Tom Roberts doesn't know how to compare inertial moving clocks, nor clocks at different gravity potential

[beda pietanza]

tjrob137

Apr 11



On 4/10/20 2:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> The faster you move, the
> slower time passes for you. AND, the closer you get to a large
> gravitational mass, the slower time passes for you.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
################################################################

Tom Roberts:
You keep repeating falsehoods. You CLEARLY do not understand this.

No matter how you move, and no matter where you might be located, time
ALWAYS passes at its usual rate for you. This is directly related to
Einstein's first postulate of SR, and the fact that in GR all local
physics is as in SR.

The correct statements corresponding to yours are: the faster you move
RELATIVE TO SOME LOCALLY INERTIAL FRAME, the slower your clock ticks
RELATIVE TO THAT FRAME. The closer you get to a large gravitational
mass, the slower your clock ticks RELATIVE TO A CLOCK FAR AWAY FROM ALL
MASSES.

Of course those relative clock comparisons are performed using SIGNALS,
and both effects are due to HOW THE SIGNALS ARE MEASURED, and not any
effect on the clocks.

You found POPULAR articles that do not describe the physics accurately.
In an attempt to simplify the situation they discuss "time running more
slowly", when that is not actually the case; the actual situation is
more subtle and more complicated to describe.

Tom Roberts


tjrob137

Apr 12



On 4/11/20 10:12 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 9:57:10 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 4/10/20 2:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> The faster you move, the
>>> slower time passes for you. AND, the closer you get to a large
>>> gravitational mass, the slower time passes for you.
>>
>> You keep repeating falsehoods. You CLEARLY do not understand this.
>
> So, Tom, you believe that when I show you a SCIENCE article I am
> "repeating falsehoods"?? And you think *I* am the one who does not
> understand? YOU understand that the science reports are FALSEHOODS??

The POPULAR articles you reference are not telling the story correctly.
They have "simplified" it for their audience, and in doing so they get
it wrong.

> Einstein's THEORY says that TIME slows down when
> you move.

THAT IS THE FALSEHOOD YOU KEEP REPEATING. Well, one of them.

Your claim is directly in conflict with Einstein's first postulate, the
Principle of Relativity. You REALLY do not understand SR at all, but are
too stupid and ignorant to recognize your own inadequacies.

>> The correct statements corresponding to yours are: the faster you move
>> RELATIVE TO SOME LOCALLY INERTIAL FRAME, the slower your clock ticks
>> RELATIVE TO THAT FRAME. The closer you get to a large gravitational
>> mass, the slower your clock ticks RELATIVE TO A CLOCK FAR AWAY FROM ALL
>> MASSES.
>
> Correct.

And yet you cannot see the difference between what I said and what you
said. You REALLY need to learn how to read.

AFAICT your own opinions sound so loudly in your ear that
you cannot hear what anybody else is actually saying.

>> Of course those relative clock comparisons are performed using SIGNALS,
>> and both effects are due to HOW THE SIGNALS ARE MEASURED, and not any
>> effect on the clocks.
>
> Ah! MAGICAL SIGNALS that you have dreamed up,
Tom Roberts;
They are not "magical", and _I_ did not "dream them up", they are
PRESENT IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENT (yes, every one). They are
ESSENTIAL -- unless clocks are co-moving and co-located, it requires
SIGNALS to compare their tick rates. (And even then the most accurate
methods of comparing them use electrical signals.)

Nobody has ever DIRECTLY compared the tick rate of a moving clock to the
tick rate of a stationary clock -- it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do so,
unless one uses signals. So one is actually comparing the tick rate of
one clock to the SIGNAL RATE from the other clock (or frequently,
comparing signal rates from both clocks).

Nobody has ever DIRECTLY compared the tick rates of two clocks that are
physically separated -- it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do so, unless one
uses signals. So one is actually comparing the tick rate of one clock to
the SIGNAL RATE from the other clock (or frequently, comparing signal
rates from both clocks).

As soon as signals are involved, one must ask: what are the effects of
the physical situation on the signals? -- one finds that the entire
difference is due to effects on the signals; the clocks are completely
unaffected by both relative motion and difference in gravitational
potential.

Tom Roberts
°°°°°°°°°°°°
#########################################################################

dear Tom Roberts,

How wrong you are, when you say that nobody can compare the tick rate of two
differently moving clocks:

case a) inertial moving clocks, three identical clocks A, B, C
all the 3 clocks are inertially moving.
clock A is moving inertially on its own;
clock B is moving inertially, it is approaching clock A from one side;
clock C is very far from clock A and is moving inertially approaching clock A from the other side;
as clock B passes by clock A the two clocks A and B are zeroed and both A and B start running, clock B keep going versus clock C;
as soon as clock B passes by clock C the clock C takes the elapsed time of clock B and keep its travel towards clock A;
as clock C passes by clock A they compare their elapsed time.

You know very well the result: clock C show less elapsed time of clock A: the three clocks, while traveling at a different absolute inertial speed, had REAL absolute real different time rates.

case b) two identical clocks positioned at different gravity potential; this is easier:

clock A is at ground level; clock B is suspended at the top of the Eiffel Tower;
a radio signal from A is sent to set starting both clocks;
after 1000 years a radio signal is sent to stop both clocks;
then the two clocks are brought together and compared their elapsed time;
the clock on the top of the tower show less elapsed time: for 1000 years it has run at a slower time rate:
Don't you agree that the tow clocks have been running at absolute different time rates ??

Grateful for your attention
regards
beda

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 8:59:31 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
>
> dear Tom Roberts,
>
> How wrong you are, when you say that nobody can compare the tick rate
> of two differently moving clocks:

This post of yours is egregiously offensive, Beda. Tom KNOWS relativity,
but you have demonstrated that YOU don't. Telling Tom that he is wrong
is definitely NOT your place.

> case a) inertial moving clocks, three identical clocks A, B, C
> all the 3 clocks are inertially moving.
> clock A is moving inertially on its own;

Movement can only be determined relative to something else. NOTHING
moves "on its own."

> clock B is moving inertially, it is approaching clock A from one side;
> clock C is very far from clock A and is moving inertially approaching
> clock A from the other side;
> as clock B passes by clock A the two clocks A and B are zeroed and both
> A and B start running, clock B keep going versus clock C;
> as soon as clock B passes by clock C the clock C takes the elapsed time
> of clock B and keep its travel towards clock A;
> as clock C passes by clock A they compare their elapsed time.
>
> You know very well the result: clock C show less elapsed time of clock
> A: the three clocks, while traveling at a different absolute inertial
> speed, had REAL absolute real different time rates.

You've been told MANY, MANY times by knowledgeable folk that there is no
such thing as "absolute speed," yet you arrogantly and ignorantly
continue to slap everyone in the face with it, rather than studying and
trying to understand why they say that, proving that you are incorrigible.

> case b) two identical clocks positioned at different gravity potential;
> this is easier:
>
> clock A is at ground level; clock B is suspended at the top of the
> Eiffel Tower;
> a radio signal from A is sent to set starting both clocks;
> after 1000 years a radio signal is sent to stop both clocks;
> then the two clocks are brought together and compared their elapsed
> time; the clock on the top of the tower show less elapsed time:
> for 1000 years it has run at a slower time rate:

You have it backwards. Time at altitude appears to run faster as viewed
by the clock on the ground.

> Don't you agree that the tow clocks have been running at absolute
> different time rates ??
>
> Grateful for your attention
> regards
> beda

Grateful for his attention? After the snotty things you said?

Once again you prove your pigheadedness with insinuations of "absolute
time." You obstinately refuse to understand the most basic thing
about time. You have NO evidence of absolute time. Gut feeling is NOT
evidence. Until you have solid EVIDENCE of absolute time and absolute
motion, STOP talking about them. Nobody cares about your whining of what
"ought to be."

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/24/20 9:59 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
> dear Tom Roberts,
> How wrong you are, when you say that nobody can compare the tick rate of two
> differently moving clocks:

I didn't say that. What I ACTUALLY said was:

> Nobody has ever DIRECTLY compared the tick rate of a moving clock to the
> tick rate of a stationary clock -- it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do so,
> unless one uses signals. So one is actually comparing the tick rate of
> one clock to the SIGNAL RATE from the other clock (or frequently,
> comparing signal rates from both clocks).

> As soon as signals are involved, one must ask: what are the effects of
> the physical situation on the signals? -- one finds that the entire
> difference is due to effects on the signals; the clocks are completely
> unaffected by both relative motion and difference in gravitational
> potential.

You are UTTERLY INCOMPETENT to attempt to paraphrase what I say, because
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND BASIC PHYSICS. That affects everything you say
including your INCORRECT claims of what I said.

> case a) [...]

This is NOT comparing clock tick rates, it is comparing elapsed proper
times. That is a DIFFERENT physical situation, with a DIFFERENT explanation.

> case b) [...]

This is NOT comparing clock tick rates, it is comparing elapsed proper
times. That is a DIFFERENT physical situation, with a DIFFERENT explanation.

Bottom line: when you compare the elapsed proper times of two clocks and
find they are different, you CANNOT conclude "they tick at different
rates". You can only conclude their elapsed proper times are different
(DUH!). For such a difference to arise, in relativity it is required
that the clocks follow different paths through spacetime (both your
examples do), and those paths must have different path lengths (both
your examples do).

Tom Roberts

[Elfové Kubanská]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 8:59:31 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
>>
>> dear Tom Roberts,
>>
>> How wrong you are, when you say that nobody can compare the tick rate of
>> two differently moving clocks:
>
> This post of yours is egregiously offensive, Beda. Tom KNOWS relativity,
> but you have demonstrated that YOU don't. Telling Tom that he is wrong is
> definitely NOT your place.

I good remedy for diarrhoea is to eat cement powder.

[beda pietanza]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:56:39 PM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 8:59:31 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
> >
> > dear Tom Roberts,
> >
> > How wrong you are, when you say that nobody can compare the tick rate
> > of two differently moving clocks:
>
> This post of yours is egregiously offensive, Beda. Tom KNOWS relativity,
> but you have demonstrated that YOU don't. Telling Tom that he is wrong
> is definitely NOT your place.

Beda:
I am sincere and I don't want to offend Tom Roberts, most of what I understood about SR comes from reading his posts, and I am thankful to him.
Surely Tom Roberts knows relativity, but maybe there is some extra to know about the relation of SR and the "hidden" ether.
When he says that differently moving clocks cannot compare their time rate
he is wrong.
When he says that two identical clocks positioned at different height (at different gravity potential) cannot compare their time rate directly he is wrong, so please don't give me lesson of politeness, read my post and come around with valid arguments.

>
> > case a) inertial moving clocks, three identical clocks A, B, C
> > all the 3 clocks are inertially moving.
> > clock A is moving inertially on its own;
>
> Movement can only be determined relative to something else. NOTHING
> moves "on its own."

versus what the light moves?
an object moves versus the light and versus space light is moving,
Clock A moves on its own, in this case, I meant it moves alone, keep calm,

>
> > clock B is moving inertially, it is approaching clock A from one side;
> > clock C is very far from clock A and is moving inertially approaching
> > clock A from the other side;
> > as clock B passes by clock A the two clocks A and B are zeroed and both
> > A and B start running, clock B keep going versus clock C;
> > as soon as clock B passes by clock C the clock C takes the elapsed time
> > of clock B and keep its travel towards clock A;
> > as clock C passes by clock A they compare their elapsed time.
> >
> > You know very well the result: clock C show less elapsed time of clock
> > A: the three clocks, while traveling at a different absolute inertial
> > speed, had REAL absolute real different time rates.
>
> You've been told MANY, MANY times by knowledgeable folk that there is no
> such thing as "absolute speed," yet you arrogantly and ignorantly
> continue to slap everyone in the face with it, rather than studying and
> trying to understand why they say that, proving that you are incorrigible.

I know very well why they say that, as I know very well that they should not say that, they should correctly say that SR does without the absolute speed and without the ether because they are not detectable ( this would be a little step towards honesty) next step would be to explain versus what the light moves, it moves versus the open space, and also the objects moves versus it.

with this, I don't deny the heuristic validity os SR as a valid procedure of obtaining valid measurements, I insist on the fact that SR in a procedure embedded with the ether and with hidden absolutes.

>
> > case b) two identical clocks positioned at different gravity potential;
> > this is easier:
> >
> > clock A is at ground level; clock B is suspended at the top of the
> > Eiffel Tower;
> > a radio signal from A is sent to set starting both clocks;
> > after 1000 years a radio signal is sent to stop both clocks;
> > then the two clocks are brought together and compared their elapsed
> > time; the clock on the top of the tower show less elapsed time:
> > for 1000 years it has run at a slower time rate:
>
> You have it backwards. Time at altitude appears to run faster as viewed
> by the clock on the ground.

yes true, that's a distraction of mine

>
> > Don't you agree that the tow clocks have been running at absolute
> > different time rates ??
> >
> > Grateful for your attention
> > regards
> > beda
>
> Grateful for his attention? After the snotty things you said?

You mean that he cannot make a mistake? and if he does nobody can tell?

So, please read carefully my post and come with valid arguments, be sure that if you prove me wrong, and I will apologize frankly

>
> Once again you prove your pigheadedness with insinuations of "absolute
> time." You obstinately refuse to understand the most basic thing
> about time. You have NO evidence of absolute time. Gut feeling is NOT
> evidence. Until you have solid EVIDENCE of absolute time and absolute
> motion, STOP talking about them. Nobody cares about your whining of what
> "ought to be."

my post was not about absolute time, but about the possibility to make a direct comparison of the time rate of moving clocks and clocks at different gravity potential, simple issue, that requires simple analysis.

be calm, we can come to an agreement, I want to convince or be convinced.

regards,
beda

[Dono,]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 2:26:53 PM UTC-7, beda pietanza wrote:

> Beda:
> I am sincere and I don't want to offend Tom Roberts, most of what I understood about SR comes from reading his posts, and I am thankful to him.

You need to come to grips with the face that you are an imbecile. How old are you?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:26:53 PM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:56:39 PM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 8:59:31 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
> > >
> > > dear Tom Roberts,
> > >
> > > How wrong you are, when you say that nobody can compare the tick rate
> > > of two differently moving clocks:
> >
> > This post of yours is egregiously offensive, Beda. Tom KNOWS
> > relativity, but you have demonstrated that YOU don't. Telling Tom
> > that he is wrong is definitely NOT your place.
>
> Beda:
> I am sincere and I don't want to offend Tom Roberts, most of what I
> understood about SR comes from reading his posts, and I am thankful
> to him.

I learn from Tom where I am wrong. I use that information to indicate
where I need to study more, not "correct" him.

> Surely Tom Roberts knows relativity, but maybe there is some extra to
> know about the relation of SR and the "hidden" ether.

Your approach is adversarial/ I'm sure there are things that Tom
doesn't know, but it is arrogant of you to believe that you can provide
them at your present understanding.

> When he says that differently moving clocks cannot compare their time
> rate he is wrong.

Really? You left out a VERY important word: DIRECTLY. That's VERY
sloppy of you.

> When he says that two identical clocks positioned at different height
> (at different gravity potential) cannot compare their time rate directly
> he is wrong,

So just how are they supposed to compare them directly if they're not
side by side? YOU are wrong.

> so please don't give me lesson of politeness,

Arrogance again, Beda. You NEED lessons in politeness, but even more,
you need lessons in physics.

> read my post and come around with valid arguments.

Stop the arrogant blathering.

> > > case a) inertial moving clocks, three identical clocks A, B, C
> > > all the 3 clocks are inertially moving.
> > > clock A is moving inertially on its own;
> >
> > Movement can only be determined relative to something else. NOTHING
> > moves "on its own."
>
> versus what the light moves?

You can't determine your speed by referencing it to light since ALL
observers measure light at the same speed. This is simple logic which
you are attempting to annul.

> an object moves versus the light and versus space light is moving,
> Clock A moves on its own, in this case, I meant it moves alone,

Non sequitur. Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true.

> keep calm,

Your arrogance is showing again.

> > > ....

> > > You know very well the result: clock C show less elapsed time of clock
> > > A: the three clocks, while traveling at a different absolute inertial
> > > speed, had REAL absolute real different time rates.
> >
> > You've been told MANY, MANY times by knowledgeable folk that there is
> > no such thing as "absolute speed," yet you arrogantly and ignorantly
> > continue to slap everyone in the face with it, rather than studying
> > and trying to understand why they say that, proving that you are
> > incorrigible.
>
> I know very well why they say that, as I know very well that they
> should not say that, they should correctly say that SR does without
> the absolute speed and without the ether because they are not detectable
> ( this would be a little step towards honesty)

Physics is about MEASUREMENT. If something can't be measured, it's
not relevant. Until you can measurement, you're just waving your
arms and babbling.

> next step would be to explain versus what the light moves, it moves
> versus the open space, and also the objects moves versus it.

That's an arrogant assertion which NO evidence to support it.

> with this, I don't deny the heuristic validity os SR as a valid
> procedure of obtaining valid measurements, I insist on the fact
> that SR in a procedure embedded with the ether and with hidden
> absolutes.

Believe what you want, but please spare us the repetitious diatribes.

> > > case b) two identical clocks positioned at different gravity
> > > potential; this is easier:
> > >
> > > clock A is at ground level; clock B is suspended at the top of the
> > > Eiffel Tower;
> > > a radio signal from A is sent to set starting both clocks;
> > > after 1000 years a radio signal is sent to stop both clocks;
> > > then the two clocks are brought together and compared their elapsed
> > > time; the clock on the top of the tower show less elapsed time:
> > > for 1000 years it has run at a slower time rate:
> >
> > You have it backwards. Time at altitude appears to run faster as viewed
> > by the clock on the ground.
>
> yes true, that's a distraction of mine
> >
> > > Don't you agree that the tow clocks have been running at absolute
> > > different time rates ??
> > >
> > > Grateful for your attention
> > > regards
> > > beda
> >
> > Grateful for his attention? After the snotty things you said?
>
> You mean that he cannot make a mistake?

Sure he can.

> and if he does nobody can tell?

But he didn't.

> So, please read carefully my post and come with valid arguments,

I did.

> be sure that if you prove me wrong, and I will apologize frankly

I doubt it very much.

> > Once again you prove your pigheadedness with insinuations of "absolute
> > time." You obstinately refuse to understand the most basic thing
> > about time. You have NO evidence of absolute time. Gut feeling is NOT
> > evidence. Until you have solid EVIDENCE of absolute time and absolute
> > motion, STOP talking about them. Nobody cares about your whining of
> > what "ought to be."
>
> my post was not about absolute time,

Then stop babbling about it.

> but about the possibility to make a direct comparison of the time
> rate of moving clocks and clocks at different gravity potential,
> simple issue, that requires simple analysis.

You failed.

> be calm, we can come to an agreement,

Only if you stop babbling nonsense.

> I want to convince or be convinced.
>
> regards,
> beda

You have received sufficient information to start you along the path
of rational physics. So far you have been kicking and screaming and
trying to convince rather than starting down the path.

My observation is that you need less ego and more humility.

[beda pietanza]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 7:06:25 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/24/20 9:59 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
> > dear Tom Roberts,
> > How wrong you are, when you say that nobody can compare the tick rate of two
> > differently moving clocks:
>
> I didn't say that. What I ACTUALLY said was:
> > Nobody has ever DIRECTLY compared the tick rate of a moving clock to the
> > tick rate of a stationary clock -- it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do so,
> > unless one uses signals. So one is actually comparing the tick rate of
> > one clock to the SIGNAL RATE from the other clock (or frequently,
> > comparing signal rates from both clocks).
> > As soon as signals are involved, one must ask: what are the effects of
> > the physical situation on the signals? -- one finds that the entire
> > difference is due to effects on the signals; the clocks are completely
> > unaffected by both relative motion and difference in gravitational
> > potential.
>
> You are UTTERLY INCOMPETENT to attempt to paraphrase what I say, because
> YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND BASIC PHYSICS. That affects everything you say
> including your INCORRECT claims of what I said.

beda:
let's concentrate on the easy case b) the two identical clocks are one on the ground and one on the top of the Eiffel tower, they can see each other, they can communicate via skype continuously, what are you bringing about of to explain such easy case: the clock at top of the tower is running fast because the gravity is lower.
Is your fantastic theory Godspell?
Why you bring about your famous explanation when there is a much simple one.
If you come to the same conclusion using such a twisted way, suit yourself.
But there are cases where your saying is wrong and your SR show it tail.
In case a) the three clocks travel at a different speed and have different elapsed time, comparing the different elapsed time we can deduce that their time rate as been obviously different, the simple conclusion is: clocks at different speeds have different time rate.
you have a different explanation but the comparison has taken place: different elapsed times imply different time rates.

I guess you are trapped in a limited vision of your SR ideas and don't see that sometimes, as in this case, the etheric vision overlaps with yours and furnishes its natural completeness.

That is a pity we cannot come to a synthesis that would be very helpful to both of us.

>
> > case a) [...]
>
> This is NOT comparing clock tick rates, it is comparing elapsed proper
> times. That is a DIFFERENT physical situation, with a DIFFERENT explanation.
>
> > case b) [...]
>
> This is NOT comparing clock tick rates, it is comparing elapsed proper
> times. That is a DIFFERENT physical situation, with a DIFFERENT explanation.
>
> Bottom line: when you compare the elapsed proper times of two clocks and
> find they are different, you CANNOT conclude "they tick at different
> rates". You can only conclude their elapsed proper times are different
> (DUH!). For such a difference to arise, in relativity it is required
> that the clocks follow different paths through spacetime (both your
> examples do), and those paths must have different path lengths (both
> your examples do).

beda:
Of course, in you theory, but ether explain it better and easier, and without it your twisted and convoluted explanations would not work: is the ether that makes SR and GR work.

Tanks for your attention
beda


>
> Tom Roberts

[beda pietanza]

have tried the cure ??

regards
beda

[Paparios]

El viernes, 24 de abril de 2020, 18:10:55 (UTC-4), beda pietanza escribió:

> beda:
> let's concentrate on the easy case b) the two identical clocks are one on the ground and one on the top of the Eiffel tower, they can see each other, they can communicate via skype continuously, what are you bringing about of to explain such easy case: the clock at top of the tower is running fast because the gravity is lower.

The top of the Eiffel tower is 300 meters above the ground. In order to compare
two clocks you have to put them both at the same place OR transport the
information of the clock THERE to the clock HERE in order to campare them HERE.

The signals necessary for doing that experience gravitational redshift, which
explains why the clock rate THERE, at the top of the tower, is measured to
tick faster than the clock rate HERE, at the ground.

You should find another hobby!!

[beda pietanza]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 12:05:59 AM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:26:53 PM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:56:39 PM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 8:59:31 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
> > > >
> > > > dear Tom Roberts,
> > > >
> > > > How wrong you are, when you say that nobody can compare the tick rate
> > > > of two differently moving clocks:
> > >
> > > This post of yours is egregiously offensive, Beda. Tom KNOWS
> > > relativity, but you have demonstrated that YOU don't. Telling Tom
> > > that he is wrong is definitely NOT your place.
> >
> > Beda:
> > I am sincere and I don't want to offend Tom Roberts, most of what I
> > understood about SR comes from reading his posts, and I am thankful
> > to him.
>
> I learn from Tom where I am wrong. I use that information to indicate
> where I need to study more, not "correct" him.
>
> > Surely Tom Roberts knows relativity, but maybe there is some extra to
> > know about the relation of SR and the "hidden" ether.
>
> Your approach is adversarial/ I'm sure there are things that Tom
> doesn't know, but it is arrogant of you to believe that you can provide
> them at your present understanding.

beda:
approach is adversarial?, I just have a different approach, is not prohibited

>
> > When he says that differently moving clocks cannot compare their time
> > rate he is wrong.
>
> Really? You left out a VERY important word: DIRECTLY. That's VERY
> sloppy of you.

beda:
clock C (including the elapsed time of clcok b) and clock A compare directly their elapsed time; which is different and the difference has been produced by the different speeds of the clocks.
different elapsed time means different time rates.

>
> > When he says that two identical clocks positioned at different height
> > (at different gravity potential) cannot compare their time rate directly
> > he is wrong,
>
> So just how are they supposed to compare them directly if they're not
> side by side? YOU are wrong.

Beda:
don't be silly, the two clocks can see each other or they can communicate via skype, as I said after 1000 years, they will surely would show a big difference, wait and see,

>
> > so please don't give me lesson of politeness,
>
> Arrogance again, Beda. You NEED lessons in politeness, but even more,
> you need lessons in physics.

Beda:
really? you and Tom need lessons in trivial logic, which is mostly needed in any field of knowledge.

>
> > read my post and come around with valid arguments.
>
> Stop the arrogant blathering.

beda:
About arrogance you can find a lot from your side and also from Tom, is not so gentle, many times, versus his opponents

>
> > > > case a) inertial moving clocks, three identical clocks A, B, C
> > > > all the 3 clocks are inertially moving.
> > > > clock A is moving inertially on its own;
> > >
> > > Movement can only be determined relative to something else. NOTHING
> > > moves "on its own."
> >
> > versus what the light moves?
>
> You can't determine your speed by referencing it to light since ALL
> observers measure light at the same speed. This is simple logic which
> you are attempting to annul.

beda:
you are trapped in your closed room, the constancy of light speed is only happening in the SR frames, is not a fact of nature, is a heuristic way to do some measurements within a chosen peculiar setting.
Light speed is c only in the flat open space.
Keep your SR for yourself, I can talk with you about it and pretend is correct,
you also, should use the etherist approach and enter in its logic, so we may have a better understanding of both approaches and their limits.

>
> > an object moves versus the light and versus space light is moving,
> > Clock A moves on its own, in this case, I meant it moves alone,
>
> Non sequitur. Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true.
>
> > keep calm,
>
> Your arrogance is showing again.
>
> > > > ....
> > > > You know very well the result: clock C show less elapsed time of clock
> > > > A: the three clocks, while traveling at a different absolute inertial
> > > > speed, had REAL absolute real different time rates.
> > >
> > > You've been told MANY, MANY times by knowledgeable folk that there is
> > > no such thing as "absolute speed," yet you arrogantly and ignorantly
> > > continue to slap everyone in the face with it, rather than studying
> > > and trying to understand why they say that, proving that you are
> > > incorrigible.
> >
> > I know very well why they say that, as I know very well that they
> > should not say that, they should correctly say that SR does without
> > the absolute speed and without the ether because they are not detectable
> > ( this would be a little step towards honesty)
>
> Physics is about MEASUREMENT. If something can't be measured, it's
> not relevant. Until you can measurement, you're just waving your
> arms and babbling.

beda:
Physics is not about measurements only, it is your coverage of lacking of a valid explanation of your own theory, that forces you to repeat this mantra

>
> > next step would be to explain versus what the light moves, it moves
> > versus the open space, and also the objects moves versus it.
>
> That's an arrogant assertion which NO evidence to support it.

beda
arrogance is deny the evidence: The obvious is inexplicable to whom doesn't understand it on his own

>
> > with this, I don't deny the heuristic validity os SR as a valid
> > procedure of obtaining valid measurements, I insist on the fact
> > that SR in a procedure embedded with the ether and with hidden
> > absolutes.

> Believe what you want, but please spare us the repetitious diatribes.

beda:
then don't read my post, you'd find a lot of it

>
> > > > case b) two identical clocks positioned at different gravity
> > > > potential; this is easier:
> > > >
> > > > clock A is at ground level; clock B is suspended at the top of the
> > > > Eiffel Tower;
> > > > a radio signal from A is sent to set starting both clocks;
> > > > after 1000 years a radio signal is sent to stop both clocks;
> > > > then the two clocks are brought together and compared their elapsed
> > > > time; the clock on the top of the tower show less elapsed time:
> > > > for 1000 years it has run at a slower time rate:
> > >
> > > You have it backwards. Time at altitude appears to run faster as viewed
> > > by the clock on the ground.
> >
> > yes true, that's a distraction of mine
> > >
> > > > Don't you agree that the tow clocks have been running at absolute
> > > > different time rates ??
> > > >
> > > > Grateful for your attention
> > > > regards
> > > > beda
> > >
> > > Grateful for his attention? After the snotty things you said?
> >
> > You mean that he cannot make a mistake?
>
> Sure he can.
>
> > and if he does nobody can tell?
>
> But he didn't.

beda:
He did, as you do, on these issues at hand.

>
> > So, please read carefully my post and come with valid arguments,
>
> I did.
>
> > be sure that if you prove me wrong, and I will apologize frankly
>
> I doubt it very much.
>
> > > Once again you prove your pigheadedness with insinuations of "absolute
> > > time." You obstinately refuse to understand the most basic thing
> > > about time. You have NO evidence of absolute time. Gut feeling is NOT
> > > evidence. Until you have solid EVIDENCE of absolute time and absolute
> > > motion, STOP talking about them. Nobody cares about your whining of
> > > what "ought to be."
> >
> > my post was not about absolute time,
>
> Then stop babbling about it.

beda:
I am free to talk about it when is necessary

>
> > but about the possibility to make a direct comparison of the time
> > rate of moving clocks and clocks at different gravity potential,
> > simple issue, that requires simple analysis.
>
> You failed.
>
> > be calm, we can come to an agreement,
>
> Only if you stop babbling nonsense.
>
> > I want to convince or be convinced.
> >
> > regards,
> > beda
>
> You have received sufficient information to start you along the path
> of rational physics. So far you have been kicking and screaming and
> trying to convince rather than starting down the path.
>
> My observation is that you need less ego and more humility.

beda:
I take your advice, but be substantial and come out of your closed vision and try to look out through someone else point of view-

take care
beda

[beda pietanza]

Beda:

here and there, there and here, that's a joke of yours.

the two clocks can have their readings well and big as you want and be seen from all over, after a while they would show their different elapsed time to anyone in the hearth.

cheers
beda

[Paparios]

So you are asserting that the photons, which impress your retina, will take 0
seconds from the top of the tower to you eyes in the "hearth"?

Are you nuts?

Forget it, you are nuts!!!

[Dono,]

What took you so long to figure it out? :-)

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 4:54:22 PM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 12:05:59 AM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:26:53 PM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
> > >
> > > Beda:
> > > I am sincere and I don't want to offend Tom Roberts, most of what I
> > > understood about SR comes from reading his posts, and I am thankful
> > > to him.
> >
> > I learn from Tom where I am wrong. I use that information to indicate
> > where I need to study more, not "correct" him.
> >
> > > Surely Tom Roberts knows relativity, but maybe there is some extra to
> > > know about the relation of SR and the "hidden" ether.
> >
> > Your approach is adversarial/ I'm sure there are things that Tom
> > doesn't know, but it is arrogant of you to believe that you can provide
> > them at your present understanding.
>
> beda:
>
> approach is adversarial?,

YOUR approach is.

> I just have a different approach, is not prohibited

No one is "prohibited" from being a jerk.

> > > When he says that differently moving clocks cannot compare their time
> > > rate he is wrong.
> >
> > Really? You left out a VERY important word: DIRECTLY. That's VERY
> > sloppy of you.
> beda:
> clock C (including the elapsed time of clcok b) and clock A compare
> directly their elapsed time;

How can they do this unless they are side-by-side so they can COMPARE
DIRECTLY? They can only be side-by-side for the barest fraction of
an instant. Don't you even understand reality?

> which is different and the difference has been produced by the
> different speeds of the clocks.

You can't measure elapsed time if they're side-by-side for a picosecond.

> different elapsed time means different time rates.

Does it? Might it not mean different paths? You assume a LOT.

> > > When he says that two identical clocks positioned at different
> > > height (at different gravity potential) cannot compare their time
> > > rate directly he is wrong,
> >
> > So just how are they supposed to compare them directly if they're not
> > side by side? YOU are wrong.
>
> Beda:
> don't be silly,

YOU are the one being silly, and arrogant.

> the two clocks can see each other or they can communicate via skype,

which is a SIGNAL, not direct.

> as I said after 1000 years, they will surely would show a big difference,
> wait and see,

Sorry, I don't have the time :-)

> > > so please don't give me lesson of politeness,
> >
> > Arrogance again, Beda. You NEED lessons in politeness, but even more,
> > you need lessons in physics.
>
> Beda:
> really? you and Tom need lessons in trivial logic, which is mostly
> needed in any field of knowledge.

:-)))

I'm not the one that believes if I measure the speed of a ship moving
away from me at 10 km/hr, a sailor on the ship will measure by speed
as some other speed. (My first postulate in deriving BOTH the GT and
the LT).

I'm not the one that claims absolute time in the face of gravitational
time dilation.

> > > read my post and come around with valid arguments.
> >
> > Stop the arrogant blathering.
> beda:
> About arrogance you can find a lot from your side and also from Tom,
> is not so gentle, many times, versus his opponents

“People who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.” – Isaac Asimov

Seriously, though, you are certainly aware of the multitude of voices
who, with little deep analytical thought, confidently and incessantly
hawk their own rickety versions of reality.

“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin

Asimovians get really fatigued rebutting this wall of confused babel,
but they must because:

“When eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.”
-- Winston Churchill

> > > versus what the light moves?
> >
> > You can't determine your speed by referencing it to light since ALL
> > observers measure light at the same speed. This is simple logic which
> > you are attempting to annul.
> beda:
> you are trapped in your closed room, the constancy of light speed is
> only happening in the SR frames,

NO!!! There are only inertial frames. No one but biased partisans say
"SR frames."

> is not a fact of nature,

No one knows what "a fact of nature" is. Particularly not YOU.

> is a heuristic way to do some measurements within a chosen peculiar
> setting.

There is no other way to measure speed than Delta_x/Delta_t. Well,
there's Doppler shift, but that wouldn't work to measure the speed of
light.

> Light speed is c only in the flat open space.

That's tautological since that is exactly what SR describes.

> Keep your SR for yourself,

My, what arrogance!

> I can talk with you about it and pretend is correct, you also, should
> use the etherist approach and enter in its logic,

Been there, done that, rejected it.

> so we may have a better understanding of both approaches and their
> limits.

“Older and wiser voices can help you find the right path, if you are
only willing to listen.” – Jimmy Buffett

> > > an object moves versus the light and versus space light is moving,
> > > Clock A moves on its own, in this case, I meant it moves alone,
> >
> > Non sequitur. Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true.
> >
> > > keep calm,
> >
> > Your arrogance is showing again.
> >
> > > ....

> > > I know very well why they say that, as I know very well that they
> > > should not say that, they should correctly say that SR does without
> > > the absolute speed and without the ether because they are not
> > > detectable ( this would be a little step towards honesty)
> >
> > Physics is about MEASUREMENT. If something can't be measured, it's
> > not relevant. Until you can measurement, you're just waving your
> > arms and babbling.
> beda:
> Physics is not about measurements only, it is your coverage of lacking
> of a valid explanation of your own theory, that forces you to repeat
> this mantra

If you can't measure it, you can't make predictions based on it.
Someday, maybe we'll find a reason why the speed of light is invariant,
but it will be done at the cost of creating other unanswered questions.

> > > next step would be to explain versus what the light moves, it moves
> > > versus the open space, and also the objects moves versus it.
> >
> > That's an arrogant assertion which NO evidence to support it.
> beda
> arrogance is deny the evidence: The obvious is inexplicable to whom
> doesn't understand it on his own

Yeah, gut feelings again with no evidence for it.

> > > with this, I don't deny the heuristic validity os SR as a valid
> > > procedure of obtaining valid measurements, I insist on the fact
> > > that SR in a procedure embedded with the ether and with hidden
> > > absolutes.
>
> > Believe what you want, but please spare us the repetitious diatribes.
>
> beda:
> then don't read my post, you'd find a lot of it

“When eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.”
-- Winston Churchill

> > > You mean that he cannot make a mistake?
> >
> > Sure he can.
> >
> > > and if he does nobody can tell?
> >
> > But he didn't.
>
> beda:
> He did, as you do, on these issues at hand.

Vacuous assertion with no evidence whatever, except for a large dose
of arrogance.

> > > So, please read carefully my post and come with valid arguments,
> >
> > I did.
> >
> > > be sure that if you prove me wrong, and I will apologize frankly
> >
> > I doubt it very much.
> >

> > > my post was not about absolute time,
> >
> > Then stop babbling about it.
> beda:
> I am free to talk about it when is necessary

You're free to lie about it, too. And I am free to correct your
babbling nonsense.

> > > but about the possibility to make a direct comparison of the time
> > > rate of moving clocks and clocks at different gravity potential,
> > > simple issue, that requires simple analysis.
> >
> > You failed.
> >
> > > be calm, we can come to an agreement,
> >
> > Only if you stop babbling nonsense.
> >
> > > I want to convince or be convinced.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > beda
> >
> > You have received sufficient information to start you along the path
> > of rational physics. So far you have been kicking and screaming and
> > trying to convince rather than starting down the path.
> >
> > My observation is that you need less ego and more humility.
> beda:
> I take your advice, but be substantial and come out of your closed
> vision and try to look out through someone else point of view-
>
> take care
> beda

Considering another's point of view requires that I have some respect
for that other. I have respect for EVIDENCE and those who espouse it.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/24/20 5:10 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> let's concentrate on the easy case b) the two identical clocks are
> one on the ground and one on the top of the Eiffel tower, they can
> see each other, they can communicate via skype continuously, what are
> you bringing about of to explain such easy case: the clock at top of
> the tower is running fast because the gravity is lower.

NO! NO! NO!.

The two clocks each tick at their usual rate, so for identical clocks
their rate is identical [#]. But you just admitted you need a signal
between them, be it visual or Skype, and you did NOT consider what
happens to the signal. Do that and you find that the ENTIRE EFFECT is
due to the way the two observers measure those signals -- they measure
the signals DIFFERENTLY because they are at different altitudes in
earth's gravitational field.

[In this case, with only a 324 meter altitude difference,
extremely accurate clocks are needed. For instance, the
atomic clocks used in the GPS are woefully inadequate.]

[#] Remember how English works: when I mention "clock A's
tick rate", the ONLY thing that is involved is clock A. In
particular, one cannot observe A from a distance or from
an inertial frame other than its rest frame. To measure
the tick rate of A, and JUST the tick rate of A, the
measuring instrument MUST be co-located and co-moving with
A. Anything else will involve signals, and the signals will
introduce additional stuff not in the original phrase.

> Why you bring about your famous explanation when there is a much
> simple one.

The "simple explanation" is WRONG -- the clocks do NOT "tick at
different rates". I cannot help it if the world is more complicated than
you wish, or than you can comprehend. It is what it is.

> [... further nonsense displaying serious ignorance about SR and GR]

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/24/20 6:00 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> after a while they would show their different elapsed time

Sure. Because they follow different paths through spacetime. Not because

they "tick at different rates".

This is a DIFFERENT physical situation and a DIFFERENT measurement than
comparing their tick rates via EM signals. So it's OK to have a
different explanation.

Relativity is more complicated than you understand. Given your repeated
inability to understand what I write, and your repeating the same
mistakes, it's clear to me that it is more complicated THAN IT IS
POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND. Find another hobby -- physics is too
complicated for you.

Tom Roberts

[beda pietanza]

beda:
That is very smart, you almost put me down, but the clock A and C are programmed
by the programmer of the gedanken to stop running as they encounter, then they have a eternity of time to do the comparison.
C invert is trip and reaches A and compare their clocks, or they communicate via radio the reading of the stopped clocks.

And since you are so smart, what is the fuss about the elapsed time of clock C ?
you should know very well, that C is showing less time
That is the famous twin paradox solved according to what SR prescribed(the three
twins version).

>
> > which is different and the difference has been produced by the
> > different speeds of the clocks.
>
> You can't measure elapsed time if they're side-by-side for a picosecond.
>
> > different elapsed time means different time rates.
>
> Does it? Might it not mean different paths? You assume a LOT.

beda:
the different paths travelled at the same elapsed time (measured by clock A) means different speeds.

>
> > > > When he says that two identical clocks positioned at different
> > > > height (at different gravity potential) cannot compare their time
> > > > rate directly he is wrong,
> > >
> > > So just how are they supposed to compare them directly if they're not
> > > side by side? YOU are wrong.
> >
> > Beda:
> > don't be silly,
>
> YOU are the one being silly, and arrogant.
>
> > the two clocks can see each other or they can communicate via skype,
>
> which is a SIGNAL, not direct.

beda:
in the Gedanken is said that the comparison is done after 1000 years, the signal travel time is irrelevant, they are turned on and turned off by a radio signal the comparison takes place with the two clock stopped.

You should know very well that the time rate of the top clock is faster what is the fuss of swindling around for an escape?

>
> > as I said after 1000 years, they will surely would show a big difference,
> > wait and see,
>
> Sorry, I don't have the time :-)

beda:
that is not a problem for anyone in a Gedanken

beda:

in the Gedanken of Einstein train, the light speed is described (seen by the observer at middle of the wagon) running faster one way and slower the other way.
Einstein said that correctly because he made his Gedanken out (and before) the SR frames, the train Gedanken is at start of his work the SR arrangement was not yet exposed,
So out of the SR setting Einstein and I are correct, in SR you and I can say that the speed of light is the same both ways (but requires a particular setting of the clocks)
in nature with absolute simultaneity, it is not so, to remind you what the absolute simultaneity is, read again the train Gedanken of einstein; where he writes of two flash bolts striking at the same time, einstein described correctly, what is absolute simultaneity

You won't dare to contradict Einstein, or would you??

beda:
respect is the courtesy of the King.

Sorry if I don't replay the at rest but is not worth the while since there is not any novelties that have not been already said

take care
beda

[beda pietanza]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 2:01:05 AM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/24/20 5:10 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> > let's concentrate on the easy case b) the two identical clocks are
> > one on the ground and one on the top of the Eiffel tower, they can
> > see each other, they can communicate via skype continuously, what are
> > you bringing about of to explain such easy case: the clock at top of
> > the tower is running fast because the gravity is lower.
>
> NO! NO! NO!.
>
> The two clocks each tick at their usual rate, so for identical clocks
> their rate is identical [#]. But you just admitted you need a signal
> between them, be it visual or Skype, and you did NOT consider what
> happens to the signal. Do that and you find that the ENTIRE EFFECT is
> due to the way the two observers measure those signals -- they measure
> the signals DIFFERENTLY because they are at different altitudes in
> earth's gravitational field.

beda:

in my Gedanken is written

quote from my previous post ######################

case b) two identical clocks positioned at different gravity potential; this is easier:

clock A is at ground level; clock B is suspended at the top of the Eiffel Tower;
a radio signal from A is sent to set starting both clocks;
after 1000 years a radio signal is sent to stop both clocks;
then the two clocks are brought together and compared their elapsed time;
the clock on the top of the tower show less elapsed time: for 1000 years it has run at a slower time rate:
Don't you agree that the tow clocks have been running at absolute different time rates ??

######################### end quote

The clocks are started from a radio signal and stopped after 1000 years by a radio signal, then the reading is compared, none of your objection has any value there is not necessarily any signal between the two clocks:

Pay attention, please, the two clocks are alone by themself in a different environment they show different elapsed time ignoring each other. their reading is an absolute elapsed time and is different because they are in a different gravity potential, I cannot do anything more for you than repeat this simple explanation, which explains a result identical to the one you well know.

I sincerely tell you, I know your explanation and it is well embedded into my overall theoretical vision, add there the ether properties and magically your explanation turns clear.

Of course, as long as the clock is not compared to another, the comoving observer cannot tell that his clock is slowing, he finds it out that, at end of the comparison, and he is forced to conclude that his clock has been running slower because a) of the absolute speed, b) for the different gravity

>
> [In this case, with only a 324 meter altitude difference,
> extremely accurate clocks are needed. For instance, the
> atomic clocks used in the GPS are woefully inadequate.]
>
> [#] Remember how English works: when I mention "clock A's
> tick rate", the ONLY thing that is involved is clock A. In
> particular, one cannot observe A from a distance or from
> an inertial frame other than its rest frame. To measure
> the tick rate of A, and JUST the tick rate of A, the
> measuring instrument MUST be co-located and co-moving with
> A. Anything else will involve signals, and the signals will
> introduce additional stuff not in the original phrase.

beda

no signal involved of any kind in case a)
each clock runs at a different speed and the comparison between A an C is done at the instant they meet, to be more accurate and to avoid the disturbance of the signal clock A and clock C as they pass by stop running and retain their instantaneous readings, after, the observers can take time, go to lunch, and eventually compare the elapsed time of the two clocks.

The reading is what we well know: the solution of the twin paradox (3 twins version)

I say the different absolute speed has changed because of the change of absolute speed of B and C, the time duration of trip of B and C as measured by clock A is has lasted the same at the trip of clock A from the start to the end.

You can retain your version, only think, if you want a convincing and logic explanation shouldn't stop to the trivial measurements but explain why those measurements are such: there is the hidden ether, the hidden absolute, and the absolute simultaneity that are working for you and you are so ungrateful to deny them.

>
> > Why you bring about your famous explanation when there is a much
> > simple one.
>
> The "simple explanation" is WRONG -- the clocks do NOT "tick at
> different rates".

beda:
but I agree with you: as seen by the comoving observer, he cannot tell that his clock is running slower.
THE OBSERVER DEDUCES THAT HIS ClOCK HAS BEEN RUNNING SLOWER AFTER THE COMPARISON TAKES PLACE!!

>I cannot help it if the world is more complicated than
> you wish, or than you can comprehend. It is what it is.

Beda:
you are making it much more complicated for yourself and, pitifully, complicate for laypeople, who deserved more respect for their common sense and their expectations from science, that should help them to have the reality explained scientifically.

regardless of the disagreement, I appreciate your contribution,

beda

[Keith Stein]

On 25/04/2020 11:35, beda pietanza wrote:

> beda:
> but I agree with you: as seen by the comoving observer, he cannot tell that his clock is running slower.
> THE OBSERVER DEDUCES THAT HIS ClOCK HAS BEEN RUNNING SLOWER AFTER THE COMPARISON TAKES PLACE!!

