Proposed experiments to test the SR concept of mutual time dialtion

[ken...@att.net]

Two observers A and B are in relative motion. SR claims that A
predicts that
B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that
A's
clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. The following proposed
experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of
his
clock to A.
2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock rate compared to his actual
clock rate at various time intervals.
Call this ratio as R_ab.
3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock rtae compared to his actual
clock rate at various time intervals.
Call this ratio as R_ba.

If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
The above proposed experiments can be performed between the ISS and
the GPS.

A new theory of relativity called IRT has been formulated. IRT says
that clocks in re;lative motion run at different interisic rates and
thus R_ab is NOT equal to R_ba. IRT math includes SRT math as subset.
However, unlike SRT math, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. IRT has an umlimited domain of
applicability. Therefore it is valid for use to replace GRT/SRT in all
appllications. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
Also in this link a new theory of gravity called DTG is included.

[LaLALa]

On May 15, 3:02 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> Two observers A and B are in relative motion. SR claims that A
> predicts that
> B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that
> A's
> clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma.

Hello Mr. Seto. You may correct me if I am mistaken but I don't think
SR makes this claim for any two clocks that are in any kind of
relative motion but only those that are in relative inertial motion.
This I believe is important for your experimental proposal.

> The following proposed
> experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
> 1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of
> his
> clock to A.
> 2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock rate compared to his actual
> clock rate at various time intervals.
> Call this ratio as R_ab.
> 3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock rtae compared to his actual
> clock rate at various time intervals.
> Call this ratio as R_ba.
>
> If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
> The above proposed experiments can be performed between the ISS and
> the GPS.
>

There are two problems I see, Mr. Seto. First the International Space
Station and GPS satellites are not in relative inertial motion so this
is not an appropriate test of the claim SR makes which only applies to
relative inertial motion. Secondly don't you imagine that if the
clocks are slowed down then so will everything about the TV signal
including the scan rate, transmission rate, and frame rate? Don't you
think this will cause some sort of problem between the TV signal
transmitter and the TV signal receiver?

[ken...@att.net]

On May 15, 4:18 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 3:02 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Two observers A and B are in relative motion. SR claims that A
> > predicts that
> > B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that
> > A's
> > clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> Hello Mr. Seto. You may correct me if I am mistaken but I don't think
> SR makes this claim for any two clocks that are in any kind of
> relative motion but only those that are in relative inertial motion.
> This I believe is important for your experimental proposal.

Since there is no such thing as inertial frame on earth.....does that
mean that SR is not valid on earth?

>
>
>
>
>
> > The following proposed
> > experiments are designed to test the validity of this claim:
> > 1. A send a TV picture of his clock to B and B send a TV picture of
> > his
> > clock to A.
> > 2. A determines the ratio of B's TV clock rate compared to his actual
> > clock rate at various time intervals.
> > Call this ratio as R_ab.
> > 3. B determines the ratio of A's TV clock rtae compared to his actual
> > clock rate at various time intervals.
> > Call this ratio as R_ba.
>
> > If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
> > The above proposed experiments can be performed between the ISS and
> > the GPS.
>
> There are two problems I see, Mr. Seto. First the International Space
> Station and GPS satellites are not in relative inertial motion so this
> is not an appropriate test of the claim SR makes which only applies to
> relative inertial motion.

You are wrong....SR can be applied to the ISS and the GPS.

>Secondly don't you imagine that if the
> clocks are slowed down then so will everything about the TV signal
> including the scan rate, transmission rate, and frame rate? Don't you
> think this will cause some sort of problem between the TV signal
> transmitter and the TV signal receiver?

We are looking at the rate of the TV clock compared to the rate of the
observer's clock. All the side issues you mentioned are irrelevant.


- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[xxein]

On May 15, 4:18 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:

xxein: Add the fact that timerate is controlled by an absolute motion
(in a moving inertial frame) so that you don't know you're timerate
relative to the absolute. So you don't really know the timerate of a
sender as measured by you.

Sadly, that's all relativity can find out. OK. I lied. We know
something about gravitational time dilation, but not enough. That's
the reason we have to fine tune clocks, in even a circular orbit, with
trial and error. There cannot be any local circular orbit, so that
lets them off the hook a little.

But in essence, timerate is not predictable beforehand. Yeah. We got
addition of velocities and a host of gravitational stuff. The point
being made here is that it took measurement. Not to qualify a theory,
but to make one based on the results.

This is what we measured and made a theory upon. There are
exceptions. For instance, Einstein's math came up with the double
curvature of light and then Eddington measured it. But what was a
physical (not mathematical) reason for this to be measured true?
Nobody knows. It is just accepted and predictable. As if that lets
us understand the physical process. Excuse me for laughing.

This allows technology to be great but it does not explain the physic
of how it would happen that way. Can you think deeply into this?
That would make two of us if you could, but I doubt it.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/15/12 6:42 PM, xxein wrote:
> Sadly, that's all relativity can find out. OK. I lied. We know
> something about gravitational time dilation, but not enough. That's
> the reason we have to fine tune clocks

Not true--look up the real reason that satellite clock are tuned.

[LaLALa]

On May 15, 6:30 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 15, 4:18 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 3:02 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > Two observers A and B are in relative motion. SR claims that A
> > > predicts that
> > > B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that
> > > A's
> > > clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> > Hello Mr. Seto. You may correct me if I am mistaken but I don't think
> > SR makes this claim for any two clocks that are in any kind of
> > relative motion but only those that are in relative inertial motion.
> > This I believe is important for your experimental proposal.
>
> Since there is no such thing as inertial frame on earth.....does that
> mean that SR is not valid on earth?

Mr. Seto, I am shocked that you would say that there is no such thing
as inertial frame on earth. How is this so? What prevents there being
an inertial frame on earth? As far as I know there surely are things
in relative inertial motion on earth -- quite ordinary things.

>
> > There are two problems I see, Mr. Seto. First the International Space
> > Station and GPS satellites are not in relative inertial motion so this
> > is not an appropriate test of the claim SR makes which only applies to
> > relative inertial motion.
>
> You are wrong....SR can be applied to the ISS and the GPS.

Why yes, Mr. Seto, it can. But even SR says that mutual time dilation
does not apply in all cases where SR applies. SR says that mutual time
dilation applies only in cases of relative inertial motion. Fluid
mechanics has many laws some of which apply to compressible fluids and
others which apply to incompressible fluids. But it would be wrong to
say that a law about incompressible fluids applies to pneumatic
systems because pneumatics is about compressible fluids. Fluid
mechanics applies to pneumatic systems but the hydraulics laws do not
work for pneumatic systems. I would think this would be simple to
understand.

>
> >Secondly don't you imagine that if the
> > clocks are slowed down then so will everything about the TV signal
> > including the scan rate, transmission rate, and frame rate? Don't you
> > think this will cause some sort of problem between the TV signal
> > transmitter and the TV signal receiver?
>
> We are looking at the rate of the TV clock compared to the rate of the
> observer's clock. All the side issues you mentioned are irrelevant.

You proposed the experiment as something that is achievable, Mr. Seto.
But I think you'll find that because the rate of the TV transmitter
slows too then the TV receiver will not work to pick up that TV
signal. This makes the experiment not so achievable until you worry
about solving problems like that.

[rotchm]

> Since there is no such thing as inertial frame on earth.....does that
> mean that SR is not valid on earth?

Exactly. SR theoretically forbids its use on earth: Drop a ball...its
starts moving and accelerating. Thus the frame (even a local frame
here) it is not an inertial frame.

BUT in practice, SR still sometimes works on earth. Scientists 'try
out' SR on earth. There where SR's conclusions still agree with exp,
then SR will be used.

In the case of GPS system, SR is NOT used since (1) the system is not
an i-frame and (2) They tried it and SR does not make correct
predictions. BUT, GR makes the correct predictions and thus GR is use.
Note that in GR there is a term called "SR term" and a term called "GR
term", but both are really GR terms.

[rotchm]

> If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.

That exp has been done numerous times and yes, *when inertially
performed*, the result is always R_ab=R_ba.
But its not a tv signal (image) but indexed pulses: B sends out pulses
at every instant its clock increases by one second (the equivalent of
an image in your scenario). A will receive a "0 th" pulse, a pulse #1
(sent by B at Btime 1 sec), a pulse #2 (sent by B at Btime 2 sec),
etc.

Note that [the rate at which A *receives*] these pulses is NOT [the
rate of B wrt A].

[ken...@att.net]

On May 16, 9:46 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 6:30 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 4:18 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 3:02 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Two observers A and B are in relative motion. SR claims that A
> > > > predicts that
> > > > B's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and B predicts that
> > > > A's
> > > > clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma.
>
> > > Hello Mr. Seto. You may correct me if I am mistaken but I don't think
> > > SR makes this claim for any two clocks that are in any kind of
> > > relative motion but only those that are in relative inertial motion.
> > > This I believe is important for your experimental proposal.
>
> > Since there is no such thing as inertial frame on earth.....does that
> > mean that SR is not valid on earth?
>
> Mr. Seto, I am shocked that you would say that there is no such thing
> as inertial frame on earth.

Why are you shocked?.....there is no inertial frame on the rotating
earth and in a gravitational field.

>How is this so? What prevents there being
> an inertial frame on earth? As far as I know there surely are things
> in relative inertial motion on earth -- quite ordinary things.

Don't you know what a inertial frame means?

>
>
>
> > > There are two problems I see, Mr. Seto. First the International Space
> > > Station and GPS satellites are not in relative inertial motion so this
> > > is not an appropriate test of the claim SR makes which only applies to
> > > relative inertial motion.
>
> > You are wrong....SR can be applied to the ISS and the GPS.
>
> Why yes, Mr. Seto, it can. But even SR says that mutual time dilation
> does not apply in all cases where SR applies.

Name an experiment that agree with the concept of mutual time dilation
on earth. You can't pick and choose.....you can't say that any
situation that doesn't agree with mutual time dilation because it does
not apply in all cases.

>SR says that mutual time
> dilation applies only in cases of relative inertial motion.

That's my point....there is no inertial frame on earth so that mean
that you admitted that SR is not a valid theory on earth.

>Fluid
> mechanics has many laws some of which apply to compressible fluids and
> others which apply to incompressible fluids. But it would be wrong to
> say that a law about incompressible fluids applies to pneumatic
> systems because pneumatics is about compressible fluids. Fluid
> mechanics applies to pneumatic systems but the hydraulics laws do not
> work for pneumatic systems. I would think this would be simple to
> understand.
>
>
>
> > >Secondly don't you imagine that if the
> > > clocks are slowed down then so will everything about the TV signal
> > > including the scan rate, transmission rate, and frame rate? Don't you
> > > think this will cause some sort of problem between the TV signal
> > > transmitter and the TV signal receiver?
>
> > We are looking at the rate of the TV clock compared to the rate of the
> > observer's clock. All the side issues you mentioned are irrelevant.
>
> You proposed the experiment as something that is achievable, Mr. Seto.
> But I think you'll find that because the rate of the TV transmitter
> slows too then the TV receiver will not work to pick up that TV
> signal. This makes the experiment not so achievable until you worry
> about solving problems like that.

Your assertion is not a valid arguement.

[LaLALa]

On May 16, 3:52 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:

>
> > Mr. Seto, I am shocked that you would say that there is no such thing
> > as inertial frame on earth.
>
> Why are you shocked?.....there is no inertial frame on the rotating
> earth and in a gravitational field.
>
> >How is this so? What prevents there being
> > an inertial frame on earth? As far as I know there surely are things
> > in relative inertial motion on earth -- quite ordinary things.
>
> Don't you know what a inertial frame means?

I suppose not, Mr. Seto. What do you think an inertial frame means?
I've never heard before that an inertial reference frame must be free
from gravity. Where did you hear that this is true?

I'm also curious why that on a rotating earth straight line motion at
constant speed is not possible?

>
>
>
> > > > There are two problems I see, Mr. Seto. First the International Space
> > > > Station and GPS satellites are not in relative inertial motion so this
> > > > is not an appropriate test of the claim SR makes which only applies to
> > > > relative inertial motion.
>
> > > You are wrong....SR can be applied to the ISS and the GPS.
>
> > Why yes, Mr. Seto, it can. But even SR says that mutual time dilation
> > does not apply in all cases where SR applies.
>
> Name an experiment that agree with the concept of mutual time dilation
> on earth. You can't pick and choose.....you can't say that any
> situation that doesn't agree with mutual time dilation because it does
> not apply in all cases.

Why is this not allowed? Please have you seen my before statement
about fluid mechanics? There are laws about fluid mechanics that do
not apply to all fluids and all cases involving fluids. Some laws of
fluid mechanics apply only to incompressible fluids and so you cannot
use them with pneumatic cases because those are compressible fluids.
It seems to me very common that physical laws are only expected to
work in the cases they say they will work in.

>
> >SR says that mutual time
> > dilation applies only in cases of relative inertial motion.
>
> That's my point....there is no inertial frame on earth so that mean
> that you admitted that SR is not a valid theory on earth.

I don't think I admitted anything like that Mr. Seto. I was very
surprised you would say such a thing at all. Why is there no inertial
frame on earth?

> >Fluid
> > mechanics has many laws some of which apply to compressible fluids and
> > others which apply to incompressible fluids. But it would be wrong to
> > say that a law about incompressible fluids applies to pneumatic
> > systems because pneumatics is about compressible fluids. Fluid
> > mechanics applies to pneumatic systems but the hydraulics laws do not
> > work for pneumatic systems. I would think this would be simple to
> > understand.
>
> > > >Secondly don't you imagine that if the
> > > > clocks are slowed down then so will everything about the TV signal
> > > > including the scan rate, transmission rate, and frame rate? Don't you
> > > > think this will cause some sort of problem between the TV signal
> > > > transmitter and the TV signal receiver?
>
> > > We are looking at the rate of the TV clock compared to the rate of the
> > > observer's clock. All the side issues you mentioned are irrelevant.
>
> > You proposed the experiment as something that is achievable, Mr. Seto.
> > But I think you'll find that because the rate of the TV transmitter
> > slows too then the TV receiver will not work to pick up that TV
> > signal. This makes the experiment not so achievable until you worry
> > about solving problems like that.
>
> Your assertion is not a valid arguement.

Mr. Seto there is no argument. You proposed an experiment and said it
was easily achievable. It is not so easy achievable because of the
problem I mentioned. Since you are proposing the experiment and claim
it is easy to do then it is your duty to work out the details that
address other people's concerns. Did you think that all you are
supposed to do is to propose an experiment, say that it is easy to do,
and then wait for someone else to do it? Mr. Seto, how long have you
been doing experimental science? Do you have any experience at all?

[xxein]

xxein: I already know. I'm familiar with Carroll Alley's pleading on
this. Way ahead of him and you on that. But there is no such thing
as a perfect circular orbit also. Not with the Sun and the other near
or massive planets around. That's why we have to monitor and adjust
the synchronization all of the time.

What else have you got?

[John Gogo]

You know by now that the image of the oval is misleading- moreover it
reflects an oblique mathematics that is not in concert with an
absolute ecliptic plane.

[xxein]

xxein: B wrt A with what? Frequency? If they both send the same
atomic frequency from each their own inertial frames, the other will
get a Doppler affected and time dilational frequency. A will see B as
the same frequency as B sees A's.

What lost hole do you inhabit?

You are not going to get a whiff of understanding if you continue with
your belief.

[rotchm]

> xxein:  B wrt A with what?

Exactly my point.

> Frequency?  If they both send the same
> atomic frequency from each their own inertial frames, the other will
> get a Doppler affected and time dilational frequency.

Yup.

> A will see B as
> the same frequency as B sees A's.

This too is badly worded/confusing.
A will receive the signal (pulses) at a certain rate;
B will receive the signal (pulses) at a certain rate;
These rates will be the same.

Therefore, after performing the required SR calcs (Relat.Dop.) , they
will both observe that the other is "time dilated", that "moving
clocks run slow".

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/16/12 5/16/12 8:46 AM, LaLALa wrote:
> I am shocked that you would say that there is no such thing
> as inertial frame on earth.

This depends on what one means by "inertial frame". As for many terms of the
technical vocabulary, the meaning of this phrase depends on one's theoretical
context:

1) In the context of Newtonian mechanics, an inertial frame is infinite in
extent, and it is implicitly assumed that they exist. Modern observations of the
universe show that assumption to be false.

2) In the context of SR, an inertial frame is also infinite in extent, and there
are indeed no such frames on earth, or anywhere else in the universe.

3) In the context of GR, inertial frames are only local, and their extent
depends on the local curvature of the manifold and upon one's measurement
accuracy (larger curvature or better accuracy implies smaller region of
validity). Extent includes both time and space, and in many interesting cases
the temporal duration is a tighter constraint than spatial size.

Careful authors distinguish among these by never omitting "local" for (3). But
setoken is the antithesis of a careful author, as are many others around here.

Note, please, that Newtonian mechanics includes gravity but SR does not.

One can use a LOCALLY inertial frame here on earth with negligible error, as
long as the measurement errors are larger than the errors due to the assumption
of being an inertial frame. Do that by meeting one of these conditions:
A) one applies Newtonian mechanics in a region no larger than a few
tens of meters, and considers only phenomena on the surface.
B) one applies Newtonian mechanics in a region no larger than a few
radii of Pluto's orbit, and considers only orbital mechanics.
C) one applies SR in a region no larger than a few tens of meters, and
for no longer than a few tens of nanoseconds.

All particle physics experiments, and most tabletop optical experiments, can be
analyzed using SR, because they meet condition (C): at the start of any
measurement, imagine a locally inertial frame at rest relative to the apparatus
but freely falling in earth's gravity; 100 nanoseconds later it will have fallen
a distance that is small compared to the measurement accuracy, so the difference
between this locally inertial frame and the lab frame can be neglected.


Like many/most arguments around here, the actual situation is more nuanced than
either party to the disagreement recognizes.

[I do not address setoken's proposed "experiment", as I have done
so many times before, but he is able to neither read what I write
nor remember anything that was written.]


Tom Roberts

[ken...@att.net]

On May 16, 8:38 pm, xxein <xx...@att.net> wrote:
> On May 16, 11:09 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If mutual time dilation is true then R_ab=R_ba.
>
> > That exp has been done numerous times and yes, *when inertially
> > performed*, the result is always R_ab=R_ba.
> > But its not a tv signal (image) but indexed pulses: B sends out pulses
> > at every instant its clock increases by one second (the equivalent of
> > an image in your scenario). A will receive a "0 th" pulse, a pulse #1
> > (sent by B at Btime 1 sec), a pulse #2 (sent by B at Btime 2 sec),
> > etc.
>
> > Note that [the rate at which A *receives*] these pulses is NOT [the
> > rate of B wrt A].
>
> xxein:  B wrt A with what?  Frequency?  If they both send the same
> atomic frequency from each their own inertial frames, the other will
> get a Doppler affected and time dilational frequency.  A will see B as
> the same frequency as B sees A's.

TV picture does not change because the source of the picture move past
you.....otoh, frequency is changed from blue shift to red shift as the
source of the frequency moves past by you. So you see you can't use
frequency shift to explain my experiment.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 16, 5:36 pm, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 3:52 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Mr. Seto, I am shocked that you would say that there is no such thing
> > > as inertial frame on earth.
>
> > Why are you shocked?.....there is no inertial frame on the rotating
> > earth and in a gravitational field.
>
> > >How is this so? What prevents there being
> > > an inertial frame on earth? As far as I know there surely are things
> > > in relative inertial motion on earth -- quite ordinary things.
>
> > Don't you know what a inertial frame means?
>
> I suppose not, Mr. Seto. What do you think an inertial frame means?
> I've never heard before that an inertial reference frame must be free
> from gravity. Where did you hear that this is true?

That's why I suggest that you look up the definition of inertial frame
online. In a gravitational field spacetime is curved and thus no frame
in a gravitational field is inertial.

>
> I'm also curious why that on a rotating earth straight line motion at
> constant speed is not possible?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > There are two problems I see, Mr. Seto. First the International Space
> > > > > Station and GPS satellites are not in relative inertial motion so this
> > > > > is not an appropriate test of the claim SR makes which only applies to
> > > > > relative inertial motion.
>
> > > > You are wrong....SR can be applied to the ISS and the GPS.
>
> > > Why yes, Mr. Seto, it can. But even SR says that mutual time dilation
> > > does not apply in all cases where SR applies.
>
> > Name an experiment that agree with the concept of mutual time dilation
> > on earth. You can't pick and choose.....you can't say that any
> > situation that doesn't agree with mutual time dilation because it does
> > not apply in all cases.
>
> Why is this not allowed?

Because it suggests that SR is valid only when you say that it is
valid. That's not science.

>Please have you seen my before statement
> about fluid mechanics? There are laws about fluid mechanics that do
> not apply to all fluids and all cases involving fluids. Some laws of
> fluid mechanics apply only to incompressible fluids and so you cannot
> use them with pneumatic cases because those are compressible fluids.
> It seems to me very common that physical laws are only expected to
> work in the cases they say they will work in.
>
>
>
> > >SR says that mutual time
> > > dilation applies only in cases of relative inertial motion.
>
> > That's my point....there is no inertial frame on earth so that mean
> > that you admitted that SR is not a valid theory on earth.
>
> I don't think I admitted anything like that Mr. Seto. I was very
> surprised you would say such a thing at all. Why is there no inertial
> frame on earth?

You need to look up the definition of inertial frame online.

> been doing experimental science? Do you have any experience at all?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ken...@att.net]

That's a lie.

[Michael Moroney]

"ken...@att.net" <set...@att.net> writes:

>> > Don't you know what a inertial frame means?
>>
>> I suppose not, Mr. Seto. What do you think an inertial frame means?
>> I've never heard before that an inertial reference frame must be free
>> from gravity. Where did you hear that this is true?

>That's why I suggest that you look up the definition of inertial frame
>online. In a gravitational field spacetime is curved and thus no frame
>in a gravitational field is inertial.

It's inertial if it's in free fall in the gravitational field.

[LaLALa]

On May 17, 8:16 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:

>
> That's why I suggest that you look up the definition of inertial frame
> online. In a gravitational field spacetime is curved and thus no frame
> in a gravitational field is inertial.

I took your advice, Mr. Seto, thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
Where in this does it say that no frame in gravitational field is
inertial? In fact, if you read this article it talks about inertial
frames in gravitational fields. How is this possible if inertial
frames must be gravity-free?

> > I'm also curious why that on a rotating earth straight line motion at
> > constant speed is not possible?

Have you answered this question, Mr. Seto?

>
> > Why is this not allowed?
>
> Because it suggests that SR is valid only when you say that it is
> valid. That's not science.

I did not say that, Mr. Seto. SR's laws are valid when the laws say
they are valid. If SR says there is a law in SR that only applies with
relative inertial motion -- even though SR has other laws for other
cases other than relative inertial motion -- then that law applies
only with relative inertial motion. That is science. It is just like
the laws of fluid mechanics some of which apply to hydraulics and not
pneumatics and some of which apply to pneumatics and not hydraulics
and some of which apply to both. You can't say that fluid mechanics
isn't science because not all of its laws apply to all cases. Surely
you understand that.

[LaLALa]

On May 17, 8:39 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

>
> It's inertial if it's in free fall in the gravitational field.

Or if the field is uniform enough over the size of the experiment that
it doesn't matter, is that not so?

[Michael Moroney]

Only for certain cases. SR predicts that if I hold an object and let it
go with no velocity, it will just stay still. (SR's version of Newton's
First Law) However if I actually do so, the object will drop (accelerate
towards the center of the earth) even though the earth's gravity is
esssentially uniform at the surface.

If I do this while in freefall (for example, aboard NASA's "Vomit Comet"
or on the orbiting space station), the object will stay still relative
to me (not to earth). These frames are truly inertial.

[rotchm]

> TV picture does not change because the source of the picture move past
> you.....otoh, frequency is changed from blue shift to red shift as the
> source of the frequency moves past by you. So you see you can't use
> frequency shift to explain my experiment.

?? Just as the frequency of the moving source will be blue/
red_shifted as it passes you, the tv picture will also "blue/
red_shift". Using a pure frequency "sine wave" (indexed if need be) or
a tv picture yields the same effects and results.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

ken...@att.net <set...@att.net> wrote in message
077ae132-4cff-4f90...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

> On May 16, 9:03 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 5/16/12 5/16/12 8:46 AM, LaLALa wrote:
> >
> > > I am shocked that you would say that there is no such thing
> > > as inertial frame on earth.
> >
> > This depends on what one means by "inertial frame". As for many
> > terms of the technical vocabulary, the meaning of this phrase
> > depends on one's theoretical context:

[snip]

> > [I do not address setoken's proposed "experiment", as I have done
> > so many times before, but he is able to neither read what I write
> > nor remember anything that was written.]
>
> That's a lie.

Indeed, *this* time Seto seems to have read *and* remembered at
least the very last paragraph.

Dirk Vdm

[jbriggs444]

On May 17, 11:23 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

> LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On May 17, 8:39 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
>
> >> It's inertial if it's in free fall in the gravitational field.
> >Or if the field is uniform enough over the size of the experiment that
> >it doesn't matter, is that not so?
>
> Only for certain cases.  SR predicts that if I hold an object and let it
> go with no velocity, it will just stay still.  (SR's version of Newton's
> First Law)

SR predicts that a baseball released above home plate will
accelerate downward at 9.8 meters/sec^2 under the force of
gravity. SR models gravity as a force.

> However if I actually do so, the object will drop (accelerate
> towards the center of the earth) even though the earth's gravity is
> esssentially uniform at the surface.

In accordance with SR.

> If I do this while in freefall (for example, aboard NASA's "Vomit Comet"
> or on the orbiting space station), the object will stay still relative
> to me (not to earth).  These frames are truly inertial.

SR plus the equivalence principle holds that you can
[locally] transform away the force of gravity by adopting
an accelerating frame of reference.

In this sense one can pretend that an object in free
fall is at rest in an inertial frame of reference and that
the force of gravity [excluding tidal forces] is completely
absent.

Arguing over which notion is "truly inertial" is a fool's
game -- the math works either way.

Of course, general relativity models gravity entirely as
a geometric effect.

[ken...@att.net]

On May 17, 9:39 am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

No.

[Y]

On May 17, 7:36 am, LaLALa <lajourney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 3:52 pm, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Mr. Seto, I am shocked that you would say that there is no such thing
> > > as inertial frame on earth.
>
> > Why are you shocked?.....there is no inertial frame on the rotating
> > earth and in a gravitational field.
>
> > >How is this so? What prevents there being
> > > an inertial frame on earth? As far as I know there surely are things
> > > in relative inertial motion on earth -- quite ordinary things.
>
> > Don't you know what a inertial frame means?
>
> I suppose not, Mr. Seto. What do you think an inertial frame means?
> I've never heard before that an inertial reference frame must be free
> from gravity. Where did you hear that this is true?
>
> I'm also curious why that on a rotating earth straight line motion at
> constant speed is not possible?

Since you already seem to know the answers you should consider saying
what you think rather than asking questions.

-y

[LaLALa]

On May 18, 11:33 am, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Since you already seem to know the answers you should consider saying
> what you think rather than asking questions.

Why?

That was a joke.

I do not know the answers. I was just very surprised by the statements
by Mr. Seto because they did not agree with many things I have read. I
was even further surprised when he suggested that I look up the answer
online and I did and it still not agree with what he said. What am I
to think when that happens? I always believe in checking things before
speaking about them and I am always surprised by people who say things
without checking whether they are true. It seems they are more
interested in saying things back and forth than they are in whether
anything that is being said is true. It is much easier to say things
back and forth without checking I suppose and if the person is just
lonely then just saying things back and forth is the important thing.

[Michael Moroney]

What do you mean just "No" ? Do you even understand what inertial means?
What about free fall?

Let's hear an explanation that supports your claim.