Length Contraction Fully Explained
kk
Any inertially-moving rod has only two endpoints;
by not moving relative to each other, these two points
produce a single constant intrinsic rod length (even
if we are not currently able to determine said length).
Therefore, if observers in various frames find different
lengths for said rod, then this must be due to some
observer-dependent process, and _not_ to the rod itself.
Tom Roberts **agrees** by saying:
>When you look at a building from directly in front,
>it appears to be wider than when you look at it from
>a corner. This effect does not affect the building
>itself, of course, and is purely due to your point
>of view. ... Similarly in SR, "length contraction"
>is purely a geometrical effect, an artifact of one's
>point of view ....
http://tinyurl.com/hvpej
[Roberts to Nicolaaas Vroom 3-30-06]
But what is the root physical cause of SR's
observer-dependent "length contraction"?
Tom Roberts tried to pin it down as follows:
>Because the rod is moving, naturally the observer
>in A must mark both ends _simultaneously_ in
>frame A (which requires assistants) and then use
>a meterstick at rest in frame A to measure the
>length between the marks. Ultimately it is the
>DIFFERENCE IN SIMULTANEITY between frames A and
>B that is the source of the length contraction ....
http://tinyurl.com/hvpej
[Roberts to GSS 3-19-06]
While Roberts _believed_ he had located the root
(or ultimate) cause as being "the difference in
simultaneity," what we really need to know is
What causes this difference in simultaneity?
In other words, we need to find the physical cause
of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity.
Here is the story:
Being unable to absolutely synchronize clocks, Einstein
could not use clocks at events to correctly determine
their occurrence times, so he had to fall back on using
light signals sent from the events, merely _specifying_
that the arrival times of these signals in each frame
are to be used as the "occurrence times" of the events.
Clearly, since each frame moves _differently_ relative
to these signals, each frame's observers will see the
signals arrive differently, so we can now see that the
ultimate physical cause of the relativity of simultaneity
is simply different frame movements wrt to light signals.
Of course, if Einsteinian observers want to use _clocks_
at the events instead of using light signals from the
events, then all they have to do is make their clocks
correspond to Einstein's light-signal scheme, and this
can be done very simply by using midway-emitted light
signals to start clocks on zero.
Obviously, each frame's clocks will actually be started
differently due to the different frame motions relative
to the signals.
For example, just as in Einstein's own train/embankment
thought experiment, one frame's left clock may move
toward its approaching signal, whereas the other clock
will move away from its signal, so the clocks would not
be started truly simultaneously.
Then, if this frame's Einsteinian clocks are used to
determine the time between two absolutely simultaneous
events, then the clocks will report that the events
did not occur simultaneously.
And since events are observer-independent, this report
flatly contradicts reality, as do all other such reports
from all other Einsteinian frames' clocks (except those
from the one frame whose clocks became truly synched by
Einstein's light signals due to a lack of frame motion
either toward or away from the signals).
Given the simple fact that all but one of Einstein's
frames contains absolutely asynchronous clocks due to
absolutely different frame movements wrt the light
signals used to set Einstein's clocks, we can at last
_fully_ understand the relativistic "length contraction."
Just as Tom Roberts said, this "contraction" is merely
an artifact of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity,
which, in turn, is an artifact of Einstein's absolutely
asynchronous clocks. Einsteinian observers cannot truly
simultaneously pin down the end points of a passing rod,
so they mis-measure the rod, calling it shortened, and
each frame's observers find a different length for one
and the same passing rod, which, of course, cannot have
but one physical length, as we noted above.
BUT WHY STOP AT THE "LENGTH CONTRACTION"?
It should be crystal clear to anyone by now that thanks
to Einstein's asynchronous clocks, NONE of his two-clock
results can possibly be correct.
This means that special relativity's "time dilation,"
"momentum variance" (sometimes called "mass increase"),
"addition of velocities" (or velocity composition),
transformation equations, and light's one-way, 2-clock
speed are ALL INCORRECT.
In other words, given absolutely synchronous clocks,
exactly none of these relativistic results would occur,
including the invariance of light's one-way speed.
All of special relativity's results are due to Einstein's
use of asynchronous clocks, which, in turn, are due to
the use of a mere definition.
Clearly, a _definition_ has nothing to do with the workings
of the physical world, and cannot produce a scientific theory.
--kk--
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka Cadwgan Gedrych
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
<mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146678005.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Common sense says:
> Any inertially-moving rod has only two endpoints;
> by not moving relative to each other, these two points
> produce a single constant intrinsic rod length (even
> if we are not currently able to determine said length).
Started in 1995 :-)
Dirk Vdm
kk
Even if it did start then, it is much better than the over-a-century-
with-no-full-explanation from everyone else, hair-trigger Vdm!
--kk--(who hasn't seen Vdm even attempt to explain it)
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka Cadwgan Gedrych
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
During the last 10 years you have shown to be a dishonest liar
and a *very* stupid one as well:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof.html
| "Let the unprimed frame's origin clock read zero when
| event E1 occurs at t = 0.6 and at x = 1."
Frightening, specially after a decade of explanations :-)
Dirk Vdm
kk
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Frightening indeed, to one such as you, whose
main intellectual weapon is an ad hominem attack.
Let's hear from someone who has something
substantial to say, if that's possible.
--kk--
AllYou!
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:2%56g.405098$PJ1.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "kk"
> aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
> aka Cadwgan Gedrych
> aka 2ndPostulateDude
> aka SRdude
> aka Edward Travis
> aka Ron Aikas
> aka Roy Royce
> aka John Reid
> aka Martin Miller
So what? What has any of that got to do with his post?
AllYou!
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Common sense says:
Common sense is the sum total of all of life's experiences, and if
you've never experienced observations of relativistic phenomena, then
it's not a part of your common sense. However, that doesn't mean it's
not valid. If all we did was to go by our common sense, we'd never
advance at all.
You're right in that a definition has nothing to do with observations,
however, the definition is just a description of what is the case.
How do you explain that SR & GR have been validated?
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146679955.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> --mercifully snipped--
>
> Frightening indeed, to one such as you, whose
> main intellectual weapon is an ad hominem attack.
Ad *hominem* is not applicable to something that calls
itself Kurt Kingston, Brian D. Jones (real name),
Cadwgan Gedrych, 2ndPostulateDude, SRdude,
Edward Travis, Ron Aikas, Roy Royce, John Reid,
Martin Miller and who knows what else :-)
> Let's hear from someone who has something
> substantial to say, if that's possible.
Anyone who tries to explain something to an obnoxious
imbecile like you, is, in the best case, hopelessly naive :-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:8cCdnTuNgdlqb8XZ...@conversent.net...
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?ie=UTF-8&q=author%3Abrian+author%3Ajones+%22length+contraction%22
And of course, the difference between the two of you is, that
you are an efficient and effective coward :-)
Dirk Vdm
kk
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Anyone who tries to explain something to an obnoxious
> imbecile like you, is, in the best case, hopelessly naive :-)
Hey, this must be my best post ever!
Why else would Dirkie be so upset!
--kk--
Paul Cardinale
simultaneity, then SR is wrong." Or, more concisely: "If you assume
that SR is wrong, then SR is wrong."
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146681551.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/confuse
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/upset
with
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/amused
Dirk Vdm
kk
AllYou! wrote:
>If all we did was to go by our common sense, we'd never
>advance at all.