I understand entirely where you are coming from on this Beda,
but i'm fairly sure Tom Roberts won't eh!

keith stein

[Kevin Aylward]

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
news:pOednfNNwswWgT7D...@giganews.com...

>This is NOT comparing clock tick rates, it is comparing elapsed proper
>times. That is a DIFFERENT physical situation, with a DIFFERENT
>explanation.

>Bottom line: when you compare the elapsed proper times of two clocks and
>find they are different, you CANNOT conclude "they tick at different
>rates". You can only conclude their elapsed proper times are different
>(DUH!). For such a difference to arise, in relativity it is required that
>the clocks follow different paths through spacetime (both your examples
>do), and those paths must have different path lengths (both your examples
>do).

Sure....

...and because those paths are time-like one can simply drop the "space"
part of "space-time" and write "that the clocks follow different paths
through time".

...just as one can legitimately state in going from LA to NY that "the
odometer reads different because one route covers more space" and that such
a statement means (more) space travel.

it necessarily follows from the statement:

"the clocks follow different paths through time"

that:

"the clock reads different because one route covers more time"

Which of course, is identically equivalent to time travel into the future,
as per the TARDIS. That is, the TARDIS and Dr. Who might go though time at a
rate of 100 secs/sec, his own clock always reading his own time, yet Dr. Who
arrives at a point in time that he would otherwise be unable to get to.

Either clocks read different because they slow down, or they cover more
time. Its the only options available. Unfortunately, some have difficulty
with this inescapable logic.

One can't hide behind abstract mathematics forever. At some point reality
raises its head.

Thus the standard interpretation of SR, is necessarily, time travel into the
future, in denial.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

[Ned Latham]

beda pietanza wrote:

----snip----

> quote from my previous post ######################
>
> case b) two identical clocks positioned at different gravity
> potential; this is easier:
>
> clock A is at ground level; clock B is suspended at the top of the
> Eiffel Tower;
> a radio signal from A is sent to set starting both clocks;
> after 1000 years a radio signal is sent to stop both clocks;
> then the two clocks are brought together and compared their
> elapsed time;

What's the precision of those clocks, Beda?

----snip----

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 25 April 2020 02:01:05 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/24/20 5:10 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> > let's concentrate on the easy case b) the two identical clocks are
> > one on the ground and one on the top of the Eiffel tower, they can
> > see each other, they can communicate via skype continuously, what are
> > you bringing about of to explain such easy case: the clock at top of
> > the tower is running fast because the gravity is lower.
>
> NO! NO! NO!.
>
> The two clocks each tick at their usual rate, so for identical clocks
> their rate is identical [#].

In the moronic dreams of a brainwashed halfbrian it surely is;
as anyone can check in real GPS, however, it's 9 192 631 770
on the ground and 9 192 631 774+ on a satellite.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 3:36:23 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 2:00:42 AM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 4:54:22 PM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
> > >
> > > clock C (including the elapsed time of clcok b) and clock A compare
> > > directly their elapsed time;
> >
> > How can they do this unless they are side-by-side so they can COMPARE
> > DIRECTLY? They can only be side-by-side for the barest fraction of
> > an instant. Don't you even understand reality?
>
> beda:
> That is very smart, you almost put me down, but the clock A and C are
> programmed by the programmer of the gedanken to stop running as they
> encounter, then they have a eternity of time to do the comparison.

But how do they START their clocks simultaneously when they're NOT
side by side?

> C invert is trip and reaches A and compare their clocks, or they
> communicate via radio the reading of the stopped clocks.

That's only half of the problem.

> And since you are so smart, what is the fuss about the elapsed time of
> clock C ?
> you should know very well, that C is showing less time
> That is the famous twin paradox solved according to what SR prescribed
> (the three twins version).

Or three clocks version. But consider a different scenario with three
clocks: Clock 1 is "stationary." Clock 2 is moving away from Clock 1
at speed v1. An observer holding Clock 2 looks back and measures
clock 1 running slow by 1/sqrt(1 - v1^2/c^2). Clock 3 is moving away
from Clock 1 at speed v2. An observer holding Clock 3 looks back and
measures Clock 1 running slow by 1/sqrt(1 - v2^2/c^2).

Both Clock 2 and Clock 3 is justified in considering themselves at rest,*
but they disagree about Clock 1's rate. This is an argument against
absolute time.

*Note that Galileo, Newton and Einstein all agree that motion is relative.

> > > which is different and the difference has been produced by the
> > > different speeds of the clocks.
> >
> > You can't measure elapsed time if they're side-by-side for a picosecond.
> >
> > > different elapsed time means different time rates.
> >
> > Does it? Might it not mean different paths? You assume a LOT.
>
> beda:
> the different paths travelled at the same elapsed time (measured by
> clock A) means different speeds.

But the elapsed time is NOT the same.

> > > the two clocks can see each other or they can communicate via skype,
> >
> > which is a SIGNAL, not direct.
>
> beda:
> in the Gedanken is said that the comparison is done after 1000 years,
> the signal travel time is irrelevant, they are turned on and turned
> off by a radio signal the comparison takes place with the two clock
> stopped.
>
> You should know very well that the time rate of the top clock is
> faster what is the fuss of swindling around for an escape?

No, I DON'T "know" that, and neither do you. You ASSUME that they're
different, but an observer by each clock will say that their clock
is running at the rate of one second per second.

Just looking at gravitational time dilation, you could argue that clocks
far from any g-field run at THE absolute rate and clocks in g-fields
actually run slower (This is quite problematical because g-fields are
EVERYWHERE because of the effect of galaxies and galaxies), but there's
the problem of special relativistic time dilation where Clock 1 sees
Clock 2's clock running slower and Clock 2 sees Clock 1's clock running slower. Absolute time doesn't work for that scenario, so why should it
be busted in one case but hold in another?

> > > as I said after 1000 years, they will surely would show a big
> > > difference, wait and see,
> >
> > Sorry, I don't have the time :-)
> beda:
> that is not a problem for anyone in a Gedanken

I was kidding :-)

> > > really? you and Tom need lessons in trivial logic, which is mostly
> > > needed in any field of knowledge.
> >
> > :-)))
> >
> > I'm not the one that believes if I measure the speed of a ship moving
> > away from me at 10 km/hr, a sailor on the ship will measure by speed
> > as some other speed. (My first postulate in deriving BOTH the GT and
> > the LT).
> >
> > I'm not the one that claims absolute time in the face of gravitational
> > time dilation.
> >

> > > ....

> > > About arrogance you can find a lot from your side and also from Tom,
> > > is not so gentle, many times, versus his opponents
> >
> > “People who think they know everything are a great annoyance
> > to those of us who do.” – Isaac Asimov
> >
> > Seriously, though, you are certainly aware of the multitude of voices
> > who, with little deep analytical thought, confidently and incessantly
> > hawk their own rickety versions of reality.
> >
> > “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
> > – Charles Darwin
> >
> > Asimovians get really fatigued rebutting this wall of confused babel,
> > but they must because:
> >
> > “When eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.”
> > -- Winston Churchill
> >

> > > ....

> > > you are trapped in your closed room, the constancy of light speed is
> > > only happening in the SR frames,
> >
> > NO!!! There are only inertial frames. No one but biased partisans say
> > "SR frames."
> >
> > > is not a fact of nature,
> >
> > No one knows what "a fact of nature" is. Particularly not YOU.
> >
> > > is a heuristic way to do some measurements within a chosen peculiar
> > > setting.
> >
> > There is no other way to measure speed than Delta_x/Delta_t. Well,
> > there's Doppler shift, but that wouldn't work to measure the speed of
> > light.
>
> beda:
>
> in the Gedanken of Einstein train, the light speed is described (seen
> by the observer at middle of the wagon) running faster one way and
> slower the other way.
>
> Einstein said that correctly because he made his Gedanken out (and
> before) the SR frames,

STOP the sham of calling out "SR frames"!

> the train Gedanken is at start of his work the SR arrangement was not
> yet exposed,

The "SR arrangement" that you refer to is the second postulate.

> So out of the SR setting Einstein and I are correct, in SR you and
> I can say that the speed of light is the same both ways (but requires
> a particular setting of the clocks) in nature with absolute simultaneity,
> it is not so, to remind you what the absolute simultaneity is,

Absolute simultaneity is refuted by experiment.

> read again the train Gedanken of einstein; where he writes of two flash
> bolts striking at the same time, einstein described correctly, what is
> absolute simultaneity

They are simultaneous ONLY for the observer by the track, but not for the
one on the train.

> You won't dare to contradict Einstein, or would you??

Ah, but I HAVE contradicted Einstein in the link I referenced in a recent
thread I started :-)

But not in this case. You have misunderstood Einstein. YOU added the
word "absolute": he did not.

> > > Light speed is c only in the flat open space.
> >
> > That's tautological since that is exactly what SR describes.
> >
> > > Keep your SR for yourself,
> >
> > My, what arrogance!
> >
> > > I can talk with you about it and pretend is correct, you also, should
> > > use the etherist approach and enter in its logic,
> >
> > Been there, done that, rejected it.
> >
> > > so we may have a better understanding of both approaches and their
> > > limits.
> >
> > “Older and wiser voices can help you find the right path, if you are
> > only willing to listen.” – Jimmy Buffett
> >

> > > Physics is not about measurements only, it is your coverage of lacking
> > > of a valid explanation of your own theory, that forces you to repeat
> > > this mantra
> >
> > If you can't measure it, you can't make predictions based on it.
> > Someday, maybe we'll find a reason why the speed of light is invariant,
> > but it will be done at the cost of creating other unanswered questions.
> >

> > > arrogance is deny the evidence: The obvious is inexplicable to whom
> > > doesn't understand it on his own
> >
> > Yeah, gut feelings again with no evidence for it.
> >

> > > then don't read my post, you'd find a lot of it
> >
> > “When eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.”
> > -- Winston Churchill
> >

> > > He did, as you do, on these issues at hand.
> >
> > Vacuous assertion with no evidence whatever, except for a large dose
> > of arrogance.
> >

> > > I am free to talk about it when is necessary
> >
> > You're free to lie about it, too. And I am free to correct your
> > babbling nonsense.
> >

> > > I take your advice, but be substantial and come out of your closed
> > > vision and try to look out through someone else point of view-
> > >
> > > take care
> > > beda
> >
> > Considering another's point of view requires that I have some respect
> > for that other. I have respect for EVIDENCE and those who espouse it.
>
> beda:
> respect is the courtesy of the King.
>
> Sorry if I don't replay the at rest but is not worth the while since
> there is not any novelties that have not been already said
>
> take care
> beda

You aren't the king. Experimental evidence is the king.

[Dono,]

Idiots unite!

[Ed Lake]

Einstein's idea does not involve "signals," Tom. In his 1905 SRT paper
he suggested that you have two clocks side by side, you then move one
at high speed and then return it. When the clocks are side by side
again, the clock that was moved will "lag behind" the clock that was not
moved, i.e, it will show less time has passed.

The Hafele-Keating experiments demonstrated that FACT. They had
their clocks sitting side by side with the clock at the Naval Observatory,
then they flew their clocks around the world, brought them back to the
Naval Observatory and compared them again. The experiment showed that
time passed at a different rate for the clocks that moved and changed
altitudes, exactly as Einstein's equations showed they would.

What you do, Tom, is create an impossible requirement, that a moving clock
must be compared to a stationary clock WHILE the moving clock is moving
and the stationary clock is not, and then you argue that everyone is wrong
who does not perform your impossible experiment.

Instead of rationalizing how your BELIEFS show everyone is wrong,
why don't you come up with an WORKABLE experiment which will show who
is right? That is what real scientists and physicists do.

Ed
https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake

[Dono,]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 7:51:03 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:

> Einstein's idea does not involve "signals," Tom. In his 1905 SRT paper
> he suggested that you have two clocks side by side, you then move one
> at high speed and then return it. When the clocks are side by side
> again, the clock that was moved will "lag behind" the clock that was not
> moved, i.e, it will show less time has passed.
>

Imbecile,

The above is an example of difference in TOTAL ELAPSED PROPER TIME.
We have moved onto the DIFFERENT subject of GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION, old fart cretin.

[Elfové Kubanská]

Ed Lake wrote:

>> > [... further nonsense displaying serious ignorance about SR and GR]
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Einstein's idea does not involve "signals," Tom. In his 1905 SRT paper
> he suggested that you have two clocks side by side, you then move one at
> high speed and then return it. When the clocks are side by side again,
> the clock that was moved will "lag behind" the clock that was not moved,
> i.e, it will show less time has passed.

Smallpox vaccine production Laboratory, San Juan (1899)
http://whale.to/c/smallpoxsatanic666.jpg

"It would seem to be impossible for a rational mind to conceive that a
filthy virus derived from a *smallpox corpse*, the ulcerated udder of a
cow, or the running sores of a sick horse's heels, and cultivated in
scabbed festers on a calf's abdomen could fail to have *disastrous*
effects when inoculated into the *human body*. As professor McIntosh
remarked in the Lancet in 1926,
'*Scientifically it cannot be disputed* that from every point of view the
*injection of virus* capable of multiplying in the body of the individual
*is bad*' "

[Paparios]

El sábado, 25 de abril de 2020, 10:51:03 (UTC-4), Ed Lake escribió:
> On Friday, April 24, 2020 at 7:01:05 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

>
> Einstein's idea does not involve "signals," Tom. In his 1905 SRT paper
> he suggested that you have two clocks side by side, you then move one
> at high speed and then return it. When the clocks are side by side
> again, the clock that was moved will "lag behind" the clock that was not
> moved, i.e, it will show less time has passed.
>

Yes, but here you are not comparing clock rates but clock elapsed times, which
was what the Hafele-Keating experiment also did.

> The Hafele-Keating experiments demonstrated that FACT. They had
> their clocks sitting side by side with the clock at the Naval Observatory,
> then they flew their clocks around the world, brought them back to the
> Naval Observatory and compared them again. The experiment showed that
> time passed at a different rate for the clocks that moved and changed
> altitudes, exactly as Einstein's equations showed they would.
>
> What you do, Tom, is create an impossible requirement, that a moving clock
> must be compared to a stationary clock WHILE the moving clock is moving
> and the stationary clock is not, and then you argue that everyone is wrong
> who does not perform your impossible experiment.
>

Exactly for that is that signals are necessary. To compare a moving clock
(there) with a non moving clock (here), the information there has to be
transported here so that the comparison is possible.

Those signals (ligth pulses, radio waves. fiber optics, etc.) are subjected
to the same physical laws clocks are (gravitational redshifts and time dilation)

[Keith Stein]

nor Dildo either eh! :(

[Kevin Aylward]

From: Gary Harnagel
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 1:00 AM
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Tom Roberts doesn't know how to compare inertial moving clocks,
nor clocks at different gravity potential

>If you can't measure it, you can't make predictions based on it.
>Someday, maybe we'll find a reason why the speed of light is invariant,
>but it will be done at the cost of creating other unanswered questions.

Well.... one can argue an anthropic reason as to why the speed of light is
invariant, how is another matter.

We exist.

We are constructed of atomic Lego. This Lego has been stable for around 15
billion years. 1 sec in 15 billion years is something like 1 in 5.10^17

Thus, this Lego needs stunning stability for us to exist.

The stