Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Next: The REAL reason they hate Einstein.
From: BURT on 31 Oct 2009 16:01 On Oct 31, 8:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Oct 31, 10:37 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >>   Given that special relativity says that ât = γ âto  and that γ has a > >>   value that ranges from 1 to infinity and does not have any negative > >>   values, it seems to me that the time interval ât ⥠âto for all > >>   observations. In other words the measured time interval is always > >>   greater (slowed) for velocities v > zero, independent of direction. > > >>   So for a clock tick of one second, âto = 1 , an observer with > >>   relative velocity 0.866 c give a γ = 2 and > > >>    ât = γ âto > > > Sigh wormy....this is wrong in SR. > > SR says thatfor clock moving wrt the observer are running slow as > > follows: > > Delta(t')=Delta(to)/gamma. > > IRT include the above but it also includes the situation when the > > observed clock is running fast compared to the observer's clock as > > follows: > > Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(to) > > > Ken Seto > > >>    2 s = 2 (1 s)- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > >   Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run fast, >   just due to relative velocity? > >   Doppler shift can make clocks appear to be running faster. >   Differences in gravitation also produce time dilation, but >   general relativity is the applicable tool in those situations. >   Satellite clocks, such as GPS, come to mind.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If time slows down then it must begin to slow from a starting point or fastest time. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 1 Nov 2009 09:52 On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run fast, > >> just due to relative velocity? > > > If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to the > > observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's clock is in > > a preferred frame....we know that is not the case. > > Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in > relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be > true for almost all observer. None of them is special or > preferred. Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether frame to make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same math....they both use the ether frame to do calculations.. The fact that every SR observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow means that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of absolute rest. Ken Seto > > Therefore the > > > > > observer must include the situation that his clock can run slower than > > the observed clock. Learn some real physics instead of sticking your > > head in the SR arsehole. > > > Ken Seto > > >> Doppler shift can make clocks appear to be running faster. > >> Differences in gravitation also produce time dilation, but > >> general relativity is the applicable tool in those situations. > >> Satellite clocks, such as GPS, come to mind.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 1 Nov 2009 15:38 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> > On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> >> Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run fast, >> >> just due to relative velocity? >> >> > If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to the >> > observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's clock is in >> > a preferred frame....we know that is not the case. >> >> Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in >> relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be >> true for almost all observer. None of them is special or >> preferred. > > Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether frame to > make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same math....they > both use the ether frame to do calculations.. WRONG > The fact that every SR > observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow means > that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of absolute > rest. WRONG You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take physics again .. but this time stay awake during the lessons.
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Nov 2009 16:33 kenseto wrote: > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in >> relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be >> true for almost all observer. None of them is special or >> preferred. > > Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether frame to > make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same math....they > both use the ether frame to do calculations.. The fact that every SR > observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow means > that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of absolute > rest. > > Ken Seto No--It just means that all motion is relative, there are no preferred observers. Relativity predicts that any observer will measure time dilation of all moving clocks... and guess what, Ken, that's exactly what is observed! In Spades!
From: kenseto on 2 Nov 2009 09:10
On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >> > On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> >> Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run fast, > >> >> just due to relative velocity? > > >> > If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to the > >> > observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's clock is in > >> > a preferred frame....we know that is not the case. > > >> Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in > >> relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be > >> true for almost all observer. None of them is special or > >> preferred. > > > Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether frame to > > make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same math....they > > both use the ether frame to do calculations.. > > WRONG > > > The fact that every SR > > observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow means > > that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of absolute > > rest. > > WRONG > > You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take physics again ... > but this time stay awake during the lessons. Hey idiot ....it is not wrong. SR says that all observer are equaivalent including the ether frame observer. So every SR observer selected the ether frame to do predictions and calculations....the reason is that it is the simplest frame to do calculations because all the clocks in the universe are running slow compared to the ether frame clock and all the rods in the universe are contraction compared to the ether frame rod. LET acknowledges that the ether frame is used to do calculations and that's why SR and LET have the same math. Ken Seto |