SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 18 May 2010 09:27 On May 18, 7:52 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On May 17, 1:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 17, 11:54 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On May 17, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 15, 5:18 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 14, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 14, 1:20 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 14, 9:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 13, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 13, 8:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 3:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:37 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 9:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 7:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:26 am, PD <thedraperfam....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 1:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:10 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot then why did theyusethe SR math to calculate the SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effect??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because, Ken, there is more than one "SR effect" and they apply in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different situations. The effect you have been asking about is mutual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >timedilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The you should go and argue with your SR brother Moroney... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, how many times have I told you to stop trying to learn relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by listening to people on usenet, and start reading a REAL BOOK????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey I am not trying to learn SR on usenet. I already know more about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity than all of you combined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no evidence of that, Ken. All the stuff you've recited about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SR is repetition of stuff you've heard on usenet or stuff you've made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to come up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a superset of relativity that includes SR as a subset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I was trying to do is to point that you runts of the SRians are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making contradictory statement and wilds claims that are not supported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, even if there are statements on usenet that are in conflict with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other about SR, that does not mean there is a conflict in SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it means is that you will not get reliable information about SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So does that mean what you and your runt SR brothers wrote on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usenet were just bullshits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying, Ken, is that you cannot get a good, consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > presentation about SR on usenet. You need to abandon that as your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source of information and get to a book or six, pronto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What one get from the text book are the same garbage as in the usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not true, Ken. Nor would you know, because you've never read a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > book on relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same garbage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but you can't judge. You've never opened up a book on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are too lazy, too cheap, and you're too insecure to read. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you come here, thinking that you can figure it out on a newsgroup. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: every observer defines the speed of light to be isotropic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the same time the speed of light is non-isotropic in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > observed frame due to relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not so, Ken. Closing speed and light speed are not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed does not affect the arriving speed of light fronts to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the train observer M'....otherwise M' will not be able to measure the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed of light to be isotopic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different quantities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > observer....the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good heavens. You don't even know what the term closing speed means, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If light doesn't close with an observer, how does the light ever get > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the observer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I simply cannot believe you would say something so patently stupid as > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any observer". > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you not even take the trouble to even attempt to look up the > > > > > > > > > > > > term "closing speed" on the internet and read a little about it before > > > > > > > > > > > > opening your yap? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot the closing speed between light and any observer is > > > > > > > > > > > isotropic c in any direction. > > > > > > > > > > > No, it isn't. Wherever did you get that stupid idea? Do you know what > > > > > > > > > > closing speed even is? > > > > > > > > > > No, I didn't think so. > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no such thing as difference in closing speeds > > > > > > > > > between an observer and light fronts from different directions. > > > > > > > > > Of course there is. You don't know what closing speed is, do you? > > > > > > > > No it is you who don't know what closing speeds are. > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but this game can only go so far. > > > > > > Here's why you don't understand what closing velocity means: According > > > > > to Einstein in his train gedanken he said that M' is at equal distance > > > > > from the ends of the train and he is moving (closing velocities)wrt > > > > > the light fronts from the ends of the train that means that the speed > > > > > of light in the M' frame cannot be isotropic in the M' frame. That > > > > > means that the bogus conept of RoS is refuted by the SR postulate.. > > > > > No it does NOT mean that. Closing speed is not isotropic, as Einstein > > > > said. Light speed is isotropic, as Einstein said. > > > > No idiot....if M' is moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the > > > train that he is riding then he cannot measure the speed of light to > > > be isotropic. > > > Oh, but he can. The two are completely different things. > > > > > You have confused the two, thinking they are the same thing. They are > > > > not. > > > > I did not confuse the two...I merely point out that if M' moves wrt > > > the light fronts from the ends of the train the speed of light in the > > > train is not iostropic. > > > No, Ken, that's not right. If M' moves wrt the light front from the > > ends of the train, this means the *closing* speed is not isotropic. > > But the light speed is still isotropic. > > No....if closing speed is real then M' will not be able to measure the > speed of light to be isotropic. I'm sorry, Ken, but you just don't know what closing speed means. Closing speed is definitely confirmed in experiment to be anisotropic. Light speed is definitely confirmed in experiment to be isotropic. What is confirmed in experiment is real, despite your spluttering "But...but... that can't BE!!" > What this mean is that closing speed > is not real...this follows that RoS is not real. I'm sorry, Ken, but you first have to learn what closing speed IS before you can decide whether or not it's real. > > Ken Seto > > > > > As I said, you are confused about which is closing speed and which is > > light speed. > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > If the whole world understands what the term "zebra" means, and you > > > > > > are the only one that points to a penguin and calls it a zebra, then > > > > > > you are the one that does not know what "zebra" means. > > > > > > If the whole world understands what the term "closing speed" means, > > > > > > and you are the only that confuses it with light speed, then you are > > > > > > the one that does not know what "closing speed" means. > > > > > > > Someday, you're just going to have to accept the fact that there are > > > > > > things you do not understand, and there are some things you are wrong > > > > > > about. When you can do this without feeling like your ego has been > > > > > > shredded, then you have a chance at making a positive contribution. > > > > > > > > Observed relative > > > > > > > velocity and direction of relative velocity by the track observer (M) > > > > > > > has absolutely no effect on the closing speeds of light fronts from > > > > > > > the ends of the train to the train observer as Einstein asserted. > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > speed of light is isotropic and the speed of light is independent of > > ... > > read more »
From: kenseto on 18 May 2010 09:36 On May 17, 5:34 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On May 14, 3:17 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >> delta(t') is the *same* event as observed by another observer (B) moving > >> >> at relative velocity v, and gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). > >> >No....A predicts that his 1 second is worth 1/gamma second on the B > >> >clock. From B's point of view he predicts that 1 of his clock second > >> >is worth gamma second on the A clock. > > >> A predicts she'll see B's clock tick at delta(t') = gamma*delta(t), > >Yes.....one of t' second is worth gamma second on the t clock. That > >means that the t' clock is slow compared to the t clock. > > Yup. Reverse A and B and the same thing happens, too. No....if B is truly running slower than A then A must truly running faster than B. So from B's point of view A's clock is running fast. >B predicts > (and observes) A's clock running slow compared to his clock. No...the rate of a clock is not a geometric projection as asserted by SR, B must predict that A's clock is running fast. > A predicts > (and observes) B's clock running slow compared to her clock. We already agree that A's clock is truly running faster than B's clcok. > > >> where delta(t) is a time interval local to B (B's watch's second hand) > >> computes gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and observes that she'll see B's clock > >> as slow as well. > >What are you saying here? are you saying that the t' clock predicts > >that the t clock is slow?? > > If you actually understood SR you'd know exactly what was being predicted.. > For an expert who claims to know more about SR than anyone here, you > sure know squat about SR. Sigh...what SR says is wrong. The rate of a clock is not a geometric projection.....it is not resersible as you claimed. What this mean is that every SR observer cannot claim that his clock is the fastest clock in the universe. What every SR observer can claim is that an observed clock can run slow by a factor of 1/gamma or run fast by a factor of gamma. > > I think you need to take Sam Wormley up on his suggestion. Get some > tutoring on SR, even if from someone other than him. ROTFLOL....wormy and you don't understand that SR is incomplete. > > And technically, you cannot simply reverse t and t'. Reverse the actors, > and t is B's clock local to B, and t' is B's clock as seen by A. I did not reverse t and t'. I thought that t is a clock time interval on A's clock and t' is A's prediction on the B clock for a clock time interval t on A's clock. > > Also, Sam Wormley writes: > > : Ken, I think the crux of your non-acceptance of relativity, is that > : you are bothered by the fact that who's clock measures slow is > : observer dependent. > > I think that's true. Maybe you should consider another common effect > which does not involve relativity, where effects are observer dependent > and do not reverse, yet we humans don't have any problem. > > Consider two people A and B, who are the same height. When they are face > to face, each sees the other as full-sized, as tall as they are. Now if > they walk a few hundered feet from each other, each one sees the other > as small, and if they get further away, they get even smaller in appearance. This is the SR concept of length contraction....a geometric projection effect. However this cannot applies to the rate of an observed clock. Why? Because the rate of a clock will effect it rate of accumulation of clock seconds. If B is running slower than A then it will accumulate less clock seconds than A and conversely A will accumulate more clock seconds than B for a specific time interval. Ken Seto > Notice that just because A looks tiny as far as B is concerned, B does > *not* appear huge as far as A is concerned. In fact, B looks tiny to A, > and by the same amount that A looks tiny to B. Note that neither A nor > B actually shrink. If each measures their height with a (local) ruler, > they'll find their height is unchanged. Also note it does not matter > whether A or B moved, or both did. There is no "absolute center" of the > world where everyone is full-sized and appearing small is a function of > how far away you are from this "absolute center". No, it is a local > effect, depending only on how far A and B are from each other. > > SR time dilation is very similar. The differences are that it's the > relative velocity and not the relative distance that matters, and > the effect is that clocks are seen as running slower rather than the > person appearing as if they are smaller. > > > if that's what you are saying then it is > >wrong. The t' clock must predict that the t clock is running faster > >than the t' clock. > >>"Isn't that interesting. Even though B sees my clock > >> as running slow, I see B's clock as running slow." > >no....not intersting at all....You made a bogus assertion that B(t') > >predicts that A(t) is runing slow. > > Nope. It's what SR predicts, and is quite interesting since it goes > against common sense. > > >> This is contradictory. If gamma is always greater than or equal to 1, > >> and, according to SR, all moving observers observe A's clock as moving at > >> the rate of gamma*their clock rate, then all moving observers *must* see > >> A's clock as running slow. > >No....no observer knows whether his clock is running slow or fast > >compared to a moving clock. All he can say is that a moving clock can > >run fast by a factor of gamma or runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma. > > On contrary. Gamma can be calculated if the relative velocity is known, > and is known to be >= 1 no matter what, so it is known that for any > nonzero velocity, any moving clock will be seen as running slow. > > >> Your bit about "running slow by a factor of 1/gamma" is your own creation, > >> and not part of SR, but something that exists only in your own mind. > >> For someone who claims to know more about SR than anyone else here, > >> you sure don't understand SR. > >SR is wrong and incomplete.... > > Well then your pet theory cannot be an extension of SR if you claim SR > is wrong. Any theory that is an extension of another theory implicitly > assumes the other theory is correct under the stated conditions. Just > like SR and GR, GR is simply SR when away from gravitating masses. > > > > >the reason is that every SR observer > >assumes that he is in a state of rest and a clock moving wrt him are > >doing the moving....this led him to conclude that all clocks moving > >wrt him are rinning slow.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 18 May 2010 09:58 On May 18, 8:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > No....if B is truly running slower than A then A must truly running > faster than B. So from B's point of view A's clock is running fast. > Ken, Ken, Ken. You insist that the world lives by rules that make sense to you, rather than trying to make sense of the rules that the world lives by. You do not have the choice to say, "The world MUST BE THIS WAY for it to be acceptable to me." You are no scientist. I scientist does not do what you do. PD
From: kenseto on 18 May 2010 10:22 On May 18, 9:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 18, 7:52 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 17, 1:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 17, 11:54 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 17, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 15, 5:18 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 14, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 14, 1:20 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 14, 9:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 13, 10:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 13, 8:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 3:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2:37 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 9:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 7:44 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 11:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 9:08 am, kenseto <kens....(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 1:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 8:10 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot then why did theyusethe SR math to calculate the SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effect??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because, Ken, there is more than one "SR effect" and they apply in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different situations. The effect you have been asking about is mutual > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >timedilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The you should go and argue with your SR brother Moroney... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, how many times have I told you to stop trying to learn relativity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by listening to people on usenet, and start reading a REAL BOOK????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey I am not trying to learn SR on usenet. I already know more about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity than all of you combined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no evidence of that, Ken. All the stuff you've recited about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SR is repetition of stuff you've heard on usenet or stuff you've made > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I was able to come up > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a superset of relativity that includes SR as a subset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I was trying to do is to point that you runts of the SRians are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making contradictory statement and wilds claims that are not supported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken, even if there are statements on usenet that are in conflict with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other about SR, that does not mean there is a conflict in SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it means is that you will not get reliable information about SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So does that mean what you and your runt SR brothers wrote on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usenet were just bullshits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying, Ken, is that you cannot get a good, consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > presentation about SR on usenet. You need to abandon that as your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > source of information and get to a book or six, pronto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What one get from the text book are the same garbage as in the usenet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not true, Ken. Nor would you know, because you've never read a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > book on relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Same garbage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but you can't judge. You've never opened up a book on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are too lazy, too cheap, and you're too insecure to read. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you come here, thinking that you can figure it out on a newsgroup. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: every observer defines the speed of light to be isotropic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and at the same time the speed of light is non-isotropic in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > observed frame due to relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not so, Ken. Closing speed and light speed are not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed does not affect the arriving speed of light fronts to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the train observer M'....otherwise M' will not be able to measure the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > speed of light to be isotopic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closing speed and light speed are two completely different quantities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > observer....the speed of light is isotropic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good heavens. You don't even know what the term closing speed means, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If light doesn't close with an observer, how does the light ever get > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the observer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I simply cannot believe you would say something so patently stupid as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Hey idiot there is no closing speed between light and any observer". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you not even take the trouble to even attempt to look up the > > > > > > > > > > > > > term "closing speed" on the internet and read a little about it before > > > > > > > > > > > > > opening your yap? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot the closing speed between light and any observer is > > > > > > > > > > > > isotropic c in any direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it isn't. Wherever did you get that stupid idea? Do you know what > > > > > > > > > > > closing speed even is? > > > > > > > > > > > No, I didn't think so. > > > > > > > > > > > Hey idiot there is no such thing as difference in closing speeds > > > > > > > > > > between an observer and light fronts from different directions. > > > > > > > > > > Of course there is. You don't know what closing speed is, do you? > > > > > > > > > No it is you who don't know what closing speeds are. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but this game can only go so far. > > > > > > > Here's why you don't understand what closing velocity means: According > > > > > > to Einstein in his train gedanken he said that M' is at equal distance > > > > > > from the ends of the train and he is moving (closing velocities)wrt > > > > > > the light fronts from the ends of the train that means that the speed > > > > > > of light in the M' frame cannot be isotropic in the M' frame. That > > > > > > means that the bogus conept of RoS is refuted by the SR postulate. > > > > > > No it does NOT mean that. Closing speed is not isotropic, as Einstein > > > > > said. Light speed is isotropic, as Einstein said. > > > > > No idiot....if M' is moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the > > > > train that he is riding then he cannot measure the speed of light to > > > > be isotropic. > > > > Oh, but he can. The two are completely different things. > > > > > > You have confused the two, thinking they are the same thing. They are > > > > > not. > > > > > I did not confuse the two...I merely point out that if M' moves wrt > > > > the light fronts from the ends of the train the speed of light in the > > > > train is not iostropic. > > > > No, Ken, that's not right. If M' moves wrt the light front from the > > > ends of the train, this means the *closing* speed is not isotropic. > > > But the light speed is still isotropic. > > > No....if closing speed is real then M' will not be able to measure the > > speed of light to be isotropic. > > I'm sorry, Ken, but you just don't know what closing speed means. > Closing speed is definitely confirmed in experiment to be anisotropic. There is no difference in closing speed for light fronts generated at the ends of the train to M'. Ken Seto > Light speed is definitely confirmed in experiment to be isotropic. > What is confirmed in experiment is real, despite your spluttering > "But...but... that can't BE!!" > > > What this mean is that closing speed > > is not real...this follows that RoS is not real. > > I'm sorry, Ken, but you first have to learn what closing speed IS > before you can decide whether or not it's real. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > As I said, you are confused about which is closing speed and which is > > > light speed. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > If the whole world understands what the term "zebra" means, and you > > > > > > > are the only one that points to a penguin and calls it a zebra, then > > > > > > > you are the one that does not know what "zebra" means. > > > > > > > If the whole world understands what the term "closing speed" means, > > > > > > > and you are the only that confuses it with light speed, then you are > > > > > > > the one that does not know what "closing speed" means.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: kenseto on 18 May 2010 10:31
On May 18, 9:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 18, 8:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > No....if B is truly running slower than A then A must truly running > > faster than B. So from B's point of view A's clock is running fast. > > Ken, Ken, Ken. You insist that the world lives by rules that make > sense to you, rather than trying to make sense of the rules that the > world lives by. Hey idiot....it is not my rule....when you compare two clocks the following possibilities exist: A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A. > > You do not have the choice to say, "The world MUST BE THIS WAY for it > to be acceptable to me." You do not have the choice of making contradictory statements. Ken Seto > > You are no scientist. I scientist does not do what you do. > > PD |