Yes, you are of course correct, but I put that in just to
counter the century-old smirk from the relativists about
having to leave behind good ol' common sense to enter the
world of special relativity.
Note though that my mention of common sense has exactly
zero to do with the validity of my explanation of the
relativistic length contraction, which was fully backed
by a _relativist_ (Roberts).
>>Clearly, a _definition_ has nothing to do with the workings
>>of the physical world, and cannot produce a scientific theory.
>You're right in that a definition has nothing to do with
>observations, however, the definition is just a description
>of what is the case. How do you explain that SR & GR have
>been validated?
The definition is not just a description.
The definition controls all two-clock readings in SR,
including light's one-way, two-clock speed, the one
that is supposed to be c by experiment, but cannot be
because no one can perform this experiment, contrary
to your claim that SR has been validated.
--kk--
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146682364.8...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> AllYou! wrote:
> >If all we did was to go by our common sense, we'd never
> >advance at all.
>
> Yes, you are of course correct, but I put that in just to
> counter the century-old smirk from the relativists about
> having to leave behind good ol' common sense to enter the
> world of special relativity.
Searching for "common sense":
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?ie=UTF-8&q=author%3Abrian+author%3Ajones+%22common+sense%22
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
I have no idea to what you're referring, but thanks for continually
proving my point.
AllYou!
As much as you try to deny it, you simply have little control over
your anger. Your fear drives it.
kk
So you are calling Tom Robert's words "crap."
Interesting.
Anyway, that "crap," as you so kindly put it,
did indeed fully and finally explain the
infamous "length contraction," along with the
equally infamous "time dilation" and "mass
increase," not to mention the cause of SR's
basis, one-way light speed "invariance."
And, contrary to your above, none of these
explanations had anything to do with "assuming
that there is absolute simultaneity."
--kk--
AllYou!
Will you please go away? This is a public NG and while you have a
right to participate in this conversation, no one really needs or
wants you to do so. So why do you bother when your only purpose i
doing so is to be obstructive? You're a very vindictive and angry old
man.
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:IdSdnUgXbOzvncTZ...@conversent.net...
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllYours.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aallyou+%22self%2Drespect%22
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Self-respect.html
Self-respectfully yours :-)
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
No experiment has ever been performed on Newton's 1st law either
because there's never been a situation wherein an object has never
been subjected to exactly no accelerations of any kind, yet that's
been validated. My point is that there are many ways to validate a
theory, and SR has been so validated.
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:Uc2dnQHwdZ_...@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:e076g.405203$In.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> Will you please go away? This is a public NG
right :-)
> and while you have a
> right to participate in this conversation, no one really needs or
> wants you to do so. So why do you bother when your only purpose i
> doing so is to be obstructive? You're a very vindictive and angry old
> man.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotATroll.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AllYours.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Relationship.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BaddaBing.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Transparency.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourMotives.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DoAndrocles.html
and much more...
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
Smiley face notwithstanding, your anger, as driven by your fear, is
self-evident.
AllYou!
........anger driven by fear. We all know already. It's reduced you
to being a caricature of yourself. The mere fact that you maintain a
website and a library of links all dedicated to your perceived
adversaries is a testament to your current bitterness and
vindictiveness. It will be your longest lasting legacy.
kk
>My point is that there are many ways to validate a
>theory, and SR has been so validated
What does SR say?
--kk--
AllYou!
http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/
http://www.sysmatrix.net/~kavs/kjs/addend4.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
http://tinyurl.com/ks7zy
http://tinyurl.com/hhqom
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
dda1
kk wrote:
kk aka kaka
dda1
Yes, he's angry. Because there are too many idiots like you.
Igor
kk wrote:
> of the physical world, and cannot produce a scientific theory.
>
So publish your own theory (I doubt that you have one) and see where it
goes. That's the only way progress is made in physics. But if you are
challenging realtivistic simultaneity with a finite speed of light,
your ideas are already doa.
kk
>>"kk" <mr_kurt_kings...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>What does SR say?
>(link, link, link, etc., etc.)
Ok, what do _you_ (personally) say that
SR says about light's one-way speed from
point A to point B in Frame C?
--kk--
kk
>kk wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------
----[here Igor replayed my entire starting post]----
----------------------------------------------------------
>>Clearly, a _definition_ has nothing to do with the workings
>>of the physical world, and cannot produce a scientific theory.
>>--kk--
>So publish your own theory (I doubt that you have one)
>and see where it goes. That's the only way progress
>is made in physics. But if you are challenging
>realtivistic simultaneity with a finite speed of light,
>your ideas are already doa.
Progress can also be made by showing that an
existing "theory" is pure balderdash.
--kk--
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146706514.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
...
> Progress can also be made by showing that an
> existing "theory" is pure balderdash.
Rather than talk about it, prove it. So far you have "shown"
only hand waving. Make a prediction that is in agreement with
experiment, that SR fails to describe. Since you are talking
only length contraction, there is no need in bringing in mass or
gravitation. Since you are talking about a macroscopic length,
then quantum mechanics isn't involved (any more than it is for
everything).
The stage is yours. Do more than posture please.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146705502.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
...
> Ok, what do _you_ (personally) say that
> SR says about light's one-way speed from
> point A to point B in Frame C?
It says that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial
frames.
Maxwell provides that OWLS is c.
Logic says that OWLS is impossible to measure in this Universe.
Consider the current definition of the meter...
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> what is the root physical cause of SR's
> observer-dependent "length contraction"?
> Tom Roberts tried to pin it down as follows:
Your "it" is the "physical cause of length contraction", and I have
never attempted to associate the word "cause" with that, or the word
"physical". You are using the naive notion of "causality" that is not
part of any modern theory of physics. And this is not "physical", it is
_geometrical_, as I have said many times.
>> Because the rod is moving, naturally the observer
>> in A must mark both ends _simultaneously_ in
>> frame A (which requires assistants) and then use
>> a meterstick at rest in frame A to measure the
>> length between the marks. Ultimately it is the
>> DIFFERENCE IN SIMULTANEITY between frames A and
>> B that is the source of the length contraction ....
> http://tinyurl.com/hvpej
> [Roberts to GSS 3-19-06]
>
> While Roberts _believed_ he had located the root
> (or ultimate) cause as being "the difference in
> simultaneity,"
Nonsense. I have never "believed", said, or implied that at all. You are
reading _YOUR_ wishes and dreams into my words, and attempting to put
them into my mouth. Don't do that. I _never_ use the word "cause" in the
sense you are trying to foist upon me.
> what we really need to know is
> What causes this difference in simultaneity?
The very same geometrical projection. <shrug>
> In other words, we need to find the physical cause
> of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity.
No, we don't. This is a _geometrical_relationship_, not a "physical
cause". <shrug>
You will search in vain for the answer to "What is the
'physical cause' of a building looking narrower from a
corner than from its front?" Your search here is also
hopeless.
> [... further "story" omitted, as it is utter nonsense]
> [...] my explanation of the
> relativistic length contraction, which was fully backed
> by a _relativist_ (Roberts).
I have never "backed" anything you have said. And the label "relativist"
carries philosophical connotations that make its usage inappropriate
here. I am a _physicist_.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
news:1146681670.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> All that crap boils down to: "If you assume that there is absolute
> simultaneity, then SR is wrong."
You don't have to assume the absolute simultaneity. There must be
absolute simultaneity. That is the only way to resolve the Twin's
Paradox. That is the only way to allow interference pattern as
observed by anyone. Principle of Simultaneity is what makes the
physical world possible in existence. Principle of Least Time is what
dictates the laws of physics. Assumed craps are principle of
stationary action, principle of maximum ageing. Lorentz Transform is
plainl old wrong. Thus, all other interpretations based on Lorentz
Transform are also wrong. These include LET (Lorentz's own),
Poincare's SR (basically the same as Einstein's SR), SR (of course),
Mr. Seto's, Mr. O'Barr's, etc.
> Or, more concisely: "If you assume that SR is wrong, then SR is wrong."
So, if I assume Mr. Cardinale does not exist, Mr. Cardinale does not
exist.
What is wrong with this logic?
Hint: That is the crap you get when turning your back on the Principle
of Simultaneity. Utterly ridiculous beyond belief!
Koobee Wublee
news:1146690585.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yes, he's angry. Because there are too many idiots like you.
Both moortel and dda1 are angry. Why? Just because their ego in their
believes are bruised similar to religious zealots, they are angry.
Since we are discussing science, you don't have to be angry. Just
allow your logical conscience to guide you through the sea of deceits
and mis-interpretations. Unless you are religious zealots, nothing can
persuade you. Logic is missing among those folks. Instead of logical
deductions, faith reigns. Faith always brings out anger when your
logical conscience within is attacking this faith.
Dirk Van de moortel
Angry? You must be joking.
If I wanted a place without idiots, I'd go to a boring moderated group.
Dirk Vdm
Hexenmeister
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1146681670.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| All that crap boils down to: "If you assume that there is absolute
| that SR is wrong, then SR is wrong."
All that crap boils down to:
"If you assume SR is right, then SR is wrong".
Or, more concisely "If you assume..."
Androcles.
Martin Hogbin
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146678005.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Common sense says:
<snip>
> ... given absolutely synchronous clocks,
What do you hope to gain by posting under different names Brian?
Martin Hogbin
Martin Hogbin
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:IdSdnUgXbOzvncTZ...@conversent.net...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:iR66g.405190$EI5.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1146681551.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
>
> your anger. Your fear drives it.
Perhaps kk would like to explain why he continues to post
the same comments under a variety of different names.
Surely he must realise that this reduces his credibility.
Martin Hogbin
Harry
> Common sense says:
> Any inertially-moving rod has only two endpoints;
> by not moving relative to each other, these two points
> produce a single constant intrinsic rod length (even
> if we are not currently able to determine said length).
>
> Therefore, if observers in various frames find different
> lengths for said rod, then this must be due to some
> observer-dependent process, and _not_ to the rod itself.
Defect deduction: expressed like that, it denies Lorentz's explanation as
option.
> Tom Roberts **agrees** by saying:
> >When you look at a building from directly in front,
> >it appears to be wider than when you look at it from
> >a corner. This effect does not affect the building
> >itself, of course, and is purely due to your point
> >of view. ... Similarly in SR, "length contraction"
> >is purely a geometrical effect, an artifact of one's
> >point of view ....
> http://tinyurl.com/hvpej
> [Roberts to Nicolaaas Vroom 3-30-06]
>
> But what is the root physical cause of SR's
> observer-dependent "length contraction"?
>
> Tom Roberts tried to pin it down as follows:
> >Because the rod is moving, naturally the observer
> >in A must mark both ends _simultaneously_ in
> >frame A (which requires assistants) and then use
> >a meterstick at rest in frame A to measure the
> >length between the marks. Ultimately it is the
> >DIFFERENCE IN SIMULTANEITY between frames A and
> >B that is the source of the length contraction ....
> http://tinyurl.com/hvpej
> [Roberts to GSS 3-19-06]
>
> While Roberts _believed_ he had located the root
> (or ultimate) cause as being "the difference in
> simultaneity," what we really need to know is
> What causes this difference in simultaneity?
>
> In other words, we need to find the physical cause
> of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity.
>
> Here is the story:
>
> Being unable to absolutely synchronize clocks, Einstein
> could not use clocks at events to correctly determine
> their occurrence times, so he had to fall back on using
> light signals sent from the events, merely _specifying_
> that the arrival times of these signals in each frame
> are to be used as the "occurrence times" of the events.
>
> Clearly, since each frame moves _differently_ relative
> to these signals, each frame's observers will see the
> signals arrive differently, so we can now see that the
> ultimate physical cause of the relativity of simultaneity
> is simply different frame movements wrt to light signals.
"Simply"? ;-)
> Of course, if Einsteinian observers want to use _clocks_
> at the events instead of using light signals from the
> events, then all they have to do is make their clocks
> correspond to Einstein's light-signal scheme, and this
> can be done very simply by using midway-emitted light
> signals to start clocks on zero.
>
> Obviously, each frame's clocks will actually be started
> differently due to the different frame motions relative
> to the signals.
>
> For example, just as in Einstein's own train/embankment
> thought experiment, one frame's left clock may move
> toward its approaching signal, whereas the other clock
> will move away from its signal, so the clocks would not
> be started truly simultaneously.
>
> Then, if this frame's Einsteinian clocks are used to
> determine the time between two absolutely simultaneous
> events, then the clocks will report that the events
> did not occur simultaneously.
>
> And since events are observer-independent, this report
> flatly contradicts reality, as do all other such reports
> from all other Einsteinian frames' clocks (except those
> from the one frame whose clocks became truly synched by
> Einstein's light signals due to a lack of frame motion
> either toward or away from the signals).
Babylonian language confusion again? For here you assume the explanation
that you excluded above...
> Given the simple fact that all but one of Einstein's
> frames contains absolutely asynchronous clocks due to
> absolutely different frame movements wrt the light
> signals used to set Einstein's clocks, we can at last
> _fully_ understand the relativistic "length contraction."
Right - apart of the "at last": it's old news!
> Just as Tom Roberts said, this "contraction" is merely
> an artifact of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity,
> which, in turn, is an artifact of Einstein's absolutely
> asynchronous clocks. Einsteinian observers cannot truly
> simultaneously pin down the end points of a passing rod,
> so they mis-measure the rod, calling it shortened, and
> each frame's observers find a different length for one
> and the same passing rod, which, of course, cannot have
> but one physical length, as we noted above.
Now think a little further, and consider what a measurement result of a
moving rod in that one frame implies about physical length...
> BUT WHY STOP AT THE "LENGTH CONTRACTION"?
>
> It should be crystal clear to anyone by now that thanks
> to Einstein's asynchronous clocks, NONE of his two-clock
> results can possibly be correct.
>
> This means that special relativity's "time dilation,"
> "momentum variance" (sometimes called "mass increase"),
> "addition of velocities" (or velocity composition),
> transformation equations, and light's one-way, 2-clock
> speed are ALL INCORRECT.
>
> In other words, given absolutely synchronous clocks,
> exactly none of these relativistic results would occur,
> including the invariance of light's one-way speed.
Instead, the effects of relativistic "mass increase" and "time dilation"
have been measured beyond all doubt: see particle accelerators and GPS.
