ken, so please answer. > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |