SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 18 May 2010 10:38 On May 18, 9:22 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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'. I'm sorry, Ken, but this is just plain wrong. Closing speeds are experimentally verified to be different and therefore anisotropic. Light speed is experimentally verified to be isotropic. It does no good to simply deny what is experimentally verified. What a scientist does is to use experiment to discern the rules that nature operates by. What a scientist does NOT do is dictate acceptable rules that nature must operate by. You are not being a decent scientist. > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
From: PD on 18 May 2010 10:46 On May 18, 9:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. It must be, Ken, because it is not the rule that the world lives by. >...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. Sorry, but that's what makes sense to YOU. That is not the rule that nature lives by. > > > > > 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. They are not contradictory. They only SEEM contradictory to you, because you mix in assumptions YOU make and because you do not understand the meaning of certain terms. I want you to see the difference between what YOU say and what SR says. What you say: "A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A." What SR says: "A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B in A's rest frame. B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than A in B's rest frame." Do you understand the critical difference between these two statements? There is no contradiction anywhere. If you do not understand the difference, then you do not understand SR or the meaning of the terms used in its statements. > > Ken Seto > > > > > You are no scientist. I scientist does not do what you do. > > > PD > >
From: kenseto on 18 May 2010 12:28 On May 18, 10:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 18, 9:22 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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'. > > I'm sorry, Ken, but this is just plain wrong. Closing speeds are > experimentally verified to be different and therefore anisotropic. > Light speed is experimentally verified to be isotropic. There is no closing speed within the train and that's why the speed of light is isotropic. > > It does no good to simply deny what is experimentally verified. > > What a scientist does is to use experiment to discern the rules > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -...
From: PD on 18 May 2010 12:59 On May 18, 11:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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'. > > > I'm sorry, Ken, but this is just plain wrong. Closing speeds are > > experimentally verified to be different and therefore anisotropic. > > Light speed is experimentally verified to be isotropic. > > There is no closing speed within the train and that's why the speed of > light is isotropic. Ken, don't be ridiculous. 1. You don't know what closing speed even means. 2. So you insist there is no difference in closing speed for light traveling to M' from the end points of the train, even though the anisotropy of closing speed has been experimentally verified. 3. So you insist that closing speed doesn't exist at all within the train. If you stop for a second and consider how stupidly desperate you sound, you'll pause before you say something else that will make it worse. > > > It does no good to simply deny what is experimentally verified. >
From: kenseto on 18 May 2010 13:00
On May 18, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 18, 9:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > It must be, Ken, because it is not the rule that the world lives by. What I said is what the rules that the world lives by. > > >...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. > > Sorry, but that's what makes sense to YOU. That is not the rule that > nature lives by. What I said is exactly what 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 do not have the choice of making contradictory statements. > > They are not contradictory. They only SEEM contradictory to you, > because you mix in assumptions YOU make and because you do not > understand the meaning of certain terms. Yes they are contradictory. All clocks return will show less accumulated clock seconds. Also the GPS clock supports my claims. > > I want you to see the difference between what YOU say and what SR > says. > What you say: "A accumulate clock second at a faster rate than B then > B must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A." > What SR says: "A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B in > A's rest frame. B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than A in > B's rest frame." What SR said is wrong,,,,,The rate of accmulating clock seconds is not frame dependent. Each clock will accumulate clock second according to its own rate and no observer can change that rate. The problem with SR is that every SR observer assumes the properties of the absolute frame and thus asserts that all clocks moving wrt him are accumulating clock second at a slower rate. This PoR assumption is correct for observed clocks that are in a higher stATE OF ABSOLUTE MOTION THAN THE OBSERVER. But if the observed clocks are in a lower states of absolute motion than the observer then the observeved clocks will accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than these observed clocks. Ken Seto Ken Seto > Do you understand the critical difference between these two > statements? > There is no contradiction anywhere. > If you do not understand the difference, then you do not understand SR > or the meaning of the terms used in its statements. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > You are no scientist. I scientist does not do what you do. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |