Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
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 -
From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 11:49
On 26 Juli, 16:45, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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 -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - But if SRT use same equation, don't they consider the waves/photons from receding transmission at 0.3 c travel towards earth at higher velocity then the waves from receding transmission at 0.6c. Oh i forgot they have their own name for relative velocity at 0.7c respective 0.4c "closing speed" bwahahah it sound so much fancier then the real term relative velocity. So when they study the real geometry relationship they must fall back to Euclidian space using a Cartesian cordinate system it is indeed hilarious bwhahahahah. But of course both transmission at earth will be ****calculated**** to travel at c by the SAM and PD the dafts of SR. JT |