Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist"
Next: If Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences" how can it be trusted
From: PD on 19 Jul 2010 12:49
On Jul 17, 9:03 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 9:34 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Properties of a preferred frame:
> > > 1. The speed of light is isotropic.
> > > 2. The speed one-way or two way speed of light is constant and it is
> > > not distance dependent....even if it is measured using physical meter
> > > stick.
> > > 3. A clock at rest in the preferred frame is the fastest running
> > > clock
> > > in the universe....in other words, all the clocks moving with the
> > > preferred clock are running slower.
> > > 4. The material length of a meter stick at rest in the preferred
> > > frame
> > > is 1 meter long materially.
> > > 5.  The material length of a meter stick moving wrt the perferred
> > > frame is 1 meter long materially.
> > > 6. The light path length of a meter stick at rest in the preferred
> > > frame is the same as its materially length ....in other words, 1
> > > meter
> > > long materially
> > > 7. The light path length of a meter stick moving wrt the preferred
> > > frame is shorter than its material length.
> > > 8. There is only one preferred frame exists and no object in the
> > > universe is at rest in this preferred frame.
>
> > This is not what is meant by a "preferred frame" in physics.
>
> So why don't you be specific and give us the specific properties of a
> preferred frame in physics????

I have. You keep asking for incidentals that don't define the
preferred frame.

What are the properties of a mammal? How many legs does a mammal have?
Answer those two questions and you'll see what you're doing.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If you would like to use the above definition to define some kind of
> > frame, then you can feel free to do so, and give it a Seto-specific
> > name. Just don't call it a "preferred frame" and use that term in
> > conversation with physicists. It would be the same if you decided that
> > the properties of a zebra were that it was a black and white
> > flightless bird that lived in the Antarctic, and then talked about
> > zebras in the Antarctic with zoologists. They would think you were off
> > your nut.
>
> > > Properties of an inertial frame in IRT:
> > > 1. The speed of light in any inertial frame is isotropic.
> > > 2. The actual measured value for the one-way or two-way speed of
> > > light
> > > is not a constant c in any inertial frame. It  is a distance
> > > dependent
> > > quantity when length is measured using material  meter stick.
> > > 3. An  observed  clock is predicted to run fast by a factor of gamma
> > > or run slow by a factor of 1/gamma compared to the observer's clock.
> > > The rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute motion.
> > > 4. The material length of the observer's  meter stick 1 meter long
> > > materially.
> > > 5.  The material length of a meter stick moving wrt an observer is
> > > also 1 meter long materially.
> > > 6. The light path length of the IRT observer's meter strick is
> > > assumed to be its material length.
> > > 7. The light path length of a meter stick moving wrt the observer is
> > > predicted to be shorter by a factor of (1/gamma) or longer by a
> > > factor
> > > of (gamma) compared to  the light path length of the observer's meter
> > > stick which is assumed to be its material length.
> > > 8. Simultaneity is absolute....in other words if A sees two events to
> > > be simultaneous then B will also see the same events to be
> > > simultaneous but at different instants of time.
> > > IRT is described in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > Properties of an inertial frame in SR:
> > > 1. The speed of light is isotropic.
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > 2. The  one-way or two way speed of light is a defined constant ratio
> > > of:
> > > c=1 light-second/1 second
> > > The defintion for a meter length is 1/299,792,458 light-second
>
> > Yes.
>
> he reason for the defined constant for the speed of light is because
> the measured value (using physical meter stick)for the speed of light
> is not a constant c....it is distance dependent.

This is counter to experimental measurements from stellar sources.

>
> > > 3. Every SR observer claims that all the clocks in the universe moving
> > > with respect to him are running slow.
>
> > Yes.
>
> > >...in other words every SR
> > > observer claims that his clock is the fastest running clock in the
> > > universe.
>
> > No.
>
> ????if he claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow
> then it follows that his clock is the fastest running clock in the
> universe.

No it does not. "Fastest running clock in the universe" is an absolute
statement. "Other clocks moving wrt to him are running slow" is a
statement specific to a particular frame. You cannot derive an
absolute statement from one that is true in a particular frame.

>
>
>
> > > This SR claim gives rise to the concept of mutual time
> > > dilation.
>
> > No.
>
> If every SR observer claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are
> runing slow....why does that not give rise to the concept of mutual
> time dilation? For example: A c;laims that B ic running slow and B
> claims that A is running slow.

