A Summary of the Bogus Concepts of the SR Experts
kenseto
1. SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant c in all
inertial frames. This is wrong. In real life the speed of light is a
constant math ratio in any frame as follows:
The light path length of a rod (299,792,458 m long) in any frame /
the absolute
time content for a clock second co-moving with the rod
2. SR asserts the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS). RoS is
defined as follows: A and B are in relative motion. If A sees two events to
be simultaneous B will see the same two events to be not simultaneous. This
is wrong. In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous B will also
see the same events to be simultaneous but at a different time. This
restatement of simultaneity is supported by the SR postulates and the
Lorantz Transformations.
3. SR asserts the concept of mutual time and length dilation between frames
A and B in relative motion. This is wrong. In real life, A's clock runs at a
different rate than B's clock. In other words, side by side comparison (via
Lorentz Transforms or Doppler Transforms) one of the clock will run faster
or slower than the other.
4. SR experts assert that in an accelerating spaceship light from the middle
is red shifted in the front of thew ship and blue shifted at the rear of the
ship. This is wrong. There is no relative velocity between any part of the
ship therefore there is no frequency shift in the ship.
5. SR experts assert that the transit time for light to traverse a moving
rod (moving left to right) with a light source at the left end is greater
than the transit time if the light source is at the right end of the rod.
This is wrong. In real life it takes the same transit time to traverse the
rod in any direction. This is supported by the SR postulate of isotropic
light speed in all inertial frames.
6. SR experts claimed that the measured frequency (by the track observer) of
a light source in a fast moving train toward the observer in the track will
start off at an arbituary high frequency (approx: fH=fo*Sqrt(c+v/c-v)) and
maintained at that high measured frequency until it get to the closest point
of approach. At the closest point of approach the measured frequency is
decreased to f'=fo*Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). When the train pass the observer the
measured frequency will decresed to--Approx
fL=fo*Sqrt(c-v/c+v)) and maintain at that measured frequency until it is no
longer detectable.
This is wrong. In real life the first detectable frequency is lowest.
Subsequent measurement will be higher until it reaches a Max (fM) at the
closest point of approch. The measured freuency will continue to decrease
fron fM until it is no longer measureable. This assertion is supported by
actual observations as follows: The train's whistle will increase in pitch
as it approch you and it will decrease in pitch as it receding away from
you.
Ken Seto
Bob Kolker
kenseto wrote:
> is wrong. In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous B will also
> see the same events to be simultaneous but at a different time.
This is a blatant contradiction. If taken literally it is insanity.
It is like saying 1 and 2 are really the same, but slightly different.
Bob Kolker
Etherman
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c4add88$0$35617$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> A Summary of the Bogus Concepts of the SR Experts
>
> 1. SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant c in
all
> inertial frames. This is wrong. In real life the speed of light is a
> constant math ratio in any frame as follows:
> The light path length of a rod (299,792,458 m long) in any
frame /
> the absolute
> time content for a clock second co-moving with the rod
Oh I see. The speed of light is not a universal constant in all
inertial reference frames, it's just the same in every inertial
reference frame.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
kenseto
"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3C4AE50D...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
> > is wrong. In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous B will
also
> > see the same events to be simultaneous but at a different time.
>
>
> This is a blatant contradiction. If taken literally it is insanity.
I would agree with you if observed relative velocity effects the tranit time
of light. The constant light speed postuate refute this option. In
Einstein's train gedanken to get RoS he said that the reason that the train
observer sees the lightning not to be simultaneous is that the train
observer is rushing toward the light front from the front and moving away
from the light from from the rear. This statement violate the constancy of
the speed of light postulate in the train..
In real life the transit time for light is affected only by the state of
absolute motion of the observer. Since the train observer is in a higher
state of absolute motion than the track observer therefore the light path
length in the train will be longer than in the track and therefore the light
fronts will meet in the train at a different later time.
Another way of looking at this is as follows: The lightning s are two light
spheres. They meet at infinite locations. The direction of absolute motion
of the train and track observers are along the line where these light
spheres meet. Since the train observer is in a higher state of absolute
motion than the track observer then these two light spheres will meet at a
different later time in the train.
From the track observer's point of view, he also conclude that the train
observer sees the lightning to be simultaneous at a different later time as
follows:
The light path length in the train in any direction is:
L'=L*gamma
The transit time in the train for the lightnings to meet is as
follows:
T'=L*gamma/c
The transit time for the lightnings to meet in the track frame is:
T=L/c
Clearly T'>T. Therefore the lightnings meet at a different later time in
the train.
>
> It is like saying 1 and 2 are really the same, but slightly different.
NO.
Ken Seto
Bilge
A Summary of the Bogus Concepts of the SR Experts to usenet:
>A Summary of the Bogus Concepts of the SR Experts
>
>1. SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant c in all
>inertial frames. This is wrong. In real life the speed of light is a
>constant math ratio in any frame as follows:
to pay for that brain transplant you've been needing.
John Holland
also 1 and 1 is 3 for large values of 1
JH
kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c4add88$0$35617$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
kenseto
"John Holland" <hans_...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:a2jcs4$6q2$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
> yes, i agree,
> also 1 and 1 is 3 for large values of 1
> JH
You are an SR fanatic. Your opinion don't count.
Ken Seto
John Holland
Cheers,
JH
kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c4d749e$0$37106$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
David McAnally
>A Summary of the Bogus Concepts of the SR Experts
>1. SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant c in all
>inertial frames. This is wrong. In real life the speed of light is a
>constant math ratio in any frame as follows:
As others have pointed out, these are contradictory statements.
> The light path length of a rod (299,792,458 m long) in any frame /
>the absolute
> time content for a clock second co-moving with the rod
>2. SR asserts the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS). RoS is
>defined as follows: A and B are in relative motion. If A sees two events to
>be simultaneous B will see the same two events to be not simultaneous. This
>is wrong. In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous B will also
>see the same events to be simultaneous but at a different time.
PROVE this. Don't just state it.
>This
>restatement of simultaneity is supported by the SR postulates and the
>Lorantz Transformations.
Your statement is not supported by SR and the LorEntz transformations.
They imply relativity of simultaneity.
>3. SR asserts the concept of mutual time and length dilation between frames
>A and B in relative motion. This is wrong.
WHY is it wrong?
> In real life, A's clock runs at a
>different rate than B's clock. In other words, side by side comparison (via
>Lorentz Transforms or Doppler Transforms) one of the clock will run faster
>or slower than the other.
Prove it.
>4. SR experts assert that in an accelerating spaceship light from the middle
>is red shifted in the front of thew ship and blue shifted at the rear of the
>ship. This is wrong.
Why is it wrong?
>There is no relative velocity between any part of the
>ship therefore there is no frequency shift in the ship.
The velocity changes as the light is in transit. The shifting is a
prediction even of non-relativistic physics.
>5. SR experts assert that the transit time for light to traverse a moving
>rod (moving left to right) with a light source at the left end is greater
>than the transit time if the light source is at the right end of the rod.
>This is wrong. In real life it takes the same transit time to traverse the
>rod in any direction. This is supported by the SR postulate of isotropic
>light speed in all inertial frames.
The assertion is that it takes longer in the frame under discussion, and
that is true. The light rays take the same time in the rest frame of the
rod for the reason you specify. There is no contradiction here because of
the Lorentz Transformations.
>6. SR experts claimed that the measured frequency (by the track observer) of
>a light source in a fast moving train toward the observer in the track will
>start off at an arbituary high frequency (approx: fH=fo*Sqrt(c+v/c-v)) and
>maintained at that high measured frequency until it get to the closest point
>of approach. At the closest point of approach the measured frequency is
>decreased to f'=fo*Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). When the train pass the observer the
>measured frequency will decresed to--Approx
>fL=fo*Sqrt(c-v/c+v)) and maintain at that measured frequency until it is no
>longer detectable.
>This is wrong. In real life the first detectable frequency is lowest.
Others have pointed out how ridiculous this is. The Doppler shift is to
*higher* frequencies when the source is approaching. This happens even
classically. Classically, the shift is dependent only on the speed.
The above formulae are predicted by the SELF-CONSISTENT Lorentz
Transformations.
>Subsequent measurement will be higher until it reaches a Max (fM) at the
>closest point of approch. The measured freuency will continue to decrease
>fron fM until it is no longer measureable. This assertion is supported by
>actual observations as follows: The train's whistle will increase in pitch
>as it approch you and it will decrease in pitch as it receding away from
>you.
The train's whistle will be at a higher pitch to its normal pitch as it
approaches you, but if it does not increase in speed, then the whistle's
pitch will not increase (the pitch will stay as it was when you first
heard it, not get higher).
David McAnally
kenseto
"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
news:a2mchd$2rp$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>
> >A Summary of the Bogus Concepts of the SR Experts
>
> >1. SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant c in all
> >inertial frames. This is wrong. In real life the speed of light is a
> >constant math ratio in any frame as follows:
>
> As others have pointed out, these are contradictory statements.
No they are not contradictory statements. If light speed is a universal
contant then the rod length and clock second must also be universal--in case
you don't get it this means that there is no such thing as length and time
dilation. If the speed of light is a constant math ratio then length
contraction and time dilation is allowed as long as the contraction for both
will give the same constant math ratio.
>
> > The light path length of a rod (299,792,458 m long) in any frame
/
> >the absolute
> > time content for a clock second co-moving with the rod
>
> >2. SR asserts the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS). RoS is
> >defined as follows: A and B are in relative motion. If A sees two events
to
> >be simultaneous B will see the same two events to be not simultaneous.
This
> >is wrong. In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous B will
also
> >see the same events to be simultaneous but at a different time.
>
> PROVE this. Don't just state it.
You proof RoS then I will prove what I said.
>
> >This
> >restatement of simultaneity is supported by the SR postulates and the
> >Lorantz Transformations.
>
> Your statement is not supported by SR and the LorEntz transformations.
> They imply relativity of simultaneity.
>
> >3. SR asserts the concept of mutual time and length dilation between
frames
> >A and B in relative motion. This is wrong.
>
> WHY is it wrong?
>
> > In real life, A's clock runs at a
> >different rate than B's clock. In other words, side by side comparison
(via
> >Lorentz Transforms or Doppler Transforms) one of the clock will run
faster
> >or slower than the other.
>
> Prove it.
You prove mutual time dilation then I will prove what I said.
>
> >4. SR experts assert that in an accelerating spaceship light from the
middle
> >is red shifted in the front of thew ship and blue shifted at the rear of
the
> >ship. This is wrong.
>
> Why is it wrong?
>
> >There is no relative velocity between any part of the
> >ship therefore there is no frequency shift in the ship.
>
> The velocity changes as the light is in transit. The shifting is a
> prediction even of non-relativistic physics.
So it doen't bother you that this prediction is wrong??
>
> >5. SR experts assert that the transit time for light to traverse a moving
> >rod (moving left to right) with a light source at the left end is greater
> >than the transit time if the light source is at the right end of the rod.
> >This is wrong. In real life it takes the same transit time to traverse
the
> >rod in any direction. This is supported by the SR postulate of isotropic
> >light speed in all inertial frames.
>
> The assertion is that it takes longer in the frame under discussion, and
> that is true.
No it's not true. Your assertion is based on your naive understanding how
light move from the source to the target. In real life the transit time is
calculated as follows:
As observed by a rest observer:
The light path length of the rod in any direcxtion =
L*gamma
The transit time in any direction=L*gamma/c
The transit time for the same rod in the rest observer's
frame=L/c
Therefore the transit time in the rod frame has a longer
duration.
>The light rays take the same time in the rest frame of the
> rod for the reason you specify. There is no contradiction here because of
> the Lorentz Transformations.
Sure there is contradiction. The above calculations show it.
>
> >6. SR experts claimed that the measured frequency (by the track observer)
of
> >a light source in a fast moving train toward the observer in the track
will
> >start off at an arbituary high frequency (approx: fH=fo*Sqrt(c+v/c-v))
and
> >maintained at that high measured frequency until it get to the closest
point
> >of approach. At the closest point of approach the measured frequency is
> >decreased to f'=fo*Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). When the train pass the observer the
> >measured frequency will decresed to--Approx
> >fL=fo*Sqrt(c-v/c+v)) and maintain at that measured frequency until it is
no
> >longer detectable.
> >This is wrong. In real life the first detectable frequency is lowest.
>
> Others have pointed out how ridiculous this is. The Doppler shift is to
> *higher* frequencies when the source is approaching. This happens even
> classically. Classically, the shift is dependent only on the speed.
>
> The above formulae are predicted by the SELF-CONSISTENT Lorentz
> Transformations.
NOT the situation I described.
>
> >Subsequent measurement will be higher until it reaches a Max (fM) at the
> >closest point of approch. The measured freuency will continue to decrease
> >fron fM until it is no longer measureable. This assertion is supported by
> >actual observations as follows: The train's whistle will increase in
pitch
> >as it approch you and it will decrease in pitch as it receding away from
> >you.
>
> The train's whistle will be at a higher pitch to its normal pitch as it
> approaches you, but if it does not increase in speed, then the whistle's
> pitch will not increase (the pitch will stay as it was when you first
> heard it, not get higher).
You are wrong the pitch get higher as the siren approaches you.
Ken Seto
David McAnally
>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>news:a2mchd$2rp$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>>
>> >A Summary of the Bogus Concepts of the SR Experts
>>
>> >1. SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant c in all
>> >inertial frames. This is wrong. In real life the speed of light is a
>> >constant math ratio in any frame as follows:
>>
>> As others have pointed out, these are contradictory statements.
>No they are not contradictory statements. If light speed is a universal
>contant then the rod length and clock second must also be universal
So are you claiming that the speed of light is constant in any specific
frame, but different frames disagree about the value?
>--in case
>you don't get it this means that there is no such thing as length and time
>dilation. If the speed of light is a constant math ratio then length
>contraction and time dilation is allowed as long as the contraction for both
>will give the same constant math ratio.
Have you checked what the Lorentz transformations tell you? The Lorentz
transformations form the basis of the theory, and if in doubt, you should
go back to the Lorentz transformations and see if they back up any claims.
Please don't say that you agree with Henry Wilson that SR claims that
length contraction actually physically happen to a body. SR makes no such
claim.
The fact is that you can't use length contraction and time dilation to
show how to calculate the speed of light in the new frame, since they
require contradictory circumstances in their logical derivations.
>> > The light path length of a rod (299,792,458 m long) in any frame
>/
>> >the absolute
>> > time content for a clock second co-moving with the rod
>>
>> >2. SR asserts the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS). RoS is
>> >defined as follows: A and B are in relative motion. If A sees two events
>to
>> >be simultaneous B will see the same two events to be not simultaneous.
>This
>> >is wrong. In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous B will
>also
>> >see the same events to be simultaneous but at a different time.
>>
>> PROVE this. Don't just state it.
>You proof RoS then I will prove what I said.
How about the fact that experiment backs up relativity, rather than
classical mechanics? Like others, I wonder how you'd react to the world
of quantum mechanics.
You can't just assert a statement without proving it. And it is certainly
bad form to respond to a request for proof with such a demand in return.
It suggests that you haven't really come up with a proof and you're buying
time.
>> >This
>> >restatement of simultaneity is supported by the SR postulates and the
>> >Lorantz Transformations.
>>
>> Your statement is not supported by SR and the LorEntz transformations.
>> They imply relativity of simultaneity.
>>
>> >3. SR asserts the concept of mutual time and length dilation between
>frames
>> >A and B in relative motion. This is wrong.
>>
>> WHY is it wrong?
No answer here.
>> > In real life, A's clock runs at a
>> >different rate than B's clock. In other words, side by side comparison
>(via
>> >Lorentz Transforms or Doppler Transforms) one of the clock will run
>faster
>> >or slower than the other.
>>
>> Prove it.
>You prove mutual time dilation then I will prove what I said.
Again, you show an unwillingness to give a proof of a bald assertion.
Could it be that you don't have a proof?
As I commented earlier, experiment is closer to relativity than to
classical mechanics. I will let others who are more versed in the
experimental evidence supply that evidence. All I will say is that the
theory of relativity is mathematically consistent, and that mutual time
dilation is a prediction of the theory.
>> >4. SR experts assert that in an accelerating spaceship light from the
>middle
>> >is red shifted in the front of thew ship and blue shifted at the rear of
>the
>> >ship. This is wrong.
>>
>> Why is it wrong?
>>
>> >There is no relative velocity between any part of the
>> >ship therefore there is no frequency shift in the ship.
>>
>> The velocity changes as the light is in transit. The shifting is a
>> prediction even of non-relativistic physics.
>So it doen't bother you that this prediction is wrong??
You still haven't answered WHY the prediction is wrong. You seem to like
making bald assertions without supplying any evidence to back them up.
>> >5. SR experts assert that the transit time for light to traverse a moving
>> >rod (moving left to right) with a light source at the left end is greater
>> >than the transit time if the light source is at the right end of the rod.
>> >This is wrong. In real life it takes the same transit time to traverse
>the
>> >rod in any direction. This is supported by the SR postulate of isotropic
>> >light speed in all inertial frames.
>>
>> The assertion is that it takes longer in the frame under discussion, and
>> that is true.
>No it's not true. Your assertion is based on your naive understanding how
>light move from the source to the target.
My understanding is derived mathematically and rigourously from the
Lorentz Transformations. In any question of SR, it is to the Lorentz
Transformations (or more general elements of the Lorentz Group) that one
should always look first.
>In real life the transit time is
>calculated as follows:
> As observed by a rest observer:
> The light path length of the rod in any direcxtion =
>L*gamma
Where did this come from?
> The transit time in any direction=L*gamma/c
Where did this come from?
> The transit time for the same rod in the rest observer's
>frame=L/c
> Therefore the transit time in the rod frame has a longer
>duration.
>>The light rays take the same time in the rest frame of the
>> rod for the reason you specify. There is no contradiction here because of
>> the Lorentz Transformations.
>Sure there is contradiction. The above calculations show it.
Your above calculations are insufficient, and would have received very low
marks on a mathematics assignment. Derivations should be more complete.
>> >6. SR experts claimed that the measured frequency (by the track observer)
>of
>> >a light source in a fast moving train toward the observer in the track
>will
>> >start off at an arbituary high frequency (approx: fH=fo*Sqrt(c+v/c-v))
>and
>> >maintained at that high measured frequency until it get to the closest
>point
>> >of approach. At the closest point of approach the measured frequency is
>> >decreased to f'=fo*Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). When the train pass the observer the
>> >measured frequency will decresed to--Approx
>> >fL=fo*Sqrt(c-v/c+v)) and maintain at that measured frequency until it is
>no
>> >longer detectable.
>> >This is wrong. In real life the first detectable frequency is lowest.
>>
>> Others have pointed out how ridiculous this is. The Doppler shift is to
>> *higher* frequencies when the source is approaching. This happens even
>> classically. Classically, the shift is dependent only on the speed.
>>
>> The above formulae are predicted by the SELF-CONSISTENT Lorentz
>> Transformations.
>NOT the situation I described.
The fact is that the frequency will decrease over a period of time, being
dependent only on the relative speed of the source in the observer's rest
frame, and the angle between the motion of the source and the line
joining source and observer (measured in the observer's rest frame). The
values of fo * sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) and fo * sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) are correct at
the extremes of motion, where the angle is almost zero. fo * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
is correct as the source passes you (when the angle is pi/2, or one right
angle). For a source whose trajectory goes very close to the observer,
your description of the claim above is more accurate, as the drop in
frequency occurs over a very short period of time.
>> >Subsequent measurement will be higher until it reaches a Max (fM) at the
>> >closest point of approch. The measured freuency will continue to decrease
>> >fron fM until it is no longer measureable. This assertion is supported by
>> >actual observations as follows: The train's whistle will increase in
>pitch
>> >as it approch you and it will decrease in pitch as it receding away from
>> >you.
>>
>> The train's whistle will be at a higher pitch to its normal pitch as it
>> approaches you, but if it does not increase in speed, then the whistle's
>> pitch will not increase (the pitch will stay as it was when you first
>> heard it, not get higher).
>You are wrong the pitch get higher as the siren approaches you.
Only if the train is speeding up, or if its natural pitch is increasing.
Try reading about Doppler shift in a classical (non-relativistic) text
book some time, and you'll see that your conclusion about the shift (no
matter what its origin) is in disagreement even with the classical result
(the book will almost certainly derive the formula for the shift, rather
than just stating it).
David McAnally
kenseto
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>
> >"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
> >news:a2mchd$2rp$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> >> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >A Summary of the Bogus Concepts of the SR Experts
> >>
> >> >1. SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant c in all
> >> >inertial frames. This is wrong. In real life the speed of light is a
> >> >constant math ratio in any frame as follows:
> >>
> >> As others have pointed out, these are contradictory statements.
>
> >No they are not contradictory statements. If light speed is a universal
> >contant then the rod length and clock second must also be universal
>
> So are you claiming that the speed of light is constant in any specific
> frame, but different frames disagree about the value?
Can't you read?? I said the speed of light is a constant MATH RATIO. This is
different than the current definiton that the speed of light is a universal
constant.
With the current defintion: the rod length is set at 300,000 km
The clock second has the same absolute duration in all frames of
reference.
With my deifinition the speed of light in the aether frame is 300,000km/1
aether frame clock second. The speed of light in any moving frame in the
aether is determined as follows:
The physical rod length in the moving frame remains the same but the light
path length is gamma*300,000 km. A clock second co-moving with the rod will
have an absolute time content of gamma*1 aether clock second. Therefore the
speed of light in any moving frame in the aether is:
= gamma*300,000km/gamma*1 aether clock second
This reduces to the same math ratio of 300,000km/1 aether clock second as
the original definition for light speed in the aether frame.
>
> >--in case
> >you don't get it this means that there is no such thing as length and
time
> >dilation. If the speed of light is a constant math ratio then length
> >contraction and time dilation is allowed as long as the contraction for
both
> >will give the same constant math ratio.
>
> Have you checked what the Lorentz transformations tell you? The Lorentz
> transformations form the basis of the theory, and if in doubt, you should
> go back to the Lorentz transformations and see if they back up any claims.
My claim is backed up by the Lorentz Transform.
> Please don't say that you agree with Henry Wilson that SR claims that
> length contraction actually physically happen to a body. SR makes no such
> claim.
I never claim the the phgysical rod length is actually contracting or
expanding. I said that the physical length remains the same in all frames
but the light path length is different in different frame and the different
is due to the different states of absolute motion between the frames. BTW
how do you account for the different clock readings between the frames in
SR.
>
> The fact is that you can't use length contraction and time dilation to
> show how to calculate the speed of light in the new frame, since they
> require contradictory circumstances in their logical derivations.
I just did and it came out just fine. :-)
>
> >>
> >> >2. SR asserts the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS). RoS is
> >> >defined as follows: A and B are in relative motion. If A sees two
events
> >to
> >> >be simultaneous B will see the same two events to be not simultaneous.
> >This
> >> >is wrong. In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous B will
> >also
> >> >see the same events to be simultaneous but at a different time.
> >>
> >> PROVE this. Don't just state it.
>
> >You proof RoS then I will prove what I said.
>
> How about the fact that experiment backs up relativity, rather than
> classical mechanics?
The same experiment back up what I said. The only different between what I
said and RoS is that what I said agrees with the fact that the transit time
in the train, in Einstein's train gedanken, is the same in all direction.
RoS asserts that the transit time in the train is different in different
directions. The RoS assertion disagrees with the actual measurements in the
train while what I said agrees with the actual measurements in the train.
BTW what I said is not classical meachanics.
> Like others, I wonder how you'd react to the world
> of quantum mechanics.
QM certainly do not agree with the RoS assertion that the transit time for
light in the train is different in different directions. QM will agree what
I said.
>
> You can't just assert a statement without proving it.
ROTFL. I didn't but RoS did.
>And it is certainly
> bad form to respond to a request for proof with such a demand in return.
> It suggests that you haven't really come up with a proof and you're buying
> time.
No I was not trying to buy time. I wanted to point out to you that there is
no rpoof for RoS.
>
> >> >This
> >> >restatement of simultaneity is supported by the SR postulates and the
> >> >Lorantz Transformations.
> >>
> >> Your statement is not supported by SR and the LorEntz transformations.
> >> They imply relativity of simultaneity.
> >>
> >> >3. SR asserts the concept of mutual time and length dilation between
> >frames
> >> >A and B in relative motion. This is wrong.
> >>
> >> WHY is it wrong?
>
> No answer here.
The answer is below.
>
> >> > In real life, A's clock runs at a
> >> >different rate than B's clock. In other words, side by side comparison
> >(via
> >> >Lorentz Transforms or Doppler Transforms) one of the clock will run
> >faster
> >> >or slower than the other.
> >>
> >> Prove it.
>
> >You prove mutual time dilation then I will prove what I said.
>
> Again, you show an unwillingness to give a proof of a bald assertion.
> Could it be that you don't have a proof?
>
> As I commented earlier, experiment is closer to relativity than to
> classical mechanics.
That's not proof and what I said is not classical mechanics. I said clocks
in relative motion runs at different rates and these rate is dependent on
the state of absolute motion of the clocks. This is confirmed by all
experiment---all clocks when rejoined shows different elapsed time. Also
this is confirmed by the GPS clocks. A clock second in the GPS location had
to be redefined to agree with the ground clock second.
> I will let others who are more versed in the
> experimental evidence supply that evidence. All I will say is that the
> theory of relativity is mathematically consistent, and that mutual time
> dilation is a prediction of the theory.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> >> >4. SR experts assert that in an accelerating spaceship light from the
> >middle
> >> >is red shifted in the front of thew ship and blue shifted at the rear
of
> >the
> >> >ship. This is wrong.
> >>
> >> Why is it wrong?
> >>
> >> >There is no relative velocity between any part of the
> >> >ship therefore there is no frequency shift in the ship.
> >>
> >> The velocity changes as the light is in transit. The shifting is a
> >> prediction even of non-relativistic physics.
>
> >So it doen't bother you that this prediction is wrong??
>
> You still haven't answered WHY the prediction is wrong. You seem to like
> making bald assertions without supplying any evidence to back them up.
There is no relative velocity within the ship so there is no frequency
shift.
>
> >> >5. SR experts assert that the transit time for light to traverse a
moving
> >> >rod (moving left to right) with a light source at the left end is
greater
> >> >than the transit time if the light source is at the right end of the
rod.
> >> >This is wrong. In real life it takes the same transit time to traverse
> >the
> >> >rod in any direction. This is supported by the SR postulate of
isotropic
> >> >light speed in all inertial frames.
> >>
> >> The assertion is that it takes longer in the frame under discussion,
and
> >> that is true.
>
> >No it's not true. Your assertion is based on your naive understanding how
> >light move from the source to the target.
>
> My understanding is derived mathematically and rigourously from the
> Lorentz Transformations. In any question of SR, it is to the Lorentz
> Transformations (or more general elements of the Lorentz Group) that one
> should always look first.
ROTFL. The Lorentz Transforms do not give different transit time in
different directions. I seems that you are just making things up eh?
Ken Seto
Corey Hart
>
> Can't you read?? I said the speed of light is a constant MATH RATIO. This is
> different than the current definiton that the speed of light is a universal
> constant.
> With the current defintion: the rod length is set at 300,000 km
> The clock second has the same absolute duration in all frames of
> reference.
>
> With my deifinition the speed of light in the aether frame is 300,000km/1
> aether frame clock second. The speed of light in any moving frame in the
> aether is determined as follows:
> The physical rod length in the moving frame remains the same but the light
> path length is gamma*300,000 km. A clock second co-moving with the rod will
> have an absolute time content of gamma*1 aether clock second. Therefore the
> speed of light in any moving frame in the aether is:
> = gamma*300,000km/gamma*1 aether clock second
> This reduces to the same math ratio of 300,000km/1 aether clock second as
> the original definition for light speed in the aether frame.
Out of curiousity (and perhaps I'm a moron), but what is the
difference between a constant math ratio and a constant ratio, as you
use the terms?
kenseto
"Corey Hart" <warpb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ce8fc60.0201...@posting.google.com...
The difference is as follows: in the moving frame as evaluated by the aether
observer:
The light path length for the moving rod= gamma*300,000 km
The absolute duration for a moving clock second= gamma*1 aether clock
second.
If the speed of light is a universal constant then the light path length in
the moving frame must be the same as the light path length in the aether
frame---300,000km
Also if the speed of light is a universal constant then the absolute
duration for a clock second in the moving frame must be the same as a clock
second in the aether frame----1 aether clock second.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c516bad$0$37105$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
[snip]
> > Out of curiousity (and perhaps I'm a moron), but what is the
> > difference between a constant math ratio and a constant ratio, as you
> > use the terms?
>
> The difference is as follows: in the moving frame as evaluated by the aether
> observer:
> The light path length for the moving rod= gamma*300,000 km
> The absolute duration for a moving clock second= gamma*1 aether clock
> second.
>
> If the speed of light is a universal constant then the light path length in
> the moving frame must be the same as the light path length in the aether
> frame---300,000km
> Also if the speed of light is a universal constant then the absolute
> duration for a clock second in the moving frame must be the same as a clock
> second in the aether frame----1 aether clock second.
>
> Ken Seto
Corey, if you take this as a reply to your precise question,
and/or if you pretend understanding this, you *are* a moron
indeed ;-)
Nice try.
Dirk Vdm
David Evens
wrote:
Of course, if you then go on to ask why he assumes these things he
will swear a you then killfile you. Or, more likely, pretend to
killfile you.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c4c3dc8$0$37097$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Why make it so complicated, Ken?
Say Ken is A and Paul is B.
We run past each other, clapping both hands as we pass.
My left hand and your right hand clap together,
and my right hand and and your left hand clap together.
So you say that if I see the two claps to be simultaneous,
so will you - but at a different time.
Can you please explain what that means, Ken?
When we clap our hands together, what does it mean that
we do it at different times?
Paul
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:a33ouj$4r8$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
It's not complicated when it is the truth.
> Say Ken is A and Paul is B.
> We run past each other, clapping both hands as we pass.
> My left hand and your right hand clap together,
> and my right hand and and your left hand clap together.
>
> So you say that if I see the two claps to be simultaneous,
> so will you - but at a different time.
We went through this before. Your expample is not how light move from the
source to the target. Light moves in the E-Strings while massive objects
such as the detectors move in between the E-Strings. Any movement of the
detector in any direction will cause some light waves to miss it completely.
This is true whether the detector is moving toward or away from the light
source.Why?? The reason is as follows: In order for the detector to detect a
specific light pulse it must associate with the E-Strings that carry the
light pulse.
> Can you please explain what that means, Ken?
> When we clap our hands together, what does it mean that
> we do it at different times?
It means that your example is completely bogus. :-)
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c55a1cc$0$35625$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a33ouj$4r8$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
>
> > We run past each other, clapping both hands as we pass.
> > My left hand and your right hand clap together,
> > and my right hand and and your left hand clap together.
> >
> > So you say that if I see the two claps to be simultaneous,
> > so will you - but at a different time.
>
> We went through this before. Your expample is not how light move from the
> source to the target. Light moves in the E-Strings while massive objects
> such as the detectors move in between the E-Strings. Any movement of the
> detector in any direction will cause some light waves to miss it completely.
> This is true whether the detector is moving toward or away from the light
> source.Why?? The reason is as follows: In order for the detector to detect a
> specific light pulse it must associate with the E-Strings that carry the
> light pulse.
What have light with your statement to do, pray tell?
Ken Seto wrote:
| In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
| B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
| at a different time.
Our two claps are two events, are they not?
And you say that if I see these events as simultaneous,
so will you, but a different time.
So:
> > Can you please explain what that means, Ken?
> > When we clap our hands together, what does it mean that
> > we do it at different times?
>
> It means that your example is completely bogus. :-)
Because you can't explain the meaning of your own words?
I am asking what YOUR statement means, Ken.
What does it mean that our two simultaneous claps happens
at a different time?
Don't you know what you meant?
Paul
kenseto
Your example got nothing to do how simultaneity for LIGHT is observed in
real life. I am not going to waste time on your example. If you want to talk
about how Einstein came up with the concept of RoS then I would be happy to
do so.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c55e884$0$35625$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
"simultaneity for LIGHT", is that another kind of simultaneity
than simultaneity of events?
Anyhow, it was simultaneity of EVENTS you were talking about when
Ken Seto wrote:
| In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
| B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
| at a different time.
See that, Ken?
".., if A sees two events to be simultaneous .."
^^^^^^^^^^
All I am asking is what your statement means, specifically:
what does it mean that A (might be Ken) and B (might be Paul)
see two simultaneous events (such as claps) at a different time?
Do you really not know what your own words mean, Ken? :-)
Paul
kenseto
When Enstein talked about simultaneity he talked about two simultaneous
events that are equal physical distance from both observers Kand K'. K and
K' are in relative motion. That means that they are in different state of
absolute motion. That means that the light path length is different in K
than in K'. That means that the transit time is different in K than in K'.
That means that K and K' will see the events to be simultaneous but at
different time. BTW this would agree with the SR postulate that the speed of
light is measured to be isotropic in both K and K'. Also BTW RoS violates
the SR postulate in the K' frame.
You example is nothing like Einstein's gedanken. Furthermore your insistence
to use relative motion and your naive knowledge how light move from the
source to the target to explain simultaneity is laughable.
Ken Seto
kenseto
two events. The absolute time between the ticks would be different in K than
in K'.
> All I am asking is what your statement means, specifically:
> what does it mean that A (might be Ken) and B (might be Paul)
> see two simultaneous events (such as claps) at a different time?