> All of special relativity's results are due to Einstein's
> use of asynchronous clocks, which, in turn, are due to
> the use of a mere definition.
>
> Clearly, a _definition_ has nothing to do with the workings
> of the physical world, and cannot produce a scientific theory.
Sure - that definition (which doesn't originate with Einstein) is for
convenience; it doesn't affect the predictions.
Harald
AllYou!
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:cZqdna-QnaNgM8TZ...@bt.com...
It may very well do that, but it's not his credibility that's at
issue. Science is not about personalities. What really counts in
terms of credibility is what's posted, and not who does the posting.
If someone with allegedly *no* credibility posts a credible question
or comment, isn't that all we need to know?
AllYou!
Then he should be angry at God, not me.
AllYou!
And you come to a public NG because you'll be just another poster in a
moderated one. You won't have the opportunity to get the validation
you so desperately seek if you confine yourself to your peers. But
you come here instead for that very validation, but your desperation
is the basis of your extreme fear which is why you're so angry. It's
all very pathetic.
AllYou!
I say that SR says that it's c from any point to any point in any
frame.
kk
AllYou! wrote:
>[kk wrote:]
>>Ok, what do _you_ (personally) say that
>>SR says about light's one-way speed from
>>point A to point B in Frame C?
>I say that SR says that it's c from any point
>to any point in any frame.
Is this per experiment or merely per definition?
If it's per experiment, then tell us how to
perform it.
If it's per definition, then it has nothing to
do with the physics of light's one-way speed.
And the latter would make SR and its basis, the
2nd postulate, irrelevant to physics.
--kk--
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka Cadwgan Gedrych
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
<mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1146753673....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Congratulations, Brian, that's an excellent little fish
you've got hooked there. I'm sure you'll be able to
handle it from here ;-)
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
>
> AllYou! wrote:
>>[kk wrote:]
>>>Ok, what do _you_ (personally) say that
>>>SR says about light's one-way speed from
>>>point A to point B in Frame C?
>
>>I say that SR says that it's c from any point
>>to any point in any frame.
>
> Is this per experiment or merely per definition?
You asked me what I believed that SR said. I didn't do any
experiments or define anything in order to come to a conclusion of
what SR says. I simply read what it says, and what other's have said
what it says, and I put it all together to come to my conclusion.
But if you're asking whether or not SR says what it says on the basis
of experiments, then my answer would be that it partially does. AE
used the experiments regarding the speed of light to form postulates
upon which he based SR.
However, since then, many experiments have been performed which relate
to SR, and all of them have been consistent with the predictions made
by SR, and none of them have been inconsistent. That's yet another
reason why I not only believe that SR says what I said it says, but
why I believe that it's valid.
> If it's per experiment, then tell us how to
> perform it.
I've answered this question before for you, but you ignored it. Why
would you do that? Anyway:
"No experiment has ever been performed on Newton's 1st law either
because there's never been a situation wherein an object has never
been subjected to exactly no accelerations of any kind, yet that's
been validated. My point is that there are many ways to validate a
theory, and SR has been so validated."
If a theory predicts a number of results, and some of those can be
observed directly, while others can only be derived indirectly, and
still others can't be performed at all, and all observations are
consistent with it's predictions, and there have never been any
observations which are contrary to its predictions, then the theory is
valid.
> If it's per definition, then it has nothing to
> do with the physics of light's one-way speed.
OK.
> And the latter would make SR and its basis, the
> 2nd postulate, irrelevant to physics.
OK.
AllYou!
Ahhhhh, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery, but
nothing that can come from you is flattering. You're just an old
fool..................no more, but probably much less.
kk
>Ultimately it is the DIFFERENCE IN SIMULTANEITY
>between frames A and B that is the source of the
http://tinyurl.com/hvpej [Roberts to GSS 3-19-06]
The "difference in simultaneity" means the
"relativity of simultaneity."
The "relativity of simultaneity" is when observers
equidistant from events in various frames see light
signals from the events arrive differently.
Therefore, contrary to Tom's latest words, the
"relativity of simultaneity" has nothing to do
with math or geometry, and everything to do with
the relative motions of light and inertial frames.
So Tom is wrong here, just as he was wrong with his
example, which follows:
>You will search in vain for the answer to
>"What is the 'physical cause' of a building
>looking narrower from a corner than from its
>front?" Your search here is also hopeless.
Everyone but Tom knows that the physical cause
of the building looking narrower is simply the
different position of the observer in relation
to the building, and the same applies to the
"relativity of simultaneity," where the physical
cause is the different motions of frames relative
to the approaching light signals.
Let's look closer at Tom's latest words:
[kk wrote:]
> what we really need to know is
> What causes this difference in simultaneity?
["Shruggin' Thomas" wrote:]
>The very same geometrical projection. <shrug>
>>In other words, we need to find the physical cause
>>of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity.
>No, we don't. This is a _geometrical_relationship_,
>not a "physical cause". <shrug>
Tom clearly fails to realize that we are talking
physics here, and no math can cause anything to
happen in physics.
The "relativity of simultaneity" happens in physics,
so its cause must be physical.
The given problem was to find the physical cause of
the relativistic "length contraction," and, as I
said, Tom helped get us started by pinning down
the penultimate cause, "relative simultaneity,"
despite his silly protestation that this is
merely math.
To reiterate:
SR is concerned with what happens when inertial
observers use Einstein-set clocks and standard
rulers to time and locate events in space. All
of this is purely physical, and none of it is
in any way controlled by math (or geometry).
Does "Shruggin' Thomas" deny that during the SR
length contraction, Einstein's clocks and rulers
are used?
Does "Shruggin' Thomas" deny that the _only_ way to
obtain the SR length contraction in the real world
is by using Einstein's clocks and rulers?
This is physics, not math. Math cannot cause anything
in physics.
--kk--
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka Cadwgan Gedrych
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
> Tom Roberts wrote (in another thread):
> >Ultimately it is the DIFFERENCE IN SIMULTANEITY
> >between frames A and B that is the source of the
> >length contraction .... [kk added emphasis]
> http://tinyurl.com/hvpej [Roberts to GSS 3-19-06]
>
> The "difference in simultaneity" means the
> "relativity of simultaneity."
You really shouldn't try to formulate sentences about time, Brian:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof.html
| Let the unprimed frame's origin clock read zero when
| event E1 occurs at t = 0.6 and at x = 1.
|
| According to the Einsteinian transformation equations,
| this same event occurred in the primed frame at
|
| t' = -0.6 and at x' = 1.
|
| As I said, x = x' = 1.
|
| Also, since t' = 0 and x' = 0 when t = 0 and x = 0,
| the two frames' origin clocks were coincident and
| both were reading zero when E1 occurred.
|
| Q.E.D.
Exercise: which exercise does this suggest?
Dirk Vdm
kk
>Rather than talk about it, prove it.
>So far you have "shown" only hand waving.
Yes, if your definition of "hand waving" is
to note that _none_ of special relativity's
results are correct due to the absolute
asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks.
Now the stage is yours to prove that Einstein's
clocks are absolutely (or truly) synchronous.
--kk--
AllYou!
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146755793.2...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
You're putting quotes around that term as though that's what he said,
but in reality, it's your interpretation of what he said.
What's more, even had he said *relative simultaneity", that's no
different than saying that the cause of the building being wider was
caused by the "relative positions" of the observers. Just because the
relationship of the observers is quantified using math, this doesn't
mean that the relationship isn't a physical reality.
> To reiterate:
> SR is concerned with what happens when inertial
> observers use Einstein-set clocks and standard
> rulers to time and locate events in space. All
> of this is purely physical, and none of it is
> in any way controlled by math (or geometry).
Right, it's just quantified using math.
> Does "Shruggin' Thomas" deny that during the SR
> length contraction, Einstein's clocks and rulers
> are used?
As instruments to quantify what's observed.
> Does "Shruggin' Thomas" deny that the _only_ way to
> obtain the SR length contraction in the real world
> is by using Einstein's clocks and rulers?
I'll guess his answer is no, but that's the only way to quantify the
observations.
> This is physics, not math. Math cannot cause anything
> in physics.
Did anyone ever say anything different?
Dirk Van de moortel
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:VoadnYVu9Mv...@conversent.net...
That's a bit like
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cowardice.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BaddaBing.html
don't you think?
Dirk Vdm
kk
>Sure - that definition ... is for convenience;
>it doesn't affect the predictions.
Thanks for the comic relief, Harry, ol' chap!
But in case you were serious, please tell us
how the definition does not affect light's
one-way, two-clock speed.
Or you can tell us how the definition does not
affect the SR transformation equations.
Or you can tell us how the definition does not
affect the SR length contraction.
Or you can tell us how the definition does not
affect the SR time dilation.
Or you can tell us ....
--kk--
AllYou!
You're like a pesky brat who just keeps coming back no matter how many
times you try to ignore it. It serves no purpose, contributes nothing
at all, and basically has no life except to annoy through distraction.
It's only significance is a fantasy of its own perspective.
I guess I must've really hit a nerve by nailing you for who you are.
I put it out there as a trial balloon of sorts, and sure enough,
you've proven it true. In obsessing about me, you've proven beyond
any doubt that my assessment of you as a very bitter, old, man whose
anger is born of an irrational fear of being perceived as any less
than infallible was right on the mark.
Your life is obviously consumed with the obsession of maintaining
reams of files on what people have said, and of having them at the
ready to serve any childish purpose you might have. How pathetic.
Good luck with that.
Harry
> Harry wrote:
> >Sure - that definition ... is for convenience;
> >it doesn't affect the predictions.
>
> Thanks for the comic relief, Harry, ol' chap!
>
> But in case you were serious, please tell us
> how the definition does not affect light's
> one-way, two-clock speed.
It's the other way round (also the comic relief!): as already AllYou tried
to explain, the definition of OWLS doesn't affect the predictions -
predictions are about observables you know...
> Or you can tell us how the definition does not
> affect the SR transformation equations.
The transformation equations are merely calculation tools. As with all
physics, different tools can be used to calculate the same - for example,
you can also just work with length contraction and time dilation (it depends
on the problem which is simpler).
> Or you can tell us how the definition does not
> affect the SR length contraction.
That's very simple: a definition isn't observable, but length contraction is
(in principle).
And here's one for you: can YOU tell US how the definition of current flow
from + to - does not affect electron flow in a wire.
Harald
Randy Poe
kk wrote:
> AllYou! wrote:
> >[kk wrote:]
> >>Ok, what do _you_ (personally) say that
> >>SR says about light's one-way speed from
> >>point A to point B in Frame C?
>
> >I say that SR says that it's c from any point
> >to any point in any frame.
>
> Is this per experiment or merely per definition?
By experiment, light speed was found to be c in any
direction and at any time, in terms of then existing
definitions of the meter and second.
Since the variability of light speed (in whatever units)
was found to be less than the variability of the physical
standard for the meter, light became the length standard
in 1983. But the world did not begin in 1983, it existed
before that.
Even after that, it isn't isotropic by definition. If light had
some anisotropy, you'd be able to determine that experimentally.
- Randy
kk
>kk wrote
>>Thanks for the comic relief, Harry, ol' chap!
>>But in case you were serious, please tell us
>>how the definition does not affect light's
>>one-way, two-clock speed.
>It's the other way round (also the comic relief!):
>as already AllYou tried to explain, the definition
>of OWLS doesn't affect the predictions - predictions
>are about observables you know...
So it's not a prediction of SR that light's
one-way speed is invariant?
If that's the case, then who cares what SR
says about light's one-way speed? (It's not
physics unless it's a prediction.)
You can only have it one way, Harold; either it's
a physics prediction (which calls for an accompanying
experiment), or it's a mere definition (that is not
relevant to the physics of light's one-way speed).
>>Or you can tell us how the definition does not
>>affect the SR transformation equations.
>The transformation equations are merely calculation
>tools. As with all physics, different tools can be
>used to calculate the same - for example, you can
>also just work with length contraction and time
>dilation (it depends on the problem which is simpler).
Not according to Einstein, who stated that the
transformation equations are relativity.
And you don't even seem to know _what_ is allegedly
being calculated and compared by using the equations;
it happens to be all relative speeds, including light's
passing speed, all two-clock times of all events, etc.
Unless Einstein's definition correctly relates his clocks,
then all of these calculations are incorrect, and there-
fore have nothing to do with physics.
>>Or you can tell us how the definition does not
>>affect the SR length contraction.
>That's very simple: a definition isn't observable,
>but length contraction is (in principle).
Show us how the SR length contraction can or could
be observed sans the definition.
>And here's one for you: can YOU tell US how the
>definition of current flow from + to - does not
>affect electron flow in a wire.
It doesn't affect it of course, just as Einstein's
definition has no affect on real physics. But,
as I said, his definition affects every single
two-clock measurement in SR, and SR does not
exist without two-clock measurements, so SR has
nothing to do with physics.
--kk--
Igor
So you must believe that the speed of light is infinite. It can't be
anything else with absolute simultaneity. Finite light speed results
in some form of relative simultaneity, albeit not necessarily SR.
kk
>kk wrote:
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>I say that SR says that it's c from any point
>>>to any point in any frame.
>>Is this per experiment or merely per definition?
>By experiment, light speed was found to be c in any
>direction and at any time, in terms of then existing
>definitions of the meter and second.
Bold claim, no backup.
When was this experiment performed, and by whom?
(It has to involve two same-frame clocks measuring
light's speed between them.)
>... it isn't isotropic by definition. If light had
>some anisotropy, you'd be able to determine that
>experimentally.
You could not determine any anisotropy if clocks
are set by definition to hide that anisotropy;
also, you could not determine the anisotropy if
no one knows how to unhide it by absolutely
synchronizing clocks.
--kk--
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka Cadwgan Gedrych
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
> Randy Poe claimed [re light's one-way speed]:
> >kk wrote:
> >> AllYou! wrote:
> >>>I say that SR says that it's c from any point
> >>>to any point in any frame.
>
> >>Is this per experiment or merely per definition?
>
> >By experiment, light speed was found to be c in any
> >direction and at any time, in terms of then existing
> >definitions of the meter and second.
>
> Bold claim, no backup.
>
> When was this experiment performed, and by whom?
Starting in 1995:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?ie=UTF-8&q=author%3Abrian+author%3Ajones+%22experiment+performed%22
Dirk Vdm
Hexenmeister
[snip]
Mission accomplished.
Androcles.
Martin Hogbin
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message news:4oOdnZZFg7l...@conversent.net...
This is, unfortunately, not about science. Brian has been
posting his ideas (which are essentially LET without the
aether) for years. Whenever he seems to me losing the
logical argument he stops posting and starts again under
a different name.
Let me try my new crackpot test. KK can you tell me
how you would measure the speed of a moving train?
Martin Hogbin
Randy Poe
kk wrote:
> Randy Poe claimed [re light's one-way speed]:
> >some anisotropy, you'd be able to determine that
> >experimentally.
>
> You could not determine any anisotropy if clocks
> are set by definition to hide that anisotropy;
How would that work? Let's suppose the speed of light
is c in the north-south direction and I use that to calibrate
my meter and set my clock.
Now suppose it is 0.5 c in the east-west direction. What
prevents me from measuring that and determining, for
instance, that my calibrated meter stick and calibrated
clock return a different value of d/t in that direction?
- Randy
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146756501....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) [David A. Smith] wrote:
>>Rather than talk about it, prove it.
>>So far you have "shown" only hand waving.
>
> Yes, if your definition of "hand waving" is
> to note that _none_ of special relativity's
> results are correct due to the absolute
> asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks.
"note" is nothing but handwaving. Lorentz aether cannot die.
Neither can it be proved. Move on.
> Now the stage is yours to prove that Einstein's
> clocks are absolutely (or truly) synchronous.
You have done no work. You have made no quantifiable
predictions. That is what Science is about.
You are trapped in a Universe that will not allow "proof", only
disproof. It likewise will not allow OWLS measurment, nor
instantaneous communcation. So I have thereby *disproved* your
assumption that absolute anything is even obtainable for
measurement.
Now I expect you'll have more throat clearing to do, so I'll
leave you to it.
David A. Smith
Harry
> Harry wrote:
> >kk wrote
> >>Thanks for the comic relief, Harry, ol' chap!
> >>But in case you were serious, please tell us
> >>how the definition does not affect light's
> >>one-way, two-clock speed.
>
> >It's the other way round (also the comic relief!):
> >as already AllYou tried to explain, the definition
> >of OWLS doesn't affect the predictions - predictions
> >are about observables you know...
>
> So it's not a prediction of SR that light's
> one-way speed is invariant?
That's correct: a definition isn't a real prediction. However, it was a
"prediction" that that definition worked and would continue to work.
> If that's the case, then who cares what SR
> says about light's one-way speed? (It's not
> physics unless it's a prediction.)
Good question - I certainly don't care, and as you noticed, many don't care.
> You can only have it one way, Harold; either it's
> a physics prediction (which calls for an accompanying
> experiment), or it's a mere definition (that is not
> relevant to the physics of light's one-way speed).
Well seen kk!
> >>Or you can tell us how the definition does not
> >>affect the SR transformation equations.
>
> >The transformation equations are merely calculation
> >tools. As with all physics, different tools can be
> >used to calculate the same - for example, you can
> >also just work with length contraction and time
> >dilation (it depends on the problem which is simpler).
>
> Not according to Einstein, who stated that the
> transformation equations are relativity.
Quote?
> And you don't even seem to know _what_ is allegedly
> being calculated and compared by using the equations;
> it happens to be all relative speeds, including light's
> passing speed, all two-clock times of all events, etc.
No, I gave you concrete examples.
> Unless Einstein's definition correctly relates his clocks,
> then all of these calculations are incorrect, and there-
> fore have nothing to do with physics.
Nope, as I explained below (you don't edit your writings after having read
what you reply to?)
> >>Or you can tell us how the definition does not
> >>affect the SR length contraction.
>
> >That's very simple: a definition isn't observable,
> >but length contraction is (in principle).
>
> Show us how the SR length contraction can or could
> be observed sans the definition.
In principle the pole through the barnyard example could be adapted to real
physical objects that can be observed (filmed or detected in other ways). Of
course you know that in practice no experiment has been accurate enough yet,
different from time dilation - and you do know why that can be measured,
right?
> >And here's one for you: can YOU tell US how the
> >definition of current flow from + to - does not
> >affect electron flow in a wire.
>
> It doesn't affect it of course, just as Einstein's
> definition has no affect on real physics. But,
> as I said, his definition affects every single
> two-clock measurement in SR, and SR does not
> exist without two-clock measurements, so SR has
> nothing to do with physics.
Electricity makes use of that definition and *does* affect us. And here's
another one, closer to "home": when you sit at your desk is your kinetic
energy really 0? Then, has classical mechanics nothing to do with physics?
;-)
Harald
kk
>kk wrote:
>> Randy Poe claimed [re light's one-way speed]:
>>>... it isn't isotropic by definition. If light had
>>>some anisotropy, you'd be able to determine that
>>>experimentally.
>>You could not determine any anisotropy if clocks
>>are set by definition to hide that anisotropy;
>How would that work? Let's suppose the speed of light
>is c in the north-south direction and I use that to
>calibrate my meter and set my clock.
See Section 1 of Einstein's 1905 relativity paper for
how it works.
As for your "Let's suppose the speed of light
>is c in the north-south direction" and your
"suppose it is 0.5 c in the east-west direction,"
[which I snipped] how did you measure these two
one-way speeds without first setting your clocks?
And, as I said, if you set them Einstein's way,
you will force them to get c in all directions
in all frames, as everyone but you knew already.
--kk--
kk
>You are trapped in a Universe that will not
>allow "proof", only disproof.
Hey, I can give you all the chances you need;
for example, since you obviously can't prove
that Einstein's clocks are correctly set,
perhaps you can at least tell us the difference
between his clocks and Galileo's (which were
of course used to derive the famous Galilean
transformation, which, as most don't know, has
yet to be shown wrong).
At least go for the silver medal!
--kk--
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka Cadwgan Gedrych
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
> David A. Smith unthinkingly opined:
> >You are trapped in a Universe that will not
> >allow "proof", only disproof.
>
> Hey, I can give you all the chances you need;
> for example, since you obviously can't prove
> that Einstein's clocks are correctly set,
When are you going to prove that you fall when we drop you?
Dirk Vdm
kk
of your tangents. Sorry, but I will touch only on
those that seem anywhere near reasonable.
--kk--
kk asked:
>>So it's not a prediction of SR that light's
>>one-way speed is invariant?
Harry replied:
>That's correct: a definition isn't a real prediction.
>However, it was a "prediction" that that definition
>worked and would continue to work.
I left this as an example of a farfetched tangent of
yours, but I will briefly reply anyway.
How did the definition "work" in real physics?
kk wrote:
>>Not according to Einstein, who stated that the
>>transformation equations are relativity.
Harry asked:
>Quote?
And you are trying to seriously discuss SR?
Give me a freakin' break, Harry!
I should make you Google for it, but here goes,
just to bend over backward, as I have often in
this thread as well as others:
[Quoting Einstein for Harry]
"The whole content of the special theory of relativity
is included in the postulate: The laws of nature are
invariant with respect to the Lorentz transformations."
[End quote]
[Source: Einstein's book "Relativity," Appendix V,
14th page, Crown Publishers, 1961 edition.]
kk patiently wrote:
>>Show us how the SR length contraction can or could
>>be observed sans the definition.
Harry irrelevantly replied:
>In principle the pole through the barnyard example
>could be adapted to real physical objects that can
>be observed (filmed or detected in other ways).