First of all, the statement accurately said is NOT that "all clocks
moving wrt him are running slow". The correct statement is that "all
clocks moving INERTIALLY with respect to an INERTIAL observer are
running slow". This sets some boundaries where you can have two clocks
moving with respect to each other, but not inertially, and in those
cases mutual time dilation does not follow as an expected consequence.

>
> > > 4. Every SR observer claims that his meter stick is the proper length
>
> > No.
>
> ROTFLOL....so the SR observer's meter stick is not its proper length??
> You truly are an idiot.

You obviously don't know what "proper length" means to a physicist.
What do you think it means?

>
> > > and that all the meter sticks moving wrt him are contracted in the
> > > direction of motion.
>
> > Yes.
>
> Is this a material contraction or just a geometric projection effect?

It is not a material contraction. It is a geometric, physical effect.

>
>
>
> > > However, length contraction in SR is not material
> > > or physical contraction.
>
> > No. It is not a material contraction but it is a physical contraction.
>
> Physical is material.

I don't know why you would continue to repeat this mistake when you've
been told over and over and over again that this is not the meaning of
"physical". Why do you insist on hanging on to mistakes?

>
>
>
> > >.... it is a geometric projection effect.
>
> > Yes. And it is a physical contraction.
>
> But you said before that physical contraction is not geometric
> projection effect.

No, I did not. You apparently cannot read and understand a sentence
written in English.

>
>
>
> > > 5. Simultaniety is relative.....if A sees two events to be
> > > simultaneous then B will not see these same two events to be
> > > simultaneous.
>
> > Yes.
>
> But this violates the isotropy of the speed of light in all inertial
> frames.

No, it does not.

>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > So, all in all, you still have a lot of what SR says wrong. But you're
> > very slowly getting better. Do you think you'll understand SR by the
> > time you're 87?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: kenseto on 20 Jul 2010 09:58
On Jul 19, 12:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 9:03 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 16, 9:34 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Properties of a preferred frame:
> > > > 1. The speed of light is isotropic.
> > > > 2. The speed one-way or two way speed of light is constant and it is
> > > > not distance dependent....even if it is measured using physical meter
> > > > stick.
> > > > 3. A clock at rest in the preferred frame is the fastest running
> > > > clock
> > > > in the universe....in other words, all the clocks moving with the
> > > > preferred clock are running slower.
> > > > 4. The material length of a meter stick at rest in the preferred
> > > > frame
> > > > is 1 meter long materially.
> > > > 5.  The material length of a meter stick moving wrt the perferred
> > > > frame is 1 meter long materially.
> > > > 6. The light path length of a meter stick at rest in the preferred
> > > > frame is the same as its materially length ....in other words, 1
> > > > meter
> > > > long materially
> > > > 7. The light path length of a meter stick moving wrt the preferred
> > > > frame is shorter than its material length.
> > > > 8. There is only one preferred frame exists and no object in the
> > > > universe is at rest in this preferred frame.
>
> > > This is not what is meant by a "preferred frame" in physics.
>
> > So why don't you be specific and give us the specific properties of a
> > preferred frame in physics????
>
> I have. You keep asking for incidentals that don't define the
> preferred frame.

Hey idiot...they are not incidentals. They define the exclusive
properties of the preferred frame.