RoS says the same thing. The elapsed time is different in K than in K' due
to RoS. The only problem is that RoS violates the SR postulate in the K'
frame.
Ken Seto
>
John Holland
How can it be that there is an elapsed time between the events, when the
events are measured to be simultaneously ?
> Ken Seto
> >
>
>
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c56b8f5$0$35619$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a35mn8$ks1$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > | at a different time.
> >
> > See that, Ken?
> > ".., if A sees two events to be simultaneous .."
> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> > All I am asking is what your statement means, specifically:
> > what does it mean that A (might be Ken) and B (might be Paul)
> > see two simultaneous events (such as claps) at a different time?
>
> When Enstein talked about simultaneity he talked about two simultaneous
> events that are equal physical distance from both observers Kand K'. K and
> K' are in relative motion. That means that they are in different state of
> absolute motion. That means that the light path length is different in K
> than in K'. That means that the transit time is different in K than in K'.
> That means that K and K' will see the events to be simultaneous but at
> different time. BTW this would agree with the SR postulate that the speed of
> light is measured to be isotropic in both K and K'. Also BTW RoS violates
> the SR postulate in the K' frame.
> You example is nothing like Einstein's gedanken. Furthermore your insistence
> to use relative motion and your naive knowledge how light move from the
> source to the target to explain simultaneity is laughable.
No, my example is nothing like Einstein's thought experiment,
so why do you keep referrring to it?
And why do you keep talking about the transit times of light?
And why are you referring to my "naive knowledge how light move
from the source to the target" when I haven't addressed the issue
with a single word?
You made a general statement about events, and if that
statement means anything, it must obviously be applicable to
ANY kind of event, like hand claps.
I am asking you to explain the meaning of your general statement
applied on a concrete scenario.
Your statement was:
Ken Seto wrote:
| In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
| B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
| at a different time.
My concrete scenario is:
A and B run past each other.
As they pass each other, A clap his right hand against
B's left hand, and his left hand against B's right hand.
So we have two non coinciding clap events.
You insist that "if A sees two events to be simultaneous
B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
at a different time."
It is obvious that your statement implies that A and B
must see EACH of the two events "at a different time".
So what it boils down to, is this:
Please explain what it means that A and B see an event
- one hand clap - at a different time.
Note Ken:
I have not said above that your statement is wrong.
I am only asking what your statement MEANS,
because I sincerely do not understand it.
So can you explain it, please?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c56c5a3$0$35615$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> Two ticks of a Cs atom are also two events.
> The absolute time between the ticks would be different in K than
> in K'.
So "the absolute time" between events is frame dependent? :-)
Paul
kenseto
At the instant of the events--when you clap your hands with mine---the
events are in the same frame and that's why you and I will see the events to
be simultaneous at the same time.
> And why do you keep talking about the transit times of light?
> And why are you referring to my "naive knowledge how light move
> from the source to the target" when I haven't addressed the issue
> with a single word?
You keep on using your irrelevant example to prove the validity of RoS. It
won't fly.
If you want to prove the validity of RoS you need to talk about how the
concept of RoS is derived. That means that you need to talk about the
Einstein gedanken.
>
> You made a general statement about events, and if that
> statement means anything, it must obviously be applicable to
> ANY kind of event, like hand claps.
> I am asking you to explain the meaning of your general statement
> applied on a concrete scenario.
>
> Your statement was:
> Ken Seto wrote:
> | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> | at a different time.
>
> My concrete scenario is:
> A and B run past each other.
> As they pass each other, A clap his right hand against
> B's left hand, and his left hand against B's right hand.
> So we have two non coinciding clap events.
> You insist that "if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> at a different time."
At the instant of the events both A and B are at the same frame and
therefore they both see the events to be simultaneous at the same time.
>
> It is obvious that your statement implies that A and B
> must see EACH of the two events "at a different time".
> So what it boils down to, is this:
At the instant of the events both A and B are at the same frame and
therefore they both see the events to be simultaneous at the same time.
>
> Please explain what it means that A and B see an event
> - one hand clap - at a different time.
>
> Note Ken:
> I have not said above that your statement is wrong.
> I am only asking what your statement MEANS,
> because I sincerely do not understand it.
>
> So can you explain it, please?
I did.
Ken Seto
kenseto
Yes. The absolute time (absolute duration) required between two ticks of a
Cs atom is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the Cs atom (frame
dependent). This effect is interpreted by SR as time dilation.
However a defined interval of absolute time is the same in all frames of
reference. The clock time values represent this defined interval of absolute
time is different in different frame of reference (different states of
absolute motion).
Ken Seto
David Evens
wrote:
Ken, you have, on many, many occasions, stated that the 'state of
absolute motion' has nothing to do with how anything is moving.
Paul Cardinale
Once again, the kenseto demonstrates that he hasn't the slightest idea
what "absolute" means.
Paul Cardinale
Bilge
Re: A Summary of the Bogus Concepts of the SR Experts to usenet:
>
>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
>news:a38j1a$dvi$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
>>
>> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>news:3c56c5a3$0$35615$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>> > Two ticks of a Cs atom are also two events.
>> > The absolute time between the ticks would be different in K than
>> > in K'.
>>
>> So "the absolute time" between events is frame dependent? :-)
>
>Yes. The absolute time (absolute duration) required between two ticks of a
>Cs atom is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the Cs atom (frame
>dependent). This effect is interpreted by SR as time dilation.
The transition time is a probability.
Bob Kolker
kenseto wrote:
> time is different in different frame of reference (different states of
> absolute motion).
>
What is absolute uniform motion? Can you measure it? Can anyone measure
it? How do you define it?
Bob Kolker
David McAnally
answer this, so don't throw a hissy fit. Your comment to which I am
replying is only a bit over a week old, and it is still on my server (so I
still have easy access to it). Part of the reason why I waited until now
to answer is because it will take a lot of editing, and I did not want my
reply to interfere with my work, which it would have, had I answered it
earlier.
I was also wondering, do you intend to again urge any physicists who are
working at Fermi Lab to take time off their job (doing physics) and to
study physics (i.e. what they do for a living)? I find the fact that
you've already done it once very funny. Would you also tell a medical
practitioner to take time off their jobs and study medicine (including
elementary medicine)? Would you tell a lawyer (barrister, solicitor) to
take time off their jobs and study law?
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>news:a2ng41$q7g$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>>
>> >"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>> >news:a2mchd$2rp$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> >> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >A Summary of the Bogus Concepts of the SR Experts
>> >>
>> >> >1. SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant c in all
>> >> >inertial frames. This is wrong. In real life the speed of light is a
>> >> >constant math ratio in any frame as follows:
>> >>
>> >> As others have pointed out, these are contradictory statements.
>>
>> >No they are not contradictory statements. If light speed is a universal
>> >contant then the rod length and clock second must also be universal
>>
>> So are you claiming that the speed of light is constant in any specific
>> frame, but different frames disagree about the value?
>Can't you read??
I *can* read, and the following statement (*direct* quote from you)
:: In real life the speed of light is a constant math ratio in any frame
states that the speed of light is constant in any frame. Yet you have
denied the only two possible interpretations that can arise from such an
assertion ((1) that the constant is the same in all frames, and (2) that
the constant can differ for different frames)
>I said the speed of light is a constant MATH RATIO.
I am a professional mathematician, and I have never heard the term "math
ratio". Just how does that differ from an ordinary ratio?
>This is
>different than the current definiton that the speed of light is a universal
>constant.
> With the current defintion: the rod length is set at 300,000 km
> The clock second has the same absolute duration in all frames of
>reference.
>With my deifinition the speed of light in the aether frame is 300,000km/1
>aether frame clock second.
As there is no aether, then there is no aether frame, and so the term
"aether frame clock second" seems pretty meaningless.
Please define the term "aether frame clock second", as that term is
unknown in relativity. If you are going to discuss things, then it is
best to be precise in your terminology so that everyone will know your
meaning.
>The speed of light in any moving frame in the
Since there is no absolute frame in relativity, then the term "moving
frame" seems a bit redundant. Why not just "frame"?
>aether is determined as follows:
As there is no aether in relativity, your theory is obviously something
that nobody here has any information about. You should explain your
theory, and make actual predictions so that people can judge your theory
on its merits (although your obvious lack of formal mathematics and
physics background, as amply demonstrated by yourself on several occasions
- earth's gravity being caused by its rotation, indeed!!! - could prove a
hindrance not only to convincing people that you have a viable theory, but
to your getting a viable theory in the first place).
>The physical rod length in the moving frame remains the same but the light
>path length is gamma*300,000 km.
Justify this formula for the light path length.
>A clock second co-moving with the rod will
>have an absolute time content of gamma*1 aether clock second.
Define "absolute time content", and justify your value.
>Therefore the
>speed of light in any moving frame in the aether is:
> = gamma*300,000km/gamma*1 aether clock second
>This reduces to the same math ratio of 300,000km/1 aether clock second as
>the original definition for light speed in the aether frame.
As we have been given no justification for your values, the above does not
constitute a proof of anything.
>> >--in case
>> >you don't get it this means that there is no such thing as length and
>time
>> >dilation. If the speed of light is a constant math ratio then length
>> >contraction and time dilation is allowed as long as the contraction for
>both
>> >will give the same constant math ratio.
>>
>> Have you checked what the Lorentz transformations tell you? The Lorentz
>> transformations form the basis of the theory, and if in doubt, you should
>> go back to the Lorentz transformations and see if they back up any claims.
>My claim is backed up by the Lorentz Transform.
Don't just state this. *Show* how the Lorentz transformation backs up
your claim (do this rigourously, no hand waving).
>> Please don't say that you agree with Henry Wilson that SR claims that
>> length contraction actually physically happen to a body. SR makes no such
>> claim.
>I never claim the the phgysical rod length is actually contracting or
>expanding. I said that the physical length remains the same in all frames
>but the light path length is different in different frame and the different
This is where you have to precisely define "light path length".
>is due to the different states of absolute motion between the frames. BTW
This is where you have to explicitly explain your theory, so that people
will know how you justify things, and they can judge your theory on its
merits.
>how do you account for the different clock readings between the frames in
>SR.
The Lorentz transformation is all the justification that is needed. The
transformations are:
x = gamma (x' + vt'),
t = gamma (t' + vx'/c^2),
with inverse transformations (these are demonstrably the inverse
transformations),
x' = gamma (x - vt),
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2),
where gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
>> The fact is that you can't use length contraction and time dilation to
>> show how to calculate the speed of light in the new frame, since they
>> require contradictory circumstances in their logical derivations.
>I just did and it came out just fine. :-)
Please give a *rigourous* derivation. As yet, nobody knows the details of
your theory, so they can't judge its logical foundation. You might have
satisfied yourself, but that's not going to satisfy anybody else. In
fact, I daresay that the fact that you have satisfied yourself will make
it *harder* for you to satisfy others.
As I observed, the conditions underlying length contraction and time
dilation are mutually contradictory, so they are never going to hold under
the same circumstances.
>> >> >2. SR asserts the concept of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS). RoS is
>> >> >defined as follows: A and B are in relative motion. If A sees two
>events
>> >to
>> >> >be simultaneous B will see the same two events to be not simultaneous.
>> >This
>> >> >is wrong. In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous B will
>> >also
>> >> >see the same events to be simultaneous but at a different time.
>> >>
>> >> PROVE this. Don't just state it.
>>
>> >You proof RoS then I will prove what I said.
>>
>> How about the fact that experiment backs up relativity, rather than
>> classical mechanics?
>The same experiment back up what I said.
Well, when you present your theory, you will have the opportunity to
demonstrate that the experiments (note the use of the plural here) back up
your theory.
>The only different between what I
>said and RoS is that what I said agrees with the fact that the transit time
>in the train, in Einstein's train gedanken, is the same in all direction.
How do you know that this is a fact?
>RoS asserts that the transit time in the train is different in different
>directions. The RoS assertion disagrees with the actual measurements in the
>train while what I said agrees with the actual measurements in the train.
Actual measurements in a gedanken experiment???? How do you accomplish
this?
>BTW what I said is not classical meachanics.
I recognise that.
>> Like others, I wonder how you'd react to the world
>> of quantum mechanics.
>QM certainly do not agree with the RoS assertion that the transit time for
>light in the train is different in different directions. QM will agree what
>I said.
That's not what I meant. You REALLY have no idea about quantum mechanics,
do you? The world of quantum mechanics is more weird than you can imagine
(or *anybody* can). The human imagination is incapable of imagining the
world of quantum mechanics with its uncertainties. Just how would you
explain the result of the double slit experiment?
You see, my question on quantum mechanics really had nothing to do with
relativity of simultaneity.
>> You can't just assert a statement without proving it.
>ROTFL. I didn't but RoS did.
Incidentally, relativity of simultaneity is *not* an assumption in
relativity. It is a *conclusion*. In relativity, assertions are not made
without proof - you just have to search for the proofs. The only
assumptions in relativity are the two Postulates.
>>And it is certainly
>> bad form to respond to a request for proof with such a demand in return.
>> It suggests that you haven't really come up with a proof and you're buying
>> time.
>No I was not trying to buy time. I wanted to point out to you that there is
>no rpoof for RoS.
The proof of Relativity of Simultaneity comes from the Postulates of
Relativity, so you are wrong - there is a proof. Try to read and
understand it some time (although I think that your lack of background in
mathematics or physics may make a considerable difficulty in your
understanding).
>> >> >This
>> >> >restatement of simultaneity is supported by the SR postulates and the
>> >> >Lorantz Transformations.
>> >>
>> >> Your statement is not supported by SR and the LorEntz transformations.
>> >> They imply relativity of simultaneity.
>> >>
>> >> >3. SR asserts the concept of mutual time and length dilation between
>> >frames
>> >> >A and B in relative motion. This is wrong.
>> >>
>> >> WHY is it wrong?
>>
>> No answer here.
>The answer is below.
>>
>> >> > In real life, A's clock runs at a
>> >> >different rate than B's clock. In other words, side by side comparison
>> >(via
>> >> >Lorentz Transforms or Doppler Transforms) one of the clock will run
>> >faster
>> >> >or slower than the other.
>> >>
>> >> Prove it.
>>
>> >You prove mutual time dilation then I will prove what I said.
"Mutual time dilation", as you put it, comes straight from the Lorentz
transformations. The formulae for x' and t' are given by
x' = gamma (x - vt),
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2).
What the equation for t' tells us is that if t alters by tau and x alters
by xi, then t' alters by tau' = gamma (tau - v xi/c^2).
Now, let's take a clock stationary in the unprimed frame and see what
happens. Since the clock is stationary in the unprimed frame, then
between any two events determined by the trajectory of the clock, xi = 0,
and so tau' = gamma tau. Here, tau is the length of time between the
events as seen in the unprimed frame (i.e. the time that the clock sees),
and tau' is the length of time as seen in the primed frame. It follows
that
tau = tau'/gamma,
exactly as predicted by time dilation (the primed frame sees the clock in
the unprimed frame as going slow).
Now, let's invert the transformations (this is going to require some
linear algebra). Since
x' = gamma (x - vt),
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2),
then
x' + vt'
= gamma (x - vt + vt - v^2 x/c^2)
= gamma (x - v^2 x/c^2)
= gamma (1 - v^2/c^2) x
= x/gamma,
and
t' + vx'/c^2
= gamma (t - vx/c^2 + vx/c^2 - v^2 t/c^2)
= gamma (t - v^2 t/c^2)
= gamma (1 - v^2/c^2) t
= t/gamma.
In both cases, the last line follows from the fact that
gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). It follows that the inverse transformation
is given by
x = gamma (x' + vt"),
t = gamma (t' + vx'/c^2).
What the equation for t tells us is that if t' alters by tau' and x'
alters by xi', then t alters by tau = gamma (tau' + v xi'/c^2).
Now, let's take a clock stationary in the primed frame and see what
happens. Since the clock is stationary in the primed frame, then between
any two events determined by the trajectory of the clock, xi' = 0, and so
tau = gamma tau'. Here, tau' is the length of time between the events as
seen in the primed frame (i.e. the time that the clock sees), and tau is
the length of time as seen in the unprimed frame. It follows that
tau' = tau/gamma,
exactly as predicted by time dilation (the unprimed frame sees the clock
in the primed frame as going slow).
And there you have it. From the Lorentz transformation, the unprimed
frame sees the clock in the primed frame as going slow, by a factor of
gamma, and the primed frame sees the clock in the unprimed frame as going
slow, by a factor of gamma, and so we have mutually consistent time
dilations. The reason why it works is because we are comparing apples and
oranges: different things are being compared, and there is therefore no
reason to suppose any linkage between them, and specifically no
contradiction in the fact that each frame sees the other as being
time-dilated.
>> Again, you show an unwillingness to give a proof of a bald assertion.
>> Could it be that you don't have a proof?
>>
>> As I commented earlier, experiment is closer to relativity than to
>> classical mechanics.