You're not talking about Einstein's length
contraction because it ain't real, so it
cannot be photo'd, even in principle.
Just another wild tangent to wasted my time!
--kk--
Paul B. Andersen
> You could not determine any anisotropy if clocks
> are set by definition to hide that anisotropy;
> also, you could not determine the anisotropy if
> no one knows how to unhide it by absolutely
> synchronizing clocks.
>
> --kk--
Haven't you patented a way to absolutely
synchronize clocks?
You said you were doing so years ago,
so you must have got your patent now.
Or haven't you?
Paul
kk
> When are you going to prove that you fall when we drop you?
Add it up: 1/2 a Shruggin'-Thomas shrug plus 1 mild grimace.
kk
>Haven't you patented a way to absolutely
>synchronize clocks?
Yes, it's patented, and it's ready for sale
at the nearest Wal-Mart.
--kk--
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka Cadwgan Gedrych
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
> Look, Harry, it's a waste of time to go off on all
> of your tangents. Sorry, but I will touch only on
> those that seem anywhere near reasonable.
Do remember that Harry is one of your fellow ether addicts :-)
Dirk Vdm
kk
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
I treat all folk the same.
(Except those who have nothing but a grim axe to grind.
Ring any bells?)
Although there is no actual classical aether, light's
physical behavior was the exact same _after_ the
MMx as before, so what does that tell you.
--kk--
Randy Poe
kk wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >kk wrote:
> >> Randy Poe claimed [re light's one-way speed]:
> >>>... it isn't isotropic by definition. If light had
> >>>some anisotropy, you'd be able to determine that
> >>>experimentally.
>
> >>You could not determine any anisotropy if clocks
> >>are set by definition to hide that anisotropy;
>
> >How would that work? Let's suppose the speed of light
> >is c in the north-south direction and I use that to
> >calibrate my meter and set my clock.
>
> See Section 1 of Einstein's 1905 relativity paper for
> how it works.
>
> As for your "Let's suppose the speed of light
> >is c in the north-south direction" and your
> "suppose it is 0.5 c in the east-west direction,"
> [which I snipped] how did you measure these two
> one-way speeds without first setting your clocks?
I didn't. I said suppose we lived in an anisotropic
universe. Then I asked you to think about what an
experiment would reveal.
> And, as I said, if you set them Einstein's way,
> you will force them to get c in all directions
There is nothing about Einstein's synchronization
procedure which "forces you to get c in all
directions".
He says two clocks are synchronized if you
find that tB-tA = tA'-tB, where tA is the time you
send a light signal out from A, tB is the time
recorded by B when the signal arrives, and tA'
is the time at A when the return signal arrives.
That is independent of c and works perfectly
well if the north-south speed is c and the east-west
speed is 0.5c.
So using this procedure I can synchronize two
clocks and measure time of flight over a north-south
and an east-west distance. If the speed is anisotropic,
tA'-tB and tB-tA will be different for different directions
over the same distance.
All the synchronization procedure does is ensure that
these times remain equal to each other in all directions.
It has nothing to do with whether (tB-tA)_east
= (tB-tA)_north.
- Randy
Hexenmeister
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146860868.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > Do remember that Harry is one of your fellow ether addicts :-)
|
| I treat all folk the same.
| (Except those who have nothing but a grim axe to grind.
| Ring any bells?)
A local village psychopath
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
who reports his exam results on his website for 6 years
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/BMCPatrol/Questions.html
isn't about to respond to a ringing bell. He honestly believes he
is smart in detecting five obvious answers in 31 minutes, or 6 minutes
and 12 seconds per question.
Androcles.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146849563.5...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David A. Smith unthinkingly opined:
>>You are trapped in a Universe that will not
>>allow "proof", only disproof.
>
> Hey, I can give you all the chances you need;
Sorry, the challenge of making a quantifiable statement
(therefore a potentially disprovable statement) was set before
you. Since you only "rotate the lazy susan", your words can be
the last.
> for example, since you obviously can't prove
> that Einstein's clocks are correctly set,
> perhaps you can at least tell us the difference
> between his clocks and Galileo's (which were
> of course used to derive the famous Galilean
> transformation, which, as most don't know, has
> yet to be shown wrong).
>
> At least go for the silver medal!
David A. Smith
Dirk Van de moortel
"Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey_c> wrote in message news:_VP6g.106760$xt.5...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146860868.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> | > Do remember that Harry is one of your fellow ether addicts :-)
> |
> | I treat all folk the same.
> | (Except those who have nothing but a grim axe to grind.
> | Ring any bells?)
>
> A local village psychopath
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
> who reports his exam results on his website for 6 years
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/BMCPatrol/Questions.html
> isn't about to respond to a ringing bell. He honestly believes he
> is smart in detecting five obvious answers in 31 minutes, or 6 minutes
> and 12 seconds per question.
>
> Androcles.
Nice one:
30 questions in 31 minutes ==> "Average 6 minutes and 12 seconds per question"
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androclaverage.html
Dirk Vdm
Hexenmeister
Data provided: 5 questions in 31 minutes. 31 minutes/5 = 6 mins 12 sec.
Maybe the data was a fumble. You forgot your smiley face, cunt :-)
Only a fuckhead Belgian:
<--- Diversion --->
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/Boolehelp.htm
Nice one, local Waterloo village psychopath :-)
Androcles
kk
>There is nothing about Einstein's synchronization
>procedure which "forces you to get c in all
>directions".
>He says two clocks are synchronized if you
>find that tB-tA = tA'-tB, where tA is the time you
>send a light signal out from A, tB is the time
>recorded by B when the signal arrives, and tA'
>is the time at A when the return signal arrives.
But the definition had already been given prior to
that tB - tA stuff.
The definition given was
"We establish by definition that the 'time'
required by light to travel from A to B
equals the 'time' it requires to travel
from B to A."
with the added restriction that we have from
experiment*
"2AB/(t'A - tA) = c"
(*the one-clock, round-trip experiment)
If the total (or round-trip) time is given as
2AB/c, and if the one-way times must be equal,
then each one-way time must be AB/c, which
means that each one-way speed must be c
because the distances are equal.
>>As for your "Let's suppose the speed of light
>>is c in the north-south direction" and your
>>"suppose it is 0.5 c in the east-west direction,"
>>[which I snipped] how did you measure these two
>>one-way speeds without first setting your clocks?
>I didn't. I said suppose we lived in an anisotropic
>universe. Then I asked you to think about what an
>experiment would reveal.
How does "living in an anisotropic universe" make
light's one-way speed anisotropic? The only way
to measure light's one-way speed is by using two
clocks, and the only way to set clocks today is
by using Einsteinian "synchronization."
--kk--
kk
One cannot understand SR unless one knows how
Einstein's and Galileo's clocks differ.
And, apparently, you don't know this.
--kk--
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
One cannot understand SR or even Galilean relativity if
one doesn't even understand the concept of coordinates:
| "Let the unprimed frame's origin clock read zero when
| event E1 occurs at t = 0.6 and at x = 1."
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof.html
By the way, any reason why you still use your name Cadwgan Gedrych
on the Wikipedia discussions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_relativity/Archive2
Dirk Vdm
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147119818.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't see you making a quantitative prediction.
Goodbye until your next nym-shift.
David A. Smith
kk
>One cannot understand SR or even Galilean relativity if
>one doesn't even understand the concept of coordinates:
> | "Let the unprimed frame's origin clock read zero when
> | event E1 occurs at t = 0.6 and at x = 1."
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof.html
A mere glance at the site shows that Dirk is simply wrong.
It is easy to see that a the following single picture can
show the entire experiment:
(Note: a clock reading zero is shown as [0].)
Primed Frame x=1
[0]--------------------[-.6]--->
E2 E1
[0]--------------------[+.6]<---
Unprimed Frame x=1
Note that - just as was said - the unprimed frame's origin
clock reads zero as event E1 occurs at t = 0.6 and at x = 1.
All readings and distances are given per the relativistic
transformation equations.
Contrary to Dirk, there is no clock which reads two different
times at once.
--kk--
kk
>I don't see you making a quantitative prediction.
So you can't answer the simple question.
Don't know much about space-time physics, do you?
--kk--
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka Cadwgan Gedrych (on the Wikipedia)
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
> Dirk mimicked ("the sincerest form of flattery"):
> >One cannot understand SR or even Galilean relativity if
> >one doesn't even understand the concept of coordinates:
> > | "Let the unprimed frame's origin clock read zero when
> > | event E1 occurs at t = 0.6 and at x = 1."
> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof.html
>
> A mere glance at the site shows that Dirk is simply wrong.
>
> It is easy to see that a the following single picture can
> show the entire experiment:
> (Note: a clock reading zero is shown as [0].)
>
> Primed Frame x=1
> [0]--------------------[-.6]--->
> E2 E1
> [0]--------------------[+.6]<---
> Unprimed Frame x=1
>
> Note that - just as was said - the unprimed frame's origin
> clock reads zero as event E1 occurs at t = 0.6 and at x = 1.
Right :-))
>
> All readings and distances are given per the relativistic
> transformation equations.
>
> Contrary to Dirk, there is no clock which reads two different
> times at once.
>
> --kk--
"The mathematical proof revisited":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof2.html
What a frighteningly stupid imbecile you are :-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka Cadwgan Gedrych (on the Wikipedia)
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
What would someone like you, who clearly doesn't even
understand coordinates, do with an an answer?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof2.html
Maybe your friend Androcles has an answer for you:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
"AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:BO2dnVTcv6t...@conversent.net...
>
> "kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146753673....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I see that you declined comment. Telling.
Martin Hogbin
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:MvqdnSvW1Oi...@bt.com...
>
>
> Let me try my new crackpot test. KK can you tell me
> how you would measure the speed of a moving train?
Well KK, you seem unable to answer a simple question
about basic physics and therefore you join Androcles
and Seto as a crackpot.
Martin Hogbin
kk
about the topic, Dirk cannot tell us which clock of the four
"reads two times at once." (There is only one picture.)
(Point to the clock, Dirkie-boy! :-))
If Dirk is so great, then why can't he do this?
And he's calling me dumb.
And why can't he find any error in my topic explanation
of the SR length contraction.
And why has he never won an argument with me about
anything to do with physics?
*******************************************************
Given all of the above, Dirk needs to find at least one
other person who agrees with Dirk's claim that there
is a single clock simultaneously reading two times.
*******************************************************
--kk--
kk
Dirk Van de moortel
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones (real name)
aka Cadwgan Gedrych (on the Wikipedia)
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
Brian, you don't understand the meaning of the variables
x and t, so there is no way you could interpret any answer
to any question.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof.html
I could explain a few things to you, but I will not do it, for
the simple reason that you don't even deserve getting an
explanation anymore. Belonging in the category of Ken
Seto, Androcles and Spaceman, you are much more fun
in your clueless state.
Face it, you are a Clueless Autistic Imbecile and I like
you to stay a Clueless Autistic Imbecile. You are fun :-)
Dirk Vdm
AllYou!
<sigh>
Hexenmeister
[snip]
Fucking schizophrenic psychopathic local Waterloo village moron.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/xorimpliesor.PNG
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.PNG
Androcles
Hexenmeister
|
| "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:MvqdnSvW1Oi...@bt.com...
| >
| >
| > Let me try my new crackpot test. KK can you tell me
| > how you would measure the speed of a moving train?
You've been told, crackpot. Pity you don't know how to read
or calibrate equipment.
Androcles
Sue...
kk wrote:
snip
>
<<BUT WHY STOP AT THE "LENGTH CONTRACTION"?>>
<<... a general Lorentz transformation preserves the volume
of space-time. Since time is dilated by a factor in a moving
frame, the volume of space-time can only be preserved if the
volume of ordinary 3-space is reduced by the same factor. As
is well known, this is achieved by length contraction along the
direction of motion by a factor . >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node14.html
>
> It should be crystal clear to anyone by now that thanks
> to Einstein's asynchronous clocks, NONE of his two-clock
> results can possibly be correct.
>
> This means that special relativity's "time dilation,"
> "momentum variance" (sometimes called "mass increase"),
> "addition of velocities" (or velocity composition),
> transformation equations, and light's one-way, 2-clock
> speed are ALL INCORRECT.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
>
> In other words, given absolutely synchronous clocks,
> exactly none of these relativistic results would occur,
> including the invariance of light's one-way speed.
>
> All of special relativity's results are due to Einstein's
> use of asynchronous clocks, which, in turn, are due to
> the use of a mere definition.
>
> Clearly, a _definition_ has nothing to do with the workings
> of the physical world, and cannot produce a scientific theory.
"From Lorenz to Coulomb and other explicit gauge transformations"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Sue...
>
> --kk--
kk
Sue... wrote:
-SNIP-
Sue, you maketh no sense.
Get back on your meds.
--kk--
xray4abc
> Common sense says:
> Any inertially-moving rod has only two endpoints;
> by not moving relative to each other, these two points
> produce a single constant intrinsic rod length (even
> if we are not currently able to determine said length).
>
> Therefore, if observers in various frames find different
> lengths for said rod, then this must be due to some
> observer-dependent process, and _not_ to the rod itself.
...........................
> --kk--
You got a point in here, yet one that is not fully explored.
Reality is different as seen from 2 relatively
moving innertial reference frames, but still it is reality.
As an example
A ------------------------> B
For A , observer B is moving to the right
For B A is moving to the left
Is this an important difference?
Judge it yourself !
Think of measuring a moving rod from left to right and
then from right to left!
All the best, LL
kk
>Reality is different as seen from 2 relatively
>moving innertial reference frames, but still it
>is reality.
If you want to talk about the reality of a
moving rod's length, then consider this:
A============FRAME A=============B
--------------ROD----------------
In Frame A, cut a ROD to fit between
two points A and B, as shown.
Move the ROD to somewhere else along
the AB line.
Slide the ROD along the line to align
its left end point with point A.
Unless the ROD contracts (or expands)
physically, its right end point must
simultaneously align with point B.
Thus, unless the ROD changes physically,
it could be used to absolutely
synchronize clocks at A and B, thereby
overturning special relativity.
Very Simple Conclusion:
Special relativity contains (implicitly) the
same physical length change as does Lorentzian
relativity, but SR does not admit to this
explicitly.
Questions to ponder:
Does SR also contain actual clock slowing and
actual mass variance?
--kk--