Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
From: JT on 25 Jul 2010 09:23 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 Ken what received framerates at ***earth***, does your IRT theory predict for two transmitters leaving earth at 0.3 c respective 0.6 c. JT
From: JT on 25 Jul 2010 09:24 On 25 Juli, 15:23, 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 Ken what received framerates at ***earth***, does your IRT > theory predict for two transmitters leaving earth at 0.3 c respective > 0.6 c. > > JT- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Ooops forgot to say the transmissions is PAL 24 FPS. JT
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Jul 2010 09:40 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
From: JT on 25 Jul 2010 09:42 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
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Jul 2010 09:53
On 7/25/10 7:46 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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??....for example the passage of a clcok second in A's > frame corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame. > So wormy the speed of light is a defined contant ratio of > (1 light-second/1 second). > > Ken Seto The speed of light, as far as science can tell, is a fundamental physical constant of the universe--independent of how we measure or define it, Seto. Do I need to repeat: The speed of light is a fundamental physical constant of the universe--independent of how we measure or define it. Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Increased_accuracy_and_redefinition_of_the_metre |