>That's not proof and what I said is not classical mechanics. I said clocks
>in relative motion runs at different rates and these rate is dependent on
>the state of absolute motion of the clocks.
According to SR, in any inertial frame, clocks in different motion run at
different rates, and the rate is dependent on the speed of the clock
relative to the frame.
>This is confirmed by all
>experiment---all clocks when rejoined shows different elapsed time. Also
That is also consistent with SR.
>this is confirmed by the GPS clocks. A clock second in the GPS location had
>to be redefined to agree with the ground clock second.
So let us see your theory, and your justifications. There's no need to be
secretive.
>> I will let others who are more versed in the
>> experimental evidence supply that evidence. All I will say is that the
>> theory of relativity is mathematically consistent, and that mutual time
>> dilation is a prediction of the theory.
>Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
No. That's not it at all. My background is a *mathematical* and
*theoretical* background. I make no secret of the fact that I am a
mathematician (with knowledge of some mathematical physics), and I am not
an experimentalist (in fact, like many theoreticians, I am a terrible
experimentalist). I don't write about what I do not know, unlike you, and
so I don't recount experimental evidence with which I have no familiarity
- I leave that to people who are actually familiar with the evidence. I
am not going to pretend familiarity with what I am unfamiliar with just to
please you. I have ascertained from respected authorities that the
experimental evidence for relativity is very strong, unlike the lack of
experimental evidence for classical mechanics (Michelson-Morley being a
prime example, but one which is completely consistent with SR - as I have
demonstrated mathematically for myself, and I have allowed others to judge
the quality of that work). On the other hand, my familiarity with the
actual theory is quite strong, and I am perfectly mathematically competent
to determine the mathematical consistency of relativity. I have also
shown that "mutual time dilation" is a *consequence* of the theory of
relativity (the derivation is completely mathematical), and that it is
completely self-consistent.
>> >> >4. SR experts assert that in an accelerating spaceship light from the
>> >middle
>> >> >is red shifted in the front of thew ship and blue shifted at the rear
>of
>> >the
>> >> >ship. This is wrong.
>> >>
>> >> Why is it wrong?
>> >>
>> >> >There is no relative velocity between any part of the
>> >> >ship therefore there is no frequency shift in the ship.
>> >>
>> >> The velocity changes as the light is in transit. The shifting is a
>> >> prediction even of non-relativistic physics.
>>
>> >So it doen't bother you that this prediction is wrong??
>>
>> You still haven't answered WHY the prediction is wrong. You seem to like
>> making bald assertions without supplying any evidence to back them up.
Since you have presumably ignored my previous postings, I will reiterate
what I wrote in them which is relevant to the present discussion.
First, I will reiterate my qualitative explanation:
Since the ship is moving, then this isn't the case. Just stop and think
about the situation for a moment. Light actually takes a nonzero time to
travel to the front and rear from the middle. This means that the light
going back meets the rear *before* it has travelled the distance L (the
distance between between the middle and the rear) since the rear has moved
in to meet it. It also means that when light going forward meets the
front, it has travelled *beyond* a distance of L since by the time it has
travelled a distance L, the front has already moved on, and isn't there
anymore (much like Zeno's paradox involving Achilles and the tortoise),
and the light has to travel further in order to catch up to it. If you
actually *think* about what is actually happening rather than just
repeating the same unsupportable assertions, then maybe you will see why
your statement above is just so wrong.
Now, my quantitative explanation:
We have an *accelerating* ship. In the inertial frame in which the ship
is at rest when it emits the light, the light travels at speed c is all
directions (including front and back). The ship itself is accelerating, so
that it moves slightly during the time that the light is in transit.
Taking a*L to be much smaller than c^2, we can again assume that the ship
acts according to Newtonian mechanics as a good approximation, and that
each part of the ship has position determined by 1/2 a*t^2 + C in the
given inertial frame (as required by the fact that the acceleration is
constant with value a), where the x-axis is oriented so that it points in
the direction of acceleration of the ship, and the wavefront in question
is emitted at time t = 0 in the given inertial frame. Let's take the
middle of the ship at x = 0 at the time of emission. This means that the
location of the middle of the ship is given by x = 1/2 a*t^2, the location
of the front of the ship is given by x = L + 1/2 a*t^2, and the location
of the back is given by x = - L + 1/2 a*t^2.
When does the wavefront reach the front of the ship? Suppose that the
wavefront reaches the front of the ship at time Tf, then, since light is
travelling at speed c in the inertial frame,
c*Tf = L + 1/2 a*Tf^2
(the light is travelling in the direction of increasing x), so that
1/2 a*Tf^2 - c*Tf + L = 0.
Using the well-known formula for the solution of a quadratic equation, we
find that
Tf = [c + sqrt(c^2 - 2 a*L)]/a,
where square root can be taken to be positive or negative (in order to
spare confusion, I will use the notation Sqrt when I want to discuss the
positive square root). Since the argument of the square root is less than
c^2, then Sqrt(c^2 - 2 a*L) < c, and so we take the negative square root
(incidentally, the positive square root has to eliminated anyway since
then the time would be approximately 2c/a, a time when the Newtonian
approximation is no longer valid). It follows that the time for light to
reach the front of the ship is given by
Tf = [c - Sqrt(c^2 - 2 a*L)]/a.
Since a*L << c^2, then Sqrt(c^2 - 2 a*L) is very close to
c - a*L/c - a^2*L^2/(2 c^3),
using the Taylor series expansion for Sqrt, and so Tf is very close to
L/c + a^2*L^2/(2 c).
When does the wavefront reach the back of the ship? Suppose that the
wavefront reaches the back of the ship at time Tb, then, since light is
travelling at speed c in the inertial frame,
- c*Tb = - L + 1/2 a*Tb^2
(the light is travelling in the direction of decreasing x), so that
1/2 a*Tb^2 + c*Tb - L = 0.
Again using the well-known formula for the solution of a quadratic
equation, we find that
Tb = [- c + sqrt(c^2 + 2 a*L)]/a.
Now, the negative square root can be eliminated from consideration since
we require that Tb be positive. It follows that the time for light to
reach the back of the ship is given by
Tb = [- c + Sqrt(c^2 + 2 a*L)]/a.
Since a*L << c^2, then Sqrt(c^2 + 2 a*L) is very close to
c + a*L/c - a^2*L^2/(2 c^3),
again using the Taylor series expansion for Sqrt, and so Tb is very close
to
L/c - a^2*L^2/(2 c).
Note that the second order approximations already indicate that the time
taken to the front of the accelerating ship is more than the time taken to
the back. The fact that this holds true under the Newtonian approximation
can also be seen as a consequence of the observation that as a function,
Sqrt is concave down (so that any chord between points on the graph of the
function actually lies *beneath* the curve).
Now, we came to the question of what happens to the frequency. The front
is moving away from the original location of the source by the time the
light reaches the front (with a speed of approximately a*L/c). This means
that the light observed by the front is red-shifted (Doppler shift) by an
amount of a*L/c^2 (i.e. an emitted frequency of f is observed at
frequency f - a*L*f/c^2 to first order).
Similarly, the back is moving towards the original location of the source
by the time the light reaches the back (with a speed of approximately
a*L/c). This means that the light observed by the back is blue-shifted
(Doppler shift) by an amount of a*L/c^2 (i.e. an emitted frequency of f is
observed at frequency f + a*L*f/c^2 to first order).
This gives the reason why the acceleration gives rise to the shifts: the
shifts are Doppler shifts due to the fact that ship is moving by the time
the light reaches front and back, and the reason why the ship is moving at
that time is because it is accelerating.
I trust that there was no difficulty with the qualitative part of my
proof. If you can try to understand the quantitative part, all the
better.
>There is no relative velocity within the ship so there is no frequency
>shift.
Well, even a simple look-over will show that this statement is wrong,
provided one is prepared to actually *think* with one's brain.
>> >> >5. SR experts assert that the transit time for light to traverse a
>moving
>> >> >rod (moving left to right) with a light source at the left end is
>greater
>> >> >than the transit time if the light source is at the right end of the
>rod.
>> >> >This is wrong. In real life it takes the same transit time to traverse
>> >the
>> >> >rod in any direction. This is supported by the SR postulate of
>isotropic
>> >> >light speed in all inertial frames.
>> >>
>> >> The assertion is that it takes longer in the frame under discussion,
>and
>> >> that is true.
>>
>> >No it's not true. Your assertion is based on your naive understanding how
>> >light move from the source to the target.
>>
>> My understanding is derived mathematically and rigourously from the
>> Lorentz Transformations. In any question of SR, it is to the Lorentz
>> Transformations (or more general elements of the Lorentz Group) that one
>> should always look first.
>ROTFL. The Lorentz Transforms do not give different transit time in
>different directions. I seems that you are just making things up eh?
Okay. How about this:
Suppose the speed of the rod is v from left to right, and that its length
is L in the specified frame of reference (this is not the same as saying
that its rest length is L). For the light shining from left to right,
suppose that the light takes time T1 to travel from the left end to the
right end, then the light moves a distance c*T1, and the rod moves a
distance v*T1, so that c*T1 = L + v*T1, and so T1 = L/(c-v).
Now for the light shining from right to left, suppose the light takes time
T2 to travel from the right end to the left end, then the light moves a
distance c*T2 (in the *opposite* direction to the rod), and the rod moves
a distance v*T2, so that c*T2 = L - v*T2, and so T2 = L/(c+v).
It follows that T1 = L/(c-v) > L/(c+v) = T2.
And so we have a rigourous proof that light will indeed take longer to
travel from the left end to the right end than to travel from the right
end to the left end, and the justification is that the rod moves while the
light is in transit.
David McAnally
kenseto
with an idiot like you. However I will make the following comments about
your long post:
1. I did not say gravity is caused by the rotation of the earth. I said that
the difference in gravitational potential between the different heights is
due to the rotation of the earth.
2. You are too stupid to understand that there is a difference between a
universal constant and a constant math ratio for light speed.
3. All your math is based on your naive knowledge and erroneous assertions
how light move from the source to the target.
and learn some real physics before you give me any shit.
5. I do have a theory called Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT includes
SR as a subset and its equations are valid in all environments--including
gravity. A full description of DRT is in my website:
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
6. You said that an approaching siren gets louder but you failed to explain
why its gets louder---is it because of increase in frequency or increase in
amplitude?? If it is due to amplitude does that mean that the source is
outputing higher and higher amplitude as it approach the observer??
7. Also an another thread you said that the frequency (pitch) of a receding
source is decreasing. Why receding motion causes frequency shift but not
approaching motion??
Ken Seto
"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
news:a3jae7$7gf$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
Etherman
> As I said in another thread I am not going to waste a lot of time
aguing
> with an idiot like you. However I will make the following comments
about
> your long post:
> 1. I did not say gravity is caused by the rotation of the earth. I
said that
> the difference in gravitational potential between the different
heights is
> due to the rotation of the earth.
So the gravitational potential is a constant for nonrotating bodies?
> 2. You are too stupid to understand that there is a difference
between a
> universal constant and a constant math ratio for light speed.
Right, one is constant but the other is constant.
> 4. You and Eric Prebys are idiots. That's why I suggest that both of
you go
> and learn some real physics before you give me any shit.
I don't know about McAnally, but IIRC Prebys is studying (teaching?)
physics at Princeton. I suspect they both knew more real physics when
they were 3 years old than you do now.
> 5. I do have a theory called Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT
includes
> SR as a subset and its equations are valid in all
environments--including
> gravity. A full description of DRT is in my website:
> http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
This is a lie. Your DRT actually predicts that there is no Doppler
shift.
> 6. You said that an approaching siren gets louder but you failed to
explain
> why its gets louder---is it because of increase in frequency or
increase in
> amplitude?? If it is due to amplitude does that mean that the source
is
> outputing higher and higher amplitude as it approach the observer??
I know this is a crazy idea, but maybe amplitude decreases with
distance.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c5976f6$0$1581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Sorry Ken, I do not understand what you are saying.
What does it mean that "the events are in the same frame"?
Is an event in a frame?
We are moving relative to each other, Ken.
So which frame is it that our hand clap "is in"?
My rest frame?
Your rest frame?
None of the above?
> > And why do you keep talking about the transit times of light?
> > And why are you referring to my "naive knowledge how light move
> > from the source to the target" when I haven't addressed the issue
> > with a single word?
>
> You keep on using your irrelevant example to prove the validity of RoS. It
> won't fly.
> If you want to prove the validity of RoS you need to talk about how the
> concept of RoS is derived. That means that you need to talk about the
> Einstein gedanken.
I am not proving anything, Ken.
I am only asking what your words mean.
> > You made a general statement about events, and if that
> > statement means anything, it must obviously be applicable to
> > ANY kind of event, like hand claps.
> > I am asking you to explain the meaning of your general statement
> > applied on a concrete scenario.
> >
> > Your statement was:
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > | at a different time.
> >
> > My concrete scenario is:
> > A and B run past each other.
> > As they pass each other, A clap his right hand against
> > B's left hand, and his left hand against B's right hand.
> > So we have two non coinciding clap events.
> > You insist that "if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > at a different time."
>
> At the instant of the events both A and B are at the same frame and
> therefore they both see the events to be simultaneous at the same time.
Changed your mind? :-)
> > It is obvious that your statement implies that A and B
> > must see EACH of the two events "at a different time".
> > So what it boils down to, is this:
>
> At the instant of the events both A and B are at the same frame and
> therefore they both see the events to be simultaneous at the same time.
So you HAVE changed your mind.
> > Please explain what it means that A and B see an event
> > - one hand clap - at a different time.
> >
> > Note Ken:
> > I have not said above that your statement is wrong.
> > I am only asking what your statement MEANS,
> > because I sincerely do not understand it.
> >
> > So can you explain it, please?
>
> I did.
No you didn't.
Ken Seto wrote:
| In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
| B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
| at a different time.
Now you say that A and B will both see the events
"simultaneously at the same time".
That's not an explanation, its a withdrawal.
So am I to understand that you now are saying that your
statement was wrong?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c597ad5$0$1588$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a38j1a$dvi$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c56c5a3$0$35615$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > > Two ticks of a Cs atom are also two events.
> > > The absolute time between the ticks would be different in K than
> > > in K'.
> >
> > So "the absolute time" between events is frame dependent? :-)
>
> Yes. The absolute time (absolute duration) required between two ticks of a
> Cs atom is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the Cs atom (frame
> dependent).
But thats not what you said above, Ken.
Ken Seto wrote:
| Two ticks of a Cs atom are also two events.
| The absolute time between the ticks would be different in K than
| in K'".
The only way to interpret this is that the absolute time between
two particular events depend on the frame of reference.
But that's not what you meant, was it? :-)
> This effect is interpreted by SR as time dilation.
> However a defined interval of absolute time is the same in all frames of
> reference. The clock time values represent this defined interval of absolute
> time is different in different frame of reference (different states of
> absolute motion).
Now you are talking about four events, Ken.
You are saying that the "absolute time" between two ticks of a clock
stationary in one frame of reference is different from the "absolute time"
between two other ticks of another clock stationary in another frame
of reference.
Why do you think this is relevant, Ken?
Ken Seto wrote:
| In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
| B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
| at a different time.
There is only two events in that statement, not four.
Isn't it?
Paul
David McAnally
>As I said in another thread I am not going to waste a lot of time aguing
>with an idiot like you.
As others have pointed out, "idiot" and "moron" are the highest
compliments that you can pay to a person. When they *should* worry
is when you praise their intelligence since that is a very strong
indication that they are completely on the wrong track.
>However I will make the following comments about
>your long post:
Perhaps the reason that you didn't bother replying to my post is because
you would have to use your brain in order to answer me, and you're not
used to that.
>1. I did not say gravity is caused by the rotation of the earth. I said that
>the difference in gravitational potential between the different heights is
>due to the rotation of the earth.
As I've pointed, these two statements are the same, so in a way, I was
right. If the difference is due to the rotation of the earth, then so is
the earth's gravity, since it is mathematically a manifestation of that
difference (do you know what the gradient of a scalar function is?).
>2. You are too stupid to understand that there is a difference between a
>universal constant and a constant math ratio for light speed.
You still haven't defined the term "math ratio". That is a term unknown
in mathematics. So it is a constant which is not universal, so it is a
constant in each frame, but not the same in all frames (if it was the same
in all frames, then it would be a universal constant, which you claim it
isn't). But no! You denied that it was not the same in all frames. You
seem to have run out of logical possibilities.
>3. All your math is based on your naive knowledge and erroneous assertions
>how light move from the source to the target.
I have a PhD in mathematics. I have read and understood proofs of the
Banach-Tarski Theorem, whose statement is very counter-intuitive, so I
don't think that my mathematics is of a particularly naive type.
>4. You and Eric Prebys are idiots. That's why I suggest that both of you go
>and learn some real physics before you give me any shit.