>
> What are the properties of a mammal? How many legs does a mammal have?
> Answer those two questions and you'll see what you're doing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If you would like to use the above definition to define some kind of
> > > frame, then you can feel free to do so, and give it a Seto-specific
> > > name. Just don't call it a "preferred frame" and use that term in
> > > conversation with physicists. It would be the same if you decided that
> > > the properties of a zebra were that it was a black and white
> > > flightless bird that lived in the Antarctic, and then talked about
> > > zebras in the Antarctic with zoologists. They would think you were off
> > > your nut.
>
> > > > Properties of an inertial frame in IRT:
> > > > 1. The speed of light in any inertial frame is isotropic.
> > > > 2. The actual measured value for the one-way or two-way speed of
> > > > light
> > > > is not a constant c in any inertial frame. It  is a distance
> > > > dependent
> > > > quantity when length is measured using material  meter stick.
> > > > 3. An  observed  clock is predicted to run fast by a factor of gamma
> > > > or run slow by a factor of 1/gamma compared to the observer's clock..
> > > > The rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute motion.
> > > > 4. The material length of the observer's  meter stick 1 meter long
> > > > materially.
> > > > 5.  The material length of a meter stick moving wrt an observer is
> > > > also 1 meter long materially.
> > > > 6. The light path length of the IRT observer's meter strick is
> > > > assumed to be its material length.
> > > > 7. The light path length of a meter stick moving wrt the observer is
> > > > predicted to be shorter by a factor of (1/gamma) or longer by a
> > > > factor
> > > > of (gamma) compared to  the light path length of the observer's meter
> > > > stick which is assumed to be its material length.
> > > > 8. Simultaneity is absolute....in other words if A sees two events to
> > > > be simultaneous then B will also see the same events to be
> > > > simultaneous but at different instants of time.
> > > > IRT is described in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > > Properties of an inertial frame in SR:
> > > > 1. The speed of light is isotropic.
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > > > 2. The  one-way or two way speed of light is a defined constant ratio
> > > > of:
> > > > c=1 light-second/1 second
> > > > The defintion for a meter length is 1/299,792,458 light-second
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > he reason for the defined constant for the speed of light is because
> > the measured value (using physical meter stick)for the speed of light
> > is not a constant c....it is distance dependent.
>
> This is counter to experimental measurements from stellar sources.

It is not counter to experimental measurements. Light from stellar
sources are frequency shifted and the shift is due to different
arrival of the speed of light.
>
>
>
> > > > 3. Every SR observer claims that all the clocks in the universe moving
> > > > with respect to him are running slow.
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > > >...in other words every SR
> > > > observer claims that his clock is the fastest running clock in the
> > > > universe.
>
> > > No.
>
> > ????if he claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow
> > then it follows that his clock is the fastest running clock in the
> > universe.
>
> No it does not. "Fastest running clock in the universe" is an absolute
> statement.

That's why I said that SR adopts the exclusive properties of the
preferrd frame.....every SR observer claims that all the clocks in the
universe are running slow and thus his clock is the fastest running
clock in the universe.

>"Other clocks moving wrt to him are running slow" is a
> statement specific to a particular frame. You cannot derive an
> absolute statement from one that is true in a particular frame.

Why not? if that particular observer claims that all the clocks in the
universe are running slow???

Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > > > This SR claim gives rise to the concept of mutual time
> > > > dilation.
>
> > > No.
>
> > If every SR observer claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are
> > runing slow....why does that not give rise to the concept of mutual
> > time dilation? For example: A c;laims that B ic running slow and B
> > claims that A is running slow.
>
> First of all, the statement accurately said is NOT that "all clocks
> moving wrt him are running slow". The correct statement is that "all
> clocks moving INERTIALLY with respect to an INERTIAL observer are
> running slow". This sets some boundaries where you can have two clocks
> moving with respect to each other, but not inertially, and in those
> cases mutual time dilation does not follow as an expected consequence.
>
>
>
> > > > 4. Every SR observer claims that his meter stick is the proper length
>
> > > No.
>
> > ROTFLOL....so the SR observer's meter stick is not its proper length??
> > You truly are an idiot.
>
> You obviously don't know what "proper length" means to a physicist.
> What do you think it means?
>
>
>
> > > > and that all the meter sticks moving wrt him are contracted in the
> > > > direction of motion.
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > Is this a material contraction or just a geometric projection effect?
>
> It is not a material contraction. It is a geometric, physical effect.
>
>
>
> > > > However, length contraction in SR is not material
> > > > or physical contraction.
>
> > > No. It is not a material contraction but it is a physical contraction..
>
> > Physical is material.
>
> I don't know why you would continue to repeat this mistake when you've
> been told over and over and over again that this is not the meaning of
> "physical". Why do you insist on hanging on to mistakes?
>
>
>
> > > >.... it is a geometric projection effect.
>
> > > Yes. And it is a physical contraction.
>
> > But you said before that physical contraction is not geometric
> > projection effect.
>
> No, I did not. You apparently cannot read and understand a sentence
> written in English.
>
>
>
> > > > 5. Simultaniety is relative.....if A sees two events to be
> > > > simultaneous then B will not see these same two events to be
> > > > simultaneous.
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > But this violates the isotropy of the speed of light in all inertial
> > frames.
>
> No, it does not.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > So, all in all, you still have a lot of what SR says wrong. But you're
> > > very slowly getting better. Do you think you'll understand SR by the
> > > time you're 87?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist"
Next: If Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences" how can it be trusted