If we went back to uni to learn some real physics, then we would be
learning exactly the same physics that we have already learnt - physics
which is completely alien to your way of thinking. Both of us actually
studied physics to graduate level, so I don't think we are lacking in that
department. On the other hand, your grasp of mathematics and physics is
so laughable that it is impossible to believe that you have studied
either of these fields at any advanced level (or any elementary level).
>5. I do have a theory called Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT includes
>SR as a subset and its equations are valid in all environments--including
>gravity. A full description of DRT is in my website:
>http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
I wonder how long before your first fundamental error occurs. The first
page? The first paragraph?
>6. You said that an approaching siren gets louder but you failed to explain
>why its gets louder---is it because of increase in frequency or increase in
>amplitude??
As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, it's because of increase in
amplitude. That doesn't count as "failing to explain". What sort of mind
do you have that you can claim that I "failed to explain" and then asked a
question for which I have ALREADY *EXPLICITLY* given an answer on numerous
occasions? Is lack of comprehension another of your failings?
If it is due to amplitude does that mean that the source is
>outputing higher and higher amplitude as it approach the observer??
No. It might have escaped your attention but the amplitude diminshes as
the wave gets further away from the source, otherwise energy would not be
conserved. The intensity follows an inverse squrare law, so that
amplitude of a wave is inversely proportional to the distance from the
source. There is no need for the source to output higher amplitudes since
increasing proximity means that you are being exposed to higher amplitudes
(amplitude being inversely proportional to distance), and *that* is why
the source gets louder as it gets closer.
>7. Also an another thread you said that the frequency (pitch) of a receding
>source is decreasing. Why receding motion causes frequency shift but not
>approaching motion??
I never said that there is no frequency shift with approaching motion.
If you're going to quote me, at least try to get it right. The frequency
starts off at its highest value, and it remains effectively constant for a
while (note that I am *not* claiming that it remains constant, merely that
the change in frequency is negligible, so it drops *very* slowly). As the
source approches its point of closest approach, the frequency continues to
drops, and continues dropping as it recedes, levelling out to be
effectively constant at its lowest frequency (i.e. the frequency drops so
slowly that the change in frequency is negligible) when it gets far enough
away.
David McAnally
David McAnally
>I don't know about McAnally, but IIRC Prebys is studying (teaching?)
>physics at Princeton. I suspect they both knew more real physics when
>they were 3 years old than you do now.
My undergraduate course at University of Queensland was a combined
Maths-Physics Honurs level course (in fact, both departments at that time
offered courses at honours level (for those students eventually intending
to do an Honours year), as a separate course to pass level). Afer I
received my Bachelor of Science degree, I took an Honours year in Physics,
for which I received First Class Honours and a University Medal. I then
took an Honours year in Mathematics, for which I also received First Class
Honours, following which I took an PhD in mathematics, working with
quasiclassical states of the hydrogen atom (with its dynamical Lie algebra
SO(4,2)). Following my PhD, I spent a year at the Research Institute for
Mathematical Sciences at Kyoto University as a Research Fellow. I have
worked at several other universities.
David McAnally
kenseto
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c597ad5$0$1588$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> >
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > news:a38j1a$dvi$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> > >
> > > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c56c5a3$0$35615$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > > > Two ticks of a Cs atom are also two events.
> > > > The absolute time between the ticks would be different in K than
> > > > in K'.
> > >
> > > So "the absolute time" between events is frame dependent? :-)
> >
> > Yes. The absolute time (absolute duration) required between two ticks of
a
> > Cs atom is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the Cs atom
(frame
> > dependent).
>
> But thats not what you said above, Ken.
> Ken Seto wrote:
> | Two ticks of a Cs atom are also two events.
> | The absolute time between the ticks would be different in K than
> | in K'".
>
> The only way to interpret this is that the absolute time between
> two particular events depend on the frame of reference.
NO the other way to interpret this is that a tick of the Cs atom in K
requires a different amount of absolute time than a tick of the Cs atom in
K'.
>
> But that's not what you meant, was it? :-)
>
> > This effect is interpreted by SR as time dilation.
> > However a defined interval of absolute time is the same in all frames of
> > reference. The clock time values represent this defined interval of
absolute
> > time is different in different frame of reference (different states of
> > absolute motion).
>
> Now you are talking about four events, Ken.
That's what SR is refering to when it applies the RoS to get the elapsed
time in the other frame.
> You are saying that the "absolute time" between two ticks of a clock
> stationary in one frame of reference is different from the "absolute time"
> between two other ticks of another clock stationary in another frame
> of reference.
So?? If one tick in K contains a different amount of absolute time than in
K' then it follows that two ticks in K contains a different amount of
absolute time. So what is your problem??
>
> Why do you think this is relevant, Ken?
> Ken Seto wrote:
> | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> | at a different time.
>
> There is only two events in that statement, not four.
> Isn't it?
The above statement was a new interpretation of Einstein's train gedanken
from which he derived the concept of RoS. We can limit our discussion to one
tick of the Cs atom in each frame. The RoS interpretation is that the
elapsed time for these two event is not the same because they don't agree
with the simultantaneity of the events. My interpretation is that they agree
with the fact that they both observer the events to be simultaneous but at a
different elapsed clock time. Both interpretations give the same
result--different elapsed time for the two events. However my interpretation
does not violate the constant light speed postulate in the train frame.
Ken Seto.
kenseto
Play dumb again eh Paul??
BTW how does RoS explain your thought experiment?? Since RoS concludes that
if the events are simultaneous in Paul's frame it would not be simultaneous
in Ken's frame and yet we know that the events are simutlaneous in both
frames??
With my interpretation both Ken and Paul see the events to be simultaneous.
In this special case the events were created by contact between Ken and Paul
and therefore both Paul and Ken can claim that the events are at their frame
and thus no difference in elapsed time between the events in both frames.
>
> > > And why do you keep talking about the transit times of light?
> > > And why are you referring to my "naive knowledge how light move
> > > from the source to the target" when I haven't addressed the issue
> > > with a single word?
> >
> > You keep on using your irrelevant example to prove the validity of RoS.
It
> > won't fly.
> > If you want to prove the validity of RoS you need to talk about how the
> > concept of RoS is derived. That means that you need to talk about the
> > Einstein gedanken.
>
> I am not proving anything, Ken.
> I am only asking what your words mean.
You were trying to prove that that my interpretation that the events are
simultaneous at different elapsed clock time is faulty. But oyu failed
miserably. Instead your thought experiment have proven that RoS is
faulty.:-)
>
> >
> > At the instant of the events both A and B are at the same frame and
> > therefore they both see the events to be simultaneous at the same time.
>
> So you HAVE changed your mind.
NO.Your thought experiment crates a special case where the difference in
elapsed clock time for the events is zero. Therefore both Paul and Ken see
the event to be simutaneous at the same time. Unfortunately for you the same
experiment shows that RoS is faulty. :-)
>
> > > Please explain what it means that A and B see an event
> > > - one hand clap - at a different time.
> > >
> > > Note Ken:
> > > I have not said above that your statement is wrong.
> > > I am only asking what your statement MEANS,
> > > because I sincerely do not understand it.
> > >
> > > So can you explain it, please?
> >
> > I did.
>
> No you didn't.
>
> Ken Seto wrote:
> | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> | at a different time.
>
> Now you say that A and B will both see the events
> "simultaneously at the same time".
> That's not an explanation, its a withdrawal.
Your thought experiment is a special case where the events were created by
contact between Ken and Paul. There is no elapsed time difference between
the two events. In other words the events were created at the same time.
>
> So am I to understand that you now are saying that your
> statement was wrong?
NO your have proven that RoS is wrong.
BTW did you receive my paper entitled "Unification of Physics"??
Ken Seto
>
> Paul
>
>
kenseto
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>
> >As I said in another thread I am not going to waste a lot of time aguing
> >with an idiot like you.
>
> As others have pointed out, "idiot" and "moron" are the highest
> compliments that you can pay to a person.
This shows that you are more stupid than I thought. So you now think that
idiot and moron are compliments?? <shrug>
> >1. I did not say gravity is caused by the rotation of the earth. I said
that
> >the difference in gravitational potential between the different heights
is
> >due to the rotation of the earth.
>
> As I've pointed, these two statements are the same, so in a way, I was
> right. If the difference is due to the rotation of the earth, then so is
> the earth's gravity, since it is mathematically a manifestation of that
> difference (do you know what the gradient of a scalar function is?).
No they are not the same. Gravity is between two objects. Gravity gradient
is the gradient of one object.
>
> >2. You are too stupid to understand that there is a difference between a
> >universal constant and a constant math ratio for light speed.
>
> You still haven't defined the term "math ratio". That is a term unknown
> in mathematics. So it is a constant which is not universal, so it is a
> constant in each frame, but not the same in all frames (if it was the same
> in all frames, then it would be a universal constant, which you claim it
> isn't). But no! You denied that it was not the same in all frames. You
> seem to have run out of logical possibilities.
A math ratio has units for both the top and bottom of the ratio. A universal
math ratio is where the units are universal. In other words, one universal
clock second must have the same absolute duration in all frames of
reference. In real life we know that a clock second in one frame is not
equal to one clock second in another frame. The GPS clock demonstrated this
vividly. A GPS clock second must be redefined so that it agrees with the
ground clock second.
>
> >3. All your math is based on your naive knowledge and erroneous
assertions
> >how light move from the source to the target.
>
> I have a PhD in mathematics. I have read and understood proofs of the
> Banach-Tarski Theorem, whose statement is very counter-intuitive, so I
> don't think that my mathematics is of a particularly naive type.
It doesn't matter what or how many degrees you have. You were trained as a
SR fanatic you remain a fanatic.
>
> >4. You and Eric Prebys are idiots. That's why I suggest that both of you
go
> >and learn some real physics before you give me any shit.
>
> If we went back to uni to learn some real physics, then we would be
> learning exactly the same physics that we have already learnt - physics
> which is completely alien to your way of thinking. Both of us actually
> studied physics to graduate level, so I don't think we are lacking in that
> department. On the other hand, your grasp of mathematics and physics is
> so laughable that it is impossible to believe that you have studied
> either of these fields at any advanced level (or any elementary level).
No matter how much training you had you are a SR fanatic and you treat SR as
a religion. Subsequently you are not capable of accepting the true processes
of nature.
>
> >5. I do have a theory called Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT
includes
> >SR as a subset and its equations are valid in all environments--including
> >gravity. A full description of DRT is in my website:
> >http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
>
> I wonder how long before your first fundamental error occurs. The first
> page? The first paragraph?
Typical response of an SR Runt when he is confronted with something that he
doesn't have a good answer to.
>
> >6. You said that an approaching siren gets louder but you failed to
explain
> >why its gets louder---is it because of increase in frequency or increase
in
> >amplitude??
>
> As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, it's because of increase in
> amplitude. That doesn't count as "failing to explain". What sort of mind
> do you have that you can claim that I "failed to explain" and then asked a
> question for which I have ALREADY *EXPLICITLY* given an answer on numerous
> occasions? Is lack of comprehension another of your failings?
No this is the first time you admitted that the loudness is due to
amplitude. If I didn't memtioned it you would have never use it as your
arguement.
>
> If it is due to amplitude does that mean that the source is
> >outputing higher and higher amplitude as it approach the observer??
>
> No. It might have escaped your attention but the amplitude diminshes as
> the wave gets further away from the source, otherwise energy would not be
> conserved. The intensity follows an inverse squrare law, so that
> amplitude of a wave is inversely proportional to the distance from the
> source. There is no need for the source to output higher amplitudes since
> increasing proximity means that you are being exposed to higher amplitudes
> (amplitude being inversely proportional to distance), and *that* is why
> the source gets louder as it gets closer.
ROTFL---PhD in math eh? For your information amplitude of a wave is not
affected by the inverse square law. Frequency is affected by the inverse
square law.
>
> >7. Also an another thread you said that the frequency (pitch) of a
receding
> >source is decreasing. Why receding motion causes frequency shift but not
> >approaching motion??
>
> I never said that there is no frequency shift with approaching motion.
> If you're going to quote me, at least try to get it right.
You said: No. The volume increases. The pitch remains effectively
constant, and
then starts decreasing.
This sure sound like that the pitch is effectly constant during the
approaching leg and the pitch starts decreasing during the receding leg.
Ken Seto
David McAnally
>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>news:a3lrvi$mgj$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>>
>> >As I said in another thread I am not going to waste a lot of time aguing
>> >with an idiot like you.
>>
>> As others have pointed out, "idiot" and "moron" are the highest
>> compliments that you can pay to a person.
>This shows that you are more stupid than I thought. So you now think that
>idiot and moron are compliments?? <shrug>
Because when you call a person an idiot or a moron, it means that their
intelligence is so great that your small brain can't understand them. You
only reserve those particular epithets to persons of intelligence.
>> >1. I did not say gravity is caused by the rotation of the earth. I said
>that
>> >the difference in gravitational potential between the different heights
>is
>> >due to the rotation of the earth.
>>
>> As I've pointed, these two statements are the same, so in a way, I was
>> right. If the difference is due to the rotation of the earth, then so is
>> the earth's gravity, since it is mathematically a manifestation of that
>> difference (do you know what the gradient of a scalar function is?).
>No they are not the same. Gravity is between two objects. Gravity gradient
>is the gradient of one object.
The acceleration due to gravity is determined by the gravitational field
*alone*. So you will have to admit that what you are saying is that the
magnitude of gravitational acceleration at the earth's surface is due to
the rotation of the earth. To claim otherwise would lead to a direct
contradiction, due to the definition of gravitational potential.
What does "gradient of one object" mean? FUNCTIONS have gradients, not
objects. I repeat: do you know what the gradient of a scalar function is?
>> >2. You are too stupid to understand that there is a difference between a
>> >universal constant and a constant math ratio for light speed.
>>
>> You still haven't defined the term "math ratio". That is a term unknown
>> in mathematics. So it is a constant which is not universal, so it is a
>> constant in each frame, but not the same in all frames (if it was the same
>> in all frames, then it would be a universal constant, which you claim it
>> isn't). But no! You denied that it was not the same in all frames. You
>> seem to have run out of logical possibilities.
>A math ratio has units for both the top and bottom of the ratio. A universal
>math ratio is where the units are universal.
This is one of the most nonsensical distinctions that I have ever seen in
my life. So what is the qualitative difference between km/s as a
universal unit and km/s as a unit with km in the numerator and seconds in
the denominator?
>In other words, one universal
>clock second must have the same absolute duration in all frames of
>reference.
Define "universal clock second".
>In real life we know that a clock second in one frame is not
>equal to one clock second in another frame.
So? This is also true in relativity, and relativity does not need such
encumbrances as "universal clock second".
>The GPS clock demonstrated this
>vividly. A GPS clock second must be redefined so that it agrees with the
>ground clock second.
>>
>> >3. All your math is based on your naive knowledge and erroneous
>assertions
>> >how light move from the source to the target.
>>
>> I have a PhD in mathematics. I have read and understood proofs of the
>> Banach-Tarski Theorem, whose statement is very counter-intuitive, so I
>> don't think that my mathematics is of a particularly naive type.
>It doesn't matter what or how many degrees you have. You were trained as a
>SR fanatic you remain a fanatic.
So? Produce your theory here as an alternative.
The problem with you though is that you have amply demonstrated a lack of
necessary grounding in both mathematics and physics, and you continue to
do so (below).
>> >4. You and Eric Prebys are idiots. That's why I suggest that both of you
>go
>> >and learn some real physics before you give me any shit.
>>
>> If we went back to uni to learn some real physics, then we would be
>> learning exactly the same physics that we have already learnt - physics
>> which is completely alien to your way of thinking. Both of us actually
>> studied physics to graduate level, so I don't think we are lacking in that
>> department. On the other hand, your grasp of mathematics and physics is
>> so laughable that it is impossible to believe that you have studied
>> either of these fields at any advanced level (or any elementary level).
>No matter how much training you had you are a SR fanatic and you treat SR as
>a religion. Subsequently you are not capable of accepting the true processes
>of nature.
So what do you know about the "true processes of nature", and how do you
predict experimental results from these "true processes of nature"? I'm
sure that somebody will be perfectly willing to supply you with a
comprehensive set of experimental results, and then you can see if your
"true processes of nature" give the same results. Or better yet, somebody
can supply you with a comprehensive set of performed experiments, and then
you can use your "true processes of nature" to predict the outcome. We
will then compare your predicted outcome with the actual outcome. And if
they disagree, will you admit that your "true processes of nature" are
wrong? In fact, your term, "true processes of nature" looks remarkably
like propaganda.
>> >5. I do have a theory called Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT
>includes
>> >SR as a subset and its equations are valid in all environments--including
>> >gravity. A full description of DRT is in my website:
>> >http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
>>
>> I wonder how long before your first fundamental error occurs. The first
>> page? The first paragraph?
>Typical response of an SR Runt when he is confronted with something that he
>doesn't have a good answer to.
Well, I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know when your first mistake
happens. But your record here indicates that such a mistake is
inevitable. Your connections with what is known of physical processes is
tenuous at best.
>> >6. You said that an approaching siren gets louder but you failed to
>explain
>> >why its gets louder---is it because of increase in frequency or increase
>in
>> >amplitude??
>>
>> As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, it's because of increase in
>> amplitude. That doesn't count as "failing to explain". What sort of mind
>> do you have that you can claim that I "failed to explain" and then asked a
>> question for which I have ALREADY *EXPLICITLY* given an answer on numerous
>> occasions? Is lack of comprehension another of your failings?
>No this is the first time you admitted that the loudness is due to
>amplitude.
Then you haven't read everything, and now I recall that you refused to
have anything to do with at least nine of my postings. It may have been
in one of those nine. I certainly mentioned loudness explicitly response
to Bob Kolker's response to me.
In fact, the reason that I started discussing amplitude is because you
made that crack about having a powerful transmitter. It was then that I
realized that you were discussing loudness and not pitch, and since
amplitude is directly related to loudness, I brought up considerations of
amplitude.
>If I didn't memtioned it you would have never use it as your
>arguement.
Seeing that your entire perception is based on loudness, and that became
obvious, and seeing that there is a DIRECT relation between amplitude and
loudness, and that the ONLY reason for mentioning amplitude is in relation
to loudness, then your claim above is just so much dishwater.
>> If it is due to amplitude does that mean that the source is
>> >outputing higher and higher amplitude as it approach the observer??
>>
>> No. It might have escaped your attention but the amplitude diminshes as
>> the wave gets further away from the source, otherwise energy would not be
>> conserved. The intensity follows an inverse squrare law, so that
>> amplitude of a wave is inversely proportional to the distance from the
>> source. There is no need for the source to output higher amplitudes since
>> increasing proximity means that you are being exposed to higher amplitudes
>> (amplitude being inversely proportional to distance), and *that* is why
>> the source gets louder as it gets closer.
>ROTFL---PhD in math eh? For your information amplitude of a wave is not
>affected by the inverse square law. Frequency is affected by the inverse
>square law.
The wave equation (which is appropriate for the present discussion) is
given by
del^2 psi - 1/V^2 @^2 psi/@t^2 = f(r,t),
where del^2 is the Laplacian operator, @g/@t is the partial time
derivative of the function g, V is the speed of propagation of the wave,
and f is a function of position and time (r represents the displacement
vector). f is related to the density of the source. Take a point source
at the origin, then the equation becomes
del^2 psi - 1/V^2 @^2 psi/@t^2 = 0, (1)
everywhere except at the origin. I do not have the time at present to go
into derivations, but a solution of this equation is given by
psi = A/|r| cos(omega (t - |r|/V) + B), (2)
where A and B are constants, and in fact, this is the contribution
generated by an oscillating point source at the origin. The information
that I have given you has the advantage that you don't have to take my
word for it. You can substitute (2) into (1) and verify directly that it
is a solution (presuming of course that you are capable of the required
differentiations and the algebraic manipulation). (2) is also nice in
that it demonstrates that the frequency f = omega/(2 pi) does not change
with distance (no inverse square law for frequency here), and the
amplitude is given by |A|/|r|, which is inversely proportional to the
distance from the source (and so the intensity, which is the square of the
amplitude, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from
the source).
I can work with assuming a moving point source if you like, but that will
have to wait.
>> >7. Also an another thread you said that the frequency (pitch) of a
>receding
>> >source is decreasing. Why receding motion causes frequency shift but not
>> >approaching motion??
>>
>> I never said that there is no frequency shift with approaching motion.
>> If you're going to quote me, at least try to get it right.
>You said: No. The volume increases. The pitch remains effectively
>constant, and
>then starts decreasing.
>This sure sound like that the pitch is effectly constant during the
>approaching leg and the pitch starts decreasing during the receding leg.
It may have sounded like it to you, but it is NOT the same statement. I
said was in the bit that you conveniently cut out of my posting:
:: The frequency starts off at its highest value, and it remains effectively
:: constant for a while (note that I am *not* claiming that it remains
:: constant, merely that the change in frequency is negligible, so it drops
:: *very* slowly). As the source approaches its point of closest approach,
:: the frequency continues to drops, and continues dropping as it recedes,
:: levelling out to be effectively constant at its lowest frequency (i.e. the
:: frequency drops so slowly that the change in frequency is negligible) when
:: it gets far enough away.
Note that here, it is *effectively* constant (not *genuinely* constant)
while the source is still far away in its approach that the angle between
its motion and the line joining source and observer still changes very
slowly. This is because the received frequency depends only on the speed
and the angle. The effective decrease in received frequency starts
*before* the approach is complete (when the angle starts to change more
quickly). So there you are: both my statements substantiated, and
contradictory to your interpretation.
David McAnally
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c5ef59d$0$1593$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a3lhhd$t3r$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c5976f6$0$1581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > >
> > > events are in the same frame and that's why you and I will see the events to
> > > be simultaneous at the same time.
> >
> > Sorry Ken, I do not understand what you are saying.
> > What does it mean that "the events are in the same frame"?
> > Is an event in a frame?
> > We are moving relative to each other, Ken.
> > So which frame is it that our hand clap "is in"?
> > My rest frame?
> > Your rest frame?
> > None of the above?
>
> Play dumb again eh Paul??
> BTW how does RoS explain your thought experiment?? Since RoS concludes that
> if the events are simultaneous in Paul's frame it would not be simultaneous
> in Ken's frame and yet we know that the events are simutlaneous in both
> frames??
WE don't "know that the events are simutlaneous in both frames."
YOU insist they are, I know they are not.
> With my interpretation both Ken and Paul see the events to be simultaneous.
> In this special case the events were created by contact between Ken and Paul
> and therefore both Paul and Ken can claim that the events are at their frame
> and thus no difference in elapsed time between the events in both frames.
Ah. So the events in my example "are in BOTH frames".
Are there any events which NOT "are in ALL frames", Ken?
If so, could you give an example of such an event?
> > > At the instant of the events both A and B are at the same frame and
> > > therefore they both see the events to be simultaneous at the same time.
> >
> > So you HAVE changed your mind.
>
> NO.Your thought experiment crates a special case where the difference in
> elapsed clock time for the events is zero. Therefore both Paul and Ken see
> the event to be simutaneous at the same time. Unfortunately for you the same
> experiment shows that RoS is faulty. :-)
And "the difference in elapsed clock time" for the simultaneous events
in your statement is NOT zero?
Would you please explain that?
> > > > Please explain what it means that A and B see an event
> > > > - one hand clap - at a different time.
> > > >
> > > > Note Ken:
> > > > I have not said above that your statement is wrong.
> > > > I am only asking what your statement MEANS,
> > > > because I sincerely do not understand it.
> > > >
> > > > So can you explain it, please?
> > >
> > > I did.
> >
> > No you didn't.
> >
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > | at a different time.
> >
> > Now you say that A and B will both see the events
> > "simultaneously at the same time".
> > That's not an explanation, its a withdrawal.
>
> Your thought experiment is a special case where the events were created by
> contact between Ken and Paul. There is no elapsed time difference between
> the two events. In other words the events were created at the same time.
Ken Seto wrote:
| In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
| B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
| at a different time.
Do you mean that there is an "elapsed time difference between
the two events" in your statement above, and that your
statement therefore differ from my example?
You are obviously talking about non coinciding events.
So are our claps; they are happening at each of our hands,
so they are non coinciding.
I think you better explain the difference, Ken.
> > So am I to understand that you now are saying that your
> > statement was wrong?
>
> NO your have proven that RoS is wrong.
I have done nothing but asking.
You have however proven that you cannot answer my questions
without contradicting yourself.
Your "simultaneous events at different times", have now become
"simultaneous events at the same time".
> BTW did you receive my paper entitled "Unification of Physics"??
Yes.
Paul
David McAnally
>"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c5ef59d$0$1593$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>>
>> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
>> news:a3lhhd$t3r$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
>> >
>> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>> news:3c5976f6$0$1581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>> > >
>> > > At the instant of the events--when you clap your hands with mine---the
>> > > events are in the same frame and that's why you and I will see the events to
>> > > be simultaneous at the same time.
>> >
>> > Sorry Ken, I do not understand what you are saying.
>> > What does it mean that "the events are in the same frame"?
>> > Is an event in a frame?
>> > We are moving relative to each other, Ken.
>> > So which frame is it that our hand clap "is in"?
>> > My rest frame?
>> > Your rest frame?
>> > None of the above?
>>
>> Play dumb again eh Paul??
>> BTW how does RoS explain your thought experiment?? Since RoS concludes that
>> if the events are simultaneous in Paul's frame it would not be simultaneous
>> in Ken's frame and yet we know that the events are simutlaneous in both
>> frames??
>WE don't "know that the events are simutlaneous in both frames."
>YOU insist they are, I know they are not.
[snip]
Well, at least Ken thinks he's got Bob Kolker on his side, even if he has
nobody else.
David McAnally
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c5ee788$0$1579$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
That's no reasonable interpretation of your statement,
but I accept that this is what you unsuccessfully meant to say.
That is, you are talking about two ticks of each of TWO different clocks,
which are four events.
> > But that's not what you meant, was it? :-)
> >
> > > This effect is interpreted by SR as time dilation.
> > > However a defined interval of absolute time is the same in all frames of
> > > reference. The clock time values represent this defined interval of absolute
> > > time is different in different frame of reference (different states of
> > > absolute motion).
> >
> > Now you are talking about four events, Ken.
>
> That's what SR is refering to when it applies the RoS to get the elapsed
> time in the other frame.
So SR is referring to four events when it claims that the simultaneity
of two events is relative? :-)
> > You are saying that the "absolute time" between two ticks of a clock
> > stationary in one frame of reference is different from the "absolute time"
> > between two other ticks of another clock stationary in another frame
> > of reference.
>
> So?? If one tick in K contains a different amount of absolute time than in
> K' then it follows that two ticks in K contains a different amount of
> absolute time. So what is your problem??
Read my question below:
> > Why do you think this is relevant, Ken?
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > | at a different time.
> >
> > There is only two events in that statement, not four.
> > Isn't it?
>
> The above statement was a new interpretation of Einstein's train gedanken
> from which he derived the concept of RoS. We can limit our discussion to one
> tick of the Cs atom in each frame.
So we are talking about TWO Cs clocks, but consider only ONE tick
from each clock?
What's the point with clocks when you consider only
one tick from it? None, right?
TWO lightening bolts or TWO hand claps would work equally well, right?
The point is that there are TWO and only TWO events, right?
> The RoS interpretation is that the
> elapsed time for these two event is not the same because they don't agree
> with the simultantaneity of the events. My interpretation is that they agree
> with the fact that they both observer the events to be simultaneous but at a
> different elapsed clock time.
But there are only TWO "ticks" (ONE from each clock), or TWO lightening
bolts, or TWO hand claps.
If observer A say that the two ticks are simultaneous and thus measure
zero elapsed time between them on his clock, and observer B say that
the two ticks are simultaneous and thus measure zero elapsed time between
them on his clock, which clocks are then showing "different elapsed clock time"?
Or isn't "elapsed clock time" a time shown by a clock?
And isn't "different elapsed clock time" the difference
between the "elapsed clock time" shown by two different clocks?
If not, what is it then?
> Both interpretations give the same
> result--different elapsed time for the two events. However my interpretation
> does not violate the constant light speed postulate in the train frame.
But you have never explained what your interpretation means, Ken.
Paul
kenseto
NO one tick each of two different clocks. The absolute time content for each
tick is different.
>
> > > But that's not what you meant, was it? :-)
> > >
> > > > This effect is interpreted by SR as time dilation.
> > > > However a defined interval of absolute time is the same in all
frames of
> > > > reference. The clock time values represent this defined interval of
absolute
> > > > time is different in different frame of reference (different states
of
> > > > absolute motion).
> > >
> > > Now you are talking about four events, Ken.
> >
> > That's what SR is refering to when it applies the RoS to get the elapsed
> > time in the other frame.
>
> So SR is referring to four events when it claims that the simultaneity
> of two events is relative? :-)
You can compare the absolute time content for two or four events. It doesn't
matter. In both cases the absolute time content for the events are
different.
>
> > > You are saying that the "absolute time" between two ticks of a clock
> > > stationary in one frame of reference is different from the "absolute
time"
> > > between two other ticks of another clock stationary in another frame
> > > of reference.
> >
> > So?? If one tick in K contains a different amount of absolute time than
in
> > K' then it follows that two ticks in K contains a different amount of
> > absolute time. So what is your problem??
>
> Read my question below:
> > > Why do you think this is relevant, Ken?
>
> > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > > | at a different time.
> > >
> > > There is only two events in that statement, not four.
> > > Isn't it?
> >
> > The above statement was a new interpretation of Einstein's train
gedanken
> > from which he derived the concept of RoS. We can limit our discussion to
one
> > tick of the Cs atom in each frame.
>
> So we are talking about TWO Cs clocks, but consider only ONE tick
> from each clock?
Yes we can do that.
> What's the point with clocks when you consider only
> one tick from it? None, right?
None according to your naive understanding of time. A lot if you accept the
existence of absolute time. The absolute time content for each tick is
different in different frame. That's why two relative clocks have different
elapsed time when they are rejoined.
> TWO lightening bolts or TWO hand claps would work equally well, right?
> The point is that there are TWO and only TWO events, right?
Right.
>
> > The RoS interpretation is that the
> > elapsed time for these two event is not the same because they don't
agree
> > with the simultantaneity of the events. My interpretation is that they
agree
> > with the fact that they both observer the events to be simultaneous but
at a
> > different elapsed clock time.
>
> But there are only TWO "ticks" (ONE from each clock), or TWO lightening
> bolts, or TWO hand claps.
So??
>
> If observer A say that the two ticks are simultaneous and thus measure
> zero elapsed time between them on his clock,
As I said above if you don't accept the existence of absolute time then you
need four ticks. If you accept the existence of absolute time then a
specific interval of absolute time is represents by a different tick count
(or different fraction of a tick) in each frame
>and observer B say that
> the two ticks are simultaneous and thus measure zero elapsed time between
> them on his clock, which clocks are then showing "different elapsed clock
time"?
>
> Or isn't "elapsed clock time" a time shown by a clock?
Elapsed clock time is not absolute time. However the two different elapsed
clock times when the clocks are rejoined represent one specfic interval of
absolute time.
> And isn't "different elapsed clock time" the difference
> between the "elapsed clock time" shown by two different clocks?
> If not, what is it then?
The problem is that a clock does not tell absolute time unless you define
one specific clock 's clock second as a defined absolute second.. To
determine the clock time value for this defined absolute second you use the
Lorentz tansform equation.
>
> > Both interpretations give the same
> > result--different elapsed time for the two events. However my
interpretation
> > does not violate the constant light speed postulate in the train frame.
>
> But you have never explained what your interpretation means, Ken.
Yes I did.
Ken Seto
Bilge
>irrelavence in the moron-of-the-moment club, he once again scores
>a victory with what has to be the stupidest post in the history
>of this newsgroup:
>
>ROTFL---
Now that ken has finished laughing at education, let's see
why:
> For your information amplitude of a wave is not
>affected by the inverse square law. Frequency is affected by the inverse
>square law.
Hey ken. How many rows back should I sit if I want to hear
Beethoven's sonata in C# minor in A minor instead? How about if I
just want to hear it an ovtave lower? Is there a constant math
ratio of: Semitones/row^2? Is there a way to sit at an angle and
shift it into a major key?
kenseto
So we didn't clap our hands at the same time?? In other words the events are
not simultaneous in any frame---right? I thought we were talking about
simultaneity.:-)
>
> > With my interpretation both Ken and Paul see the events to be
simultaneous.
> > In this special case the events were created by contact between Ken and
Paul
> > and therefore both Paul and Ken can claim that the events are at their
frame
> > and thus no difference in elapsed time between the events in both
frames.
>
> Ah. So the events in my example "are in BOTH frames".
> Are there any events which NOT "are in ALL frames", Ken?
> If so, could you give an example of such an event?
You and I created the events at the same time. There is no elapsed time
between the events in both frames and thus there is no difference in transit
time.
>
> > > > At the instant of the events both A and B are at the same frame and
> > > > therefore they both see the events to be simultaneous at the same
time.
> > >
> > > So you HAVE changed your mind.
> >
> > NO.Your thought experiment crates a special case where the difference in
> > elapsed clock time for the events is zero. Therefore both Paul and Ken
see
> > the event to be simutaneous at the same time. Unfortunately for you the
same
> > experiment shows that RoS is faulty. :-)
>
> And "the difference in elapsed clock time" for the simultaneous events
> in your statement is NOT zero?
> Would you please explain that?
We clapped our hands at the same time there is no elapsed time between the
two claps.
My statement is based on Einstein's train gedanken. I really don't know what
is your example any more. You said the events are simultaneous only in one
of the frame (Paul's or Ken's frame). At first I thought we were clapping
our hands at the same time and thus the event were simutaneous in both of
our frames.. Are you trying to have it both way??
>
> You are obviously talking about non coinciding events.
> So are our claps; they are happening at each of our hands,
> so they are non coinciding.
> I think you better explain the difference, Ken.
No you need to explain your thought experiment. You were trying to prove
that the simultaneity of our claps of hand couldn't happen at two different
times. I agree because I thought that your experiment stipulates that the
claps of our hands were happening at the same time.
>
> > > So am I to understand that you now are saying that your
> > > statement was wrong?
> >
> > NO your have proven that RoS is wrong.
>
> I have done nothing but asking.
No you shown that the events were simultaneous in both frames and thus
disprove the concept of RoS.
> You have however proven that you cannot answer my questions
> without contradicting yourself.
> Your "simultaneous events at different times", have now become
> "simultaneous events at the same time".
Ah so you are now admitting that the events are simultaneous at the same
time in both frames. This of course violates RoS. :-)
I on the other hand have an out. There is no elapsed time between the events
and thus the "simutaneous event at different time" for this special case is
zero.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c5ffc1f$0$1596$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a3oh7v$pho$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c5ee788$0$1579$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > > > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > > > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > > > | at a different time.
> > >
> > > from which he derived the concept of RoS.
> > > The RoS interpretation is that the
> > > elapsed time for these two event is not the same because they don't agree
> > > with the simultantaneity of the events. My interpretation is that they agree
> > > with the fact that they both observer the events to be simultaneous but at a
> > > different elapsed clock time.
> >
> > But there are only TWO "ticks" (ONE from each clock), or TWO lightening
> > bolts, or TWO hand claps.
>
> So??
So:
> > If observer A say that the two ticks are simultaneous and thus measure
> > zero elapsed time between them on his clock,
>
> As I said above if you don't accept the existence of absolute time then you
> need four ticks. If you accept the existence of absolute time then a
> specific interval of absolute time is represents by a different tick count
> (or different fraction of a tick) in each frame
What ARE you babbling about, Ken?
Nothing of what you said above has relevance to the fact that:
Your statement: "they both observe the events to be simultaneous"
Imply:
A measure zero elapsed time between the events.
B measure zero elapsed time bwteen the events.
> >and observer B say that
> > the two ticks are simultaneous and thus measure zero elapsed time between
> > them on his clock, which clocks are then showing "different elapsed clock
> > time"?
> >
> > Or isn't "elapsed clock time" a time shown by a clock?
>
> Elapsed clock time is not absolute time. However the two different elapsed
> clock times when the clocks are rejoined represent one specfic interval of
> absolute time.
Say, what the hell are you babbling about, Ken?
"elapsed clock time" IS a time shown by a clock, isn't it?
> > And isn't "different elapsed clock time" the difference
> > between the "elapsed clock time" shown by two different clocks?
> > If not, what is it then?
>
> The problem is that a clock does not tell absolute time unless you define
> one specific clock 's clock second as a defined absolute second.. To
> determine the clock time value for this defined absolute second you use the
> Lorentz tansform equation.
You are babbling again, not addressing my question with a single word.
1. We have two events, E1 and E2.
2. A measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
3. B measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
Now you say that A and B observe the events E1 and E2
"at a different elapsed clock time".
I am asking you which two "elapsed clock times" are different.
Where are the clocks showing these "elapsed clock times", and
since when are they measuring the elapsed time?
Paul
kenseto
>
> >
> > The problem is that a clock does not tell absolute time unless you
define
> > one specific clock 's clock second as a defined absolute second.. To
> > determine the clock time value for this defined absolute second you use
the
> > Lorentz tansform equation.
>
> You are babbling again, not addressing my question with a single word.
>
> 1. We have two events, E1 and E2.
> 2. A measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
> 3. B measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
So what you are saying is that A sees the events to be simultaneous and B
sees the events to be simultaneous--right Paul? Congratulation you have just
proved that RoS is wrong. RoS asserts that if A sees E1 and E2 to be
simultaneous then B will see E1 and E2 to be not simultaneous.
My concept is that both A and B see the events to be simultaneous but at a
different clock time reading when the simultaneity occurs. Why the different
clock times for A and B?? Because their clocks are running at a different
rates. So I guess your absurd attempt to disprove what I said is again
refuted. :-)
>
> Now you say that A and B observe the events E1 and E2
> "at a different elapsed clock time".
>
> I am asking you which two "elapsed clock times" are different.
> Where are the clocks showing these "elapsed clock times", and
> since when are they measuring the elapsed time?
See above.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c6147ae$0$35612$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a3r7qd$in5$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> >
> > 1. We have two events, E1 and E2.
> > 2. A measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
> > 3. B measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
>
> So what you are saying is that A sees the events to be simultaneous and B
> sees the events to be simultaneous--right Paul? Congratulation you have just
> proved that RoS is wrong. RoS asserts that if A sees E1 and E2 to be
> simultaneous then B will see E1 and E2 to be not simultaneous.
Sober up, Ken!
IT IS YOU WHO ARE SAYING THE ABOVE!
And I think you know that bloody well, since you have snipped
it out of context. It WAS apparent from the context that these
are YOUR words.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR STATEMENT:
Ken Seto wrote:
| My interpretation is that they agree with the fact that they
| both observer the events to be simultaneous but at a
| different elapsed clock time.
"they [A and B] both observe the events to be simultaneous"
implies:
1. We have two events, E1 and E2.
2. A measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
3. B measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
> My concept is that both A and B see the events to be simultaneous but at a
> different clock time reading when the simultaneity occurs. Why the different
> clock times for A and B?? Because their clocks are running at a different
> rates. So I guess your absurd attempt to disprove what I said is again
> refuted. :-)
I was not trying to diprove what you said, I was only asking
WHAT you said.
You have now answered.
So the question is, is that answer meaningful?
See below.
> > Now you say that A and B observe the events E1 and E2
> > "at a different elapsed clock time".
> >
> > I am asking you which two "elapsed clock times" are different.
> > Where are the clocks showing these "elapsed clock times", and
> > since when are they measuring the elapsed time?
>
> See above.
OK, at last you have answered.
You mean that A and B "see the events at different times"
because the readings of their clocks are different.
Strange use of language indeed.
Since any event may be observed by an infinite number of
different observers with clocks with different readings,
you are actually saying that a particular event happens
at an infinite number of different times.
The infinite number of possible observers may obviously
have different spatial co-ordinates for the event as well
as different temporal co-ordinates,
so:
If I snip my fingers, that event happens at an infinite number
of different positions at an infinite number of different times.
Does that make sense to you, Ken?
Paul
Jonas Thörnvall
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:a3se8b$snb$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
No but if you were to record the events as they *appear* for the infinite
number of observers. You would notice that by their *judge* the event is of
equal length, but take place at an infinite number of different occasions.
If then recordings are *observed* of any SRian, using what *appear* to be a
lot of words, that make no sense if *judged* by a none SRian, that am aware
of what is *perceived* must first be *observed* and if *appear* folish must
be *judged* by logic.
kenseto
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c6147ae$0$35612$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> >
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > news:a3r7qd$in5$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> > >
> > > You are babbling again, not addressing my question with a single word.
> > >
> > > 1. We have two events, E1 and E2.
> > > 2. A measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
> > > 3. B measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
> >
> > So what you are saying is that A sees the events to be simultaneous and
B
> > sees the events to be simultaneous--right Paul? Congratulation you have
just
> > proved that RoS is wrong. RoS asserts that if A sees E1 and E2 to be
> > simultaneous then B will see E1 and E2 to be not simultaneous.
>
> Sober up, Ken!
> IT IS YOU WHO ARE SAYING THE ABOVE!
You can't have it both way. You proposed the experiment in such a way that
both A and B see the events to be simultaneous. That means that your
experiment proved that RoS is wrong. If you don't think so then you will
have to tell me who sees the events to be simultaneous and who doesn't see
the events to be simultaneous. I will not comment on the rest of your post
until you answer this question.
Ken Seto
> And I think you know that bloody well, since you have snipped
> it out of context. It WAS apparent from the context that these
> are YOUR words.
It's your experiment Paul.
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c597ad5$0$1588$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...> news:a38j1a$dvi$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> > > Two ticks of a Cs atom are also two events.
> > > The absolute time between the ticks would be different in K than
> > > in K'.
> >
> > So "the absolute time" between events is frame dependent? :-)
>
> Yes. The absolute time (absolute duration) required between two ticks of a
> Cs atom is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the Cs atom (frame
> However a defined interval of absolute time is the same in all frames of
> time is different in different frame of reference (different states of
> absolute motion).
>
Added to
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "Yes, absolute time is frame dependent."
Thanks to Paul Cardinale for drawing my attention to it ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c6296bf$0$39536$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a3se8b$snb$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c6147ae$0$35612$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > >
> > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > > news:a3r7qd$in5$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> > > >
> > > > You are babbling again, not addressing my question with a single word.
> > > >
> > > > 1. We have two events, E1 and E2.
> > > > 2. A measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
> > > > 3. B measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
> > >
> > > So what you are saying is that A sees the events to be simultaneous and B
> > > sees the events to be simultaneous--right Paul? Congratulation you have just
> > > proved that RoS is wrong. RoS asserts that if A sees E1 and E2 to be
> > > simultaneous then B will see E1 and E2 to be not simultaneous.
> >
> > Sober up, Ken!
> > IT IS YOU WHO ARE SAYING THE ABOVE!
>
> You can't have it both way. You proposed the experiment in such a way that
> both A and B see the events to be simultaneous. That means that your
> experiment proved that RoS is wrong. If you don't think so then you will
> have to tell me who sees the events to be simultaneous and who doesn't see
> the events to be simultaneous.
What the hell are you talking about, Ken?
We are not discussing any "proposed experiment" by me in this sub-thread.
We are discussing YOUR statement:
Ken Seto wrote:
| In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
| B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
| at a different time.
And this statement of YOURS was about - in YOUR own words:
Ken Seto wrote:
| The above statement was a new interpretation of Einstein's train gedanken
| from which he derived the concept of RoS. We can limit our discussion to one
| tick of the Cs atom in each frame.
All I pointed out, and what you agreed to, was that the events might
be anything; clock ticks, lightening bolts, hand claps - whatever:
|Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|> TWO lightening bolts or TWO hand claps would work equally well, right?
|> The point is that there are TWO and only TWO events, right?
|
Ken Seto responded:
|Right.
So, according to YOUR statements - with NO contributions by me:
1. We have two events, E1 and E2.
2. A measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
3. B measure zero elapsed time between E1 and E2.
> I will not comment on the rest of your post
> until you answer this question.
So you are blaming me for your failure of finding a way
out of the corner you have driven yourself into?
But its your own doing, Ken.
I can claim no credit for that since I have done nothing but
asking what YOUR words means.
> > > My concept is that both A and B see the events to be simultaneous but at a
> > > different clock time reading when the simultaneity occurs. Why the different
> > > clock times for A and B?? Because their clocks are running at a different
> > > rates.
> >
> > OK, at last you have answered.
> > You mean that A and B "see the events at different times"
> > because the readings of their clocks are different.
> >
> > Strange use of language indeed.
> >
> > Since any event may be observed by an infinite number of
> > different observers with clocks with different readings,
> > you are actually saying that a particular event happens
> > at an infinite number of different times.
> >
> > The infinite number of possible observers may obviously
> > have different spatial co-ordinates for the event as well
> > as different temporal co-ordinates,
> > so:
> > If I snip my fingers, that event happens at an infinite number
> > of different positions at an infinite number of different times.
> >
> > Does that make sense to you, Ken?
Guess not, since you had to chicken out this way.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Jonas Thörnvall" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message news:QMo88.18$G24...@news2.bredband.com...
>
> No but if you were to record the events as they *appear* for the infinite
> number of observers. You would notice that by their *judge* the event is of
> equal length, but take place at an infinite number of different occasions.
> If then recordings are *observed* of any SRian, using what *appear* to be a
> lot of words, that make no sense if *judged* by a none SRian, that am aware
> of what is *perceived* must first be *observed* and if *appear* folish must
> be *judged* by logic.
Og du er ikke sjuk, men bare svensk? :-)
Paul
kenseto
You proposed a gedanken with you and I clapping hands. It is only
reasponable for you to tell me what is the SR prediction of your gedanken.
> Ken Seto wrote:
> | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> | at a different time.
My statement was based on Einstein's gedanken. I already showed you how my
statement works with that gedanken. Now with your gedanken I want to know
what does SR and RoS predict before I give you my answer.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c633e6f$0$39537$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > | at a different time.
>
> My statement was based on Einstein's gedanken.
> I already showed you how my statement works with that gedanken.
Indeed.
You have explained that A and B "see the events at different times"
simply means that the readings of their clocks are different.
Strange use of language indeed.
Since any event may be observed by an infinite number of
different observers with clocks with different readings,
you are actually saying that a particular event happens
at an infinite number of different times.
The infinite number of possible observers may obviously
have different spatial co-ordinates for the event as well
as different temporal co-ordinates,
so:
If I snip my fingers, that event happens at an infinite number
of different positions at an infinite number of different times.
Does that make sense to you, Ken?
The question is:
Does the fact that different observers may assign different
temporal co-ordinates to an event imply that the event
is happening "at different times"?
Paul
kenseto
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c633e6f$0$39537$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> >
> > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > > | at a different time.
> >
> > My statement was based on Einstein's gedanken.
> > I already showed you how my statement works with that gedanken.
>
> Indeed.
> You have explained that A and B "see the events at different times"
> simply means that the readings of their clocks are different.
>
> Strange use of language indeed.
This was not my original explanation of Einstein's gedanken. You proposed a
gedanken in which you can't explain what SR and RoS will predict. I was just
trying to give you some shit to show you how ridiculus your gedanken is.
>
> Since any event may be observed by an infinite number of
> different observers with clocks with different readings,
> you are actually saying that a particular event happens
> at an infinite number of different times.
Yes an infinite number of clock readings. You want to use absoluteww time to
make your arguement. But don't you remember that in Pauland there is no
absolute time??
If you want me to explain in terms of absolute time then you must define
your gedanken more clearly. For example who sees the event to be
simultaneous and who sees the events to be not simultaneous? Do we clap our
hands simultaneously? Is there any time elapsed betenn E1 and E2? Do we use
sound or light to determine these events? E1 and E2 are in your frame or my
frame?
>
> The infinite number of possible observers may obviously
> have different spatial co-ordinates for the event as well
> as different temporal co-ordinates,
> so:
> If I snip my fingers, that event happens at an infinite number
> of different positions at an infinite number of different times.
In order to discuss simultaneity you must have two events and the two
observers are coincide with each other when the events happen. What you are
proposing is a bunch of nonsense. On top of that you can't even tell me what
SR and RoS will predict of your absurd gedanken.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c642157$0$35579$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a40hke$553$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c633e6f$0$39537$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > >
> > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > > > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > > > | at a different time.
> > >
> > > My statement was based on Einstein's gedanken.
> > > I already showed you how my statement works with that gedanken.
> >
> > Indeed.
> > You have explained that A and B "see the events at different times"
> > simply means that the readings of their clocks are different.
> >
> > Strange use of language indeed.
>
> This was not my original explanation of Einstein's gedanken. You proposed a
> gedanken in which you can't explain what SR and RoS will predict. I was just
> trying to give you some shit to show you how ridiculus your gedanken is.
What?
All I said is that you eventually have asnwered my question
about what it means that the observers "see the events
at different times."
Your answer is that it means the readings of their clocks
are different.
> > Since any event may be observed by an infinite number of
> > different observers with clocks with different readings,
> > you are actually saying that a particular event happens
> > at an infinite number of different times.
>
> Yes an infinite number of clock readings. You want to use absoluteww time to
> make your arguement. But don't you remember that in Pauland there is no
> absolute time??
> If you want me to explain in terms of absolute time then you must define
> your gedanken more clearly. For example who sees the event to be
> simultaneous and who sees the events to be not simultaneous? Do we clap our
> hands simultaneously? Is there any time elapsed betenn E1 and E2? Do we use
> sound or light to determine these events? E1 and E2 are in your frame or my
> frame?
Say - what are you talking about Ken?
We are not discussing any "gedanken" of mine.
We are discussing YOUR statement, and YOUR explanation of
YOUR statement.
> > The infinite number of possible observers may obviously
> > have different spatial co-ordinates for the event as well
> > as different temporal co-ordinates,
> > so:
> > If I snip my fingers, that event happens at an infinite number
> > of different positions at an infinite number of different times.
>
> In order to discuss simultaneity you must have two events and the two
> observers are coincide with each other when the events happen. What you are
> proposing is a bunch of nonsense. On top of that you can't even tell me what
> SR and RoS will predict of your absurd gedanken.
I am proposing nothing, Ken.
YOU have explained that YOUR statement: "two observers see an event
at different times" means that the readings of their respective
clocks are different.
I did not said that your explanation is wrong.
All I did was to point out that the inevitable consequence
of YOUR explanation of YOUR statement is that any single event may
be considered to happen at an infinite number of different times.
Now I am asking if YOU find YOU find YOUR explanation of
the meaning of YOUR statement sensible.
Do you, Ken?
I have given no opinion of your explanation, Ken.
I am asking for yours.
Paul
kenseto
Here we are talking about your gedenken of us clapping hands.Obviously if we
clapped hands at thge same time then the events are simultaneous in both
frame and also they are simultaneous at the same time. This does not violate
what I said about Einstein's gedanken that the train observer sees the
events (the lightnings) to be simultaneous at a different later time.
>
> > > Since any event may be observed by an infinite number of
> > > different observers with clocks with different readings,
> > > you are actually saying that a particular event happens
> > > at an infinite number of different times.
> >
> > Yes an infinite number of clock readings. You want to use absoluteww
time to
> > make your arguement. But don't you remember that in Pauland there is no
> > absolute time??
> > If you want me to explain in terms of absolute time then you must define
> > your gedanken more clearly. For example who sees the event to be
> > simultaneous and who sees the events to be not simultaneous? Do we clap
our
> > hands simultaneously? Is there any time elapsed betenn E1 and E2? Do we
use
> > sound or light to determine these events? E1 and E2 are in your frame
or my
> > frame?
>
> Say - what are you talking about Ken?
> We are not discussing any "gedanken" of mine.
Yes we were. You are going to deny that you proposed the gedanken about wqe
clapping hands????
>
> We are discussing YOUR statement, and YOUR explanation of
> YOUR statement.
My statement was based on Einstein's gedanken. Your gedanken is entirely
different. Furthermore you refused to define your gedanken more clearly and
that you refused to give what will SR predict of your gedanken.
>
> > > The infinite number of possible observers may obviously
> > > have different spatial co-ordinates for the event as well
> > > as different temporal co-ordinates,
> > > so:
> > > If I snip my fingers, that event happens at an infinite number
> > > of different positions at an infinite number of different times.
> >
> > In order to discuss simultaneity you must have two events and the two
> > observers are coincide with each other when the events happen. What you
are
> > proposing is a bunch of nonsense. On top of that you can't even tell me
what
> > SR and RoS will predict of your absurd gedanken.
>
> I am proposing nothing, Ken.
Yes you did. You proposed a gedanken about us clapping hands.
>
> YOU have explained that YOUR statement: "two observers see an event
> at different times" means that the readings of their respective
> clocks are different.
This is a true statement "two observers see an event at two different clock
readings". But this is a meaningless statement because the clocks were not
synchronized.
>
> I did not said that your explanation is wrong.
> All I did was to point out that the inevitable consequence
> of YOUR explanation of YOUR statement is that any single event may
> be considered to happen at an infinite number of different times.
Yes at an infinite number of different clock readings. So what? It doesn't
mean anything.
>
> Now I am asking if YOU find YOU find YOUR explanation of
> the meaning of YOUR statement sensible.
> Do you, Ken?
Yes it is sensible because each observer can set his clock anyway he wants.
But this does not define the absolute duration of the event.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c6574c5$0$39534$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a43e98$pee$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > about what it means that the observers "see the events
> > at different times."
> >
> > Your answer is that it means the readings of their clocks
> > are different.
>
> Here we are talking about your gedenken of us clapping hands.
No. We are talking about your scenario, your statement about
that scenario, and your explanation of the meaning of your statement.
[..]
> > Say - what are you talking about Ken?
> > We are not discussing any "gedanken" of mine.
>
> Yes we were. You are going to deny that you proposed the gedanken about wqe
> clapping hands????
I have presented a lot of thought experiments, Ken.
But we are discussing none of them in this sub-thread.
> > We are discussing YOUR statement, and YOUR explanation of
> > YOUR statement.
>
> My statement was based on Einstein's gedanken. Your gedanken is entirely
> different. Furthermore you refused to define your gedanken more clearly and
> that you refused to give what will SR predict of your gedanken.
We are discussing your version of Einstein's gedanken:
Ken Seto wrote:
| The above statement was a new interpretation of Einstein's train gedanken
| from which he derived the concept of RoS. We can limit our discussion to one
| tick of the Cs atom in each frame.
And the statement you referred to above was:
Ken Seto wrote:
| In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
| B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
| at a different time.
My question was what it meant that A and B see the same events
at different times, and you eventually answered:
Ken Seto wrote:
| My concept is that both A and B see the events to be simultaneous
| but at a different clock time reading when the simultaneity occurs.
So:
> > YOU have explained that YOUR statement: "two observers see an event
> > at different times" means that the readings of their respective
> > clocks are different.
>
> This is a true statement "two observers see an event at two different clock
> readings". But this is a meaningless statement because the clocks were not
> synchronized.
And now you say that your explanation of your statement was meanigless.
> > I did not said that your explanation is wrong.
> > All I did was to point out that the inevitable consequence
> > of YOUR explanation of YOUR statement is that any single event may
> > be considered to happen at an infinite number of different times.
>
> Yes at an infinite number of different clock readings. So what?
> It doesn't mean anything.
And since your explanation of your statement doesn't
mean anything, it seems reasonable to assume that the statement
which it explains is also meaningless.
Ken Seto wrote:
| In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
| B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
| at a different time.
So we agree that this statement does not mean anything?
> > Now I am asking if YOU find YOU find YOUR explanation of
> > the meaning of YOUR statement sensible.
> > Do you, Ken?
>
> Yes it is sensible because each observer can set his clock anyway he wants.
Sensible but meaningless?
> But this does not define the absolute duration of the event.
Duration of an event? :-)
Paul
kenseto
Which one of these gedanken we were talking about?
1. Einstein's train gedanken?
2. A transition of a cesium atom in each frame (A and B)?
3. Your hand clapping gedanken?
If we are talking about Einstein's gedanken: I said that the train guy will
also see the lightning to be simultaneous but at a different later time.
This interpretation conforms with the second postulate where as RoS
conflicts with the second postulate.
If we are talking about the transition of a Cs atom in the A and B frames,
then the absolute duration (absolute time) for the transition to complete in
A's frame is different then the absolute duration (absolute time) for a
transition to complete in B's frame. In a round about way RoS give the same
interpretation for this gedanken. That's why RoS appears to be give the
correct dirsired results. Also this interpretation agrees with the
interpretation I gave for Einstein's gedanken.
If we are talking about your clapping hand gedanken, then the clock time
reading interpretation is appropriate. Why? because your gedanken is pure
nonsense and that's why you got a meaningless answer.
Ken Seto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:a4b8q9$1d2$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c696105$0$39538$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...> news:a4b8q9$1d2$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> I am tired of going around in circles with you.
> Which one of these gedanken we were talking about?
> 1. Einstein's train gedanken?
> 2. A transition of a cesium atom in each frame (A and B)?
> 3. Your hand clapping gedanken?
>
> If we are talking about Einstein's gedanken: I said that the train guy will
> also see the lightning to be simultaneous but at a different later time.
> This interpretation conforms with the second postulate where as RoS
> conflicts with the second postulate.
>
> If we are talking about the transition of a Cs atom in the A and B frames,
> then the absolute duration (absolute time) for the transition to complete in
> A's frame is different then the absolute duration (absolute time) for a
> transition to complete in B's frame. In a round about way RoS give the same
> interpretation for this gedanken. That's why RoS appears to be give the
> correct dirsired results. Also this interpretation agrees with the
> interpretation I gave for Einstein's gedanken.
We are still talking about whatever gedanken YOU were
talking about in YOUR statements quoted below.
So if you don't know what WE are talking about, it is
because you don't know what YOU are talking about.
> Paul B. Anderseon wrote:
> > We are discussing your version of Einstein's gedanken:
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > | The above statement was a new interpretation of Einstein's train gedanken
> > | from which he derived the concept of RoS. We can limit our discussion to one
> > | tick of the Cs atom in each frame.
> >
> > And the statement you referred to above was:
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > | at a different time.
> >
> > My question was what it meant that A and B see the same events
> > at different times, and you eventually answered:
> >
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > | My concept is that both A and B see the events to be simultaneous
> > | but at a different clock time reading when the simultaneity occurs.
> >
> > So:
> > > Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > YOU have explained that YOUR statement: "two observers see an event
> > > > at different times" means that the readings of their respective
> > > > clocks are different.
> >
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > This is a true statement "two observers see an event at two different clock
> > > readings". But this is a meaningless statement because the clocks were not
> > > synchronized.
> >
> > And now you say that your explanation of your statement was meanigless.
> >
> > > > I did not said that your explanation is wrong.
> > > > All I did was to point out that the inevitable consequence
> > > > of YOUR explanation of YOUR statement is that any single event may
> > > > be considered to happen at an infinite number of different times.
> > >
> > > Yes at an infinite number of different clock readings. So what?
> > > It doesn't mean anything.
> >
> > And since your explanation of your statement doesn't
> > mean anything, it seems reasonable to assume that the statement
> > which it explains is also meaningless.
> >
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > | at a different time.
> >
> > So we agree that this statement does not mean anything?
> >
> > > > Now I am asking if YOU find YOU find YOUR explanation of
> > > > the meaning of YOUR statement sensible.
> > > > Do you, Ken?
> > >
> > > Yes it is sensible because each observer can set his clock anyway he wants.
> >
> > Sensible but meaningless?
> >
> > > But this does not define the absolute duration of the event.
> >
> > Duration of an event? :-)
No response, Ken?
Confused?
Don't you know what you have been talking about?
Is that why you don't understand your own explanations
of the meaning of your own statements?
Paul
kenseto
gedanken.
"If we are talking about your clapping hand gedanken, then the clock time
reading interpretation is appropriate. Why? because your gedanken is pure
nonsense and that's why you got a meaningless answer."
Ken Seto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:a4ggti$f85$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c6c07a4$0$35573$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> Since you snipped this out we must be talking about your hand clapping
> gedanken.
> "If we are talking about your clapping hand gedanken, then the clock time
> reading interpretation is appropriate. Why? because your gedanken is pure
> nonsense and that's why you got a meaningless answer."
I snipped it because were obviously not talking about it,
which you bloody well know since I have told you so for the last
umpteen postings.
The issue is still your own description of the gedanken,
your own statement about the gedanken, and your own explanation
of the meaning of your statement.
But OK, Ken.
I will have to accept that you:
1. Don't know which gedanken you were talking about.
2. Don't understand the meaning of your own statement.
3. Find your own explanation meaningless.
I never expected a sensible answer from you anyway, Ken.
So I am not really disappointed.
Paul
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a4ggti$f85$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c696105$0$39538$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > >
> > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > > news:a4b8q9$1d2$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> > > >
> >
> > > I am tired of going around in circles with you.
> > > Which one of these gedanken we were talking about?
> > > 1. Einstein's train gedanken?
> > > 2. A transition of a cesium atom in each frame (A and B)?
> > > 3. Your hand clapping gedanken?
> > >
> > > If we are talking about Einstein's gedanken: I said that the train guy will
> > > also see the lightning to be simultaneous but at a different later time.
> > > This interpretation conforms with the second postulate where as RoS
> > > conflicts with the second postulate.
> > >
> > > If we are talking about the transition of a Cs atom in the A and B frames,
> > > then the absolute duration (absolute time) for the transition to complete in
> > > A's frame is different then the absolute duration (absolute time) for a
> > > transition to complete in B's frame. In a round about way RoS give the same
> > > interpretation for this gedanken. That's why RoS appears to be give the
> > > correct dirsired results. Also this interpretation agrees with the
> > > interpretation I gave for Einstein's gedanken.
> >
> > We are still talking about whatever gedanken YOU were
> > talking about in YOUR statements quoted below.
> > So if you don't know what WE are talking about, it is
> > because you don't know what YOU are talking about.
> >
> > > Paul B. Anderseon wrote:
> > > > We are discussing your version of Einstein's gedanken:
> > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > | The above statement was a new interpretation of Einstein's train gedanken
> > > > | from which he derived the concept of RoS. We can limit our discussion to one
> > > > | tick of the Cs atom in each frame.
> > > >
> > > > And the statement you referred to above was:
> > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > > > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > > > | at a different time.
> > > >
> > > > My question was what it meant that A and B see the same events
> > > > at different times, and you eventually answered:
> > > >
> > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > | My concept is that both A and B see the events to be simultaneous
> > > > | but at a different clock time reading when the simultaneity occurs.
> > > >
> > > > So:
> > > > > Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > YOU have explained that YOUR statement: "two observers see an event
> > > > > > at different times" means that the readings of their respective
> > > > > > clocks are different.
> > > >
> > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > > This is a true statement "two observers see an event at two different clock
> > > > > readings". But this is a meaningless statement because the clocks were not
> > > > > synchronized.
> > > >
> > > > And now you say that your explanation of your statement was meanigless.
> > > >
> > > > > > I did not said that your explanation is wrong.
> > > > > > All I did was to point out that the inevitable consequence
> > > > > > of YOUR explanation of YOUR statement is that any single event may
> > > > > > be considered to happen at an infinite number of different times.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes at an infinite number of different clock readings. So what?
> > > > > It doesn't mean anything.
> > > >
> > > > And since your explanation of your statement doesn't
> > > > mean anything, it seems reasonable to assume that the statement
> > > > which it explains is also meaningless.
> > > >
> > > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > | In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
> > > > | B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
> > > > | at a different time.
> > > >
> > > > So we agree that this statement does not mean anything?
> > > >
> > > > > > Now I am asking if YOU find YOU find YOUR explanation of
> > > > > > the meaning of YOUR statement sensible.
> > > > > > Do you, Ken?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes it is sensible because each observer can set his clock anyway he wants.
> > > >
> > > > Sensible but meaningless?
> > > >
> > > > > But this does not define the absolute duration of the event.
> > > >
kenseto
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c6c07a4$0$35573$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > Since you snipped this out we must be talking about your hand clapping
> > gedanken.
> > "If we are talking about your clapping hand gedanken, then the clock
time
> > reading interpretation is appropriate. Why? because your gedanken is
pure
> > nonsense and that's why you got a meaningless answer."
>
> I snipped it because were obviously not talking about it,
> which you bloody well know since I have told you so for the last
> umpteen postings.
>
> The issue is still your own description of the gedanken,
What gedanken Paul? My statement on simultaneity was based on Einstein's
train gedanken..
> your own statement about the gedanken, and your own explanation
> of the meaning of your statement.
You were trying to debunk my statement with your hand clapping gedanken. So
I came up with a meaningless explanation for your meaningless gedanken. It's
only fair.
>
> But OK, Ken.
> I will have to accept that you:
> 1. Don't know which gedanken you were talking about.
I still don't know. When I asked you to give me the SR prediction of your
hand clapping gedanken you refused to do so. So I assumed that you were
trying to debunk my statement about Einstein's gedanken with your
meaningless gedanken.
> I never expected a sensible answer from you anyway, Ken.
> So I am not really disappointed.
ROTFL The pot is calling the kettle black.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a4han9$ljh$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c6c07a4$0$35573$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > > Since you snipped this out we must be talking about your hand clapping
> > > gedanken.
> > > "If we are talking about your clapping hand gedanken, then the clock time
> > > reading interpretation is appropriate. Why? because your gedanken is pure
> > > nonsense and that's why you got a meaningless answer."
> >
> > I snipped it because were obviously not talking about it,
> > which you bloody well know since I have told you so for the last
> > umpteen postings.
> >
> > The issue is still your own description of the gedanken,
>
> What gedanken Paul? My statement on simultaneity was based on Einstein's
> train gedanken..
Ken Seto wrote:
| The above statement was a new interpretation of Einstein's train gedanken
| from which he derived the concept of RoS. We can limit our discussion to one
| tick of the Cs atom in each frame.
> > your own statement about the gedanken,
Ken Seto wrote:
| In real life, if A sees two events to be simultaneous
| B will also see the same events to be simultaneous but
| at a different time.
> > and your own explanation of the meaning of your statement.
Ken Seto wrote:
| My concept is that both A and B see the events to be simultaneous
| but at a different clock time reading when the simultaneity occurs.
>
> You were trying to debunk my statement with your hand clapping gedanken. So
> I came up with a meaningless explanation for your meaningless gedanken. It's
> only fair.
All I have done is to comment on your own explanation of the meaning of
your own statement about your own gedanken:
|Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|> YOU have explained that YOUR statement: "two observers see an event
|> at different times" means that the readings of their respective
|> clocks are different.
|>
|> Ken Seto wrote:
|> > This is a true statement "two observers see an event at two different clock
|> > readings". But this is a meaningless statement because the clocks were not
|> > synchronized.
So Ken Seto calls his own explanation of the meaning of his statement
"a meaningless statement".
So the question is:
Is the statement the meaningless statement explains meaningless as well?
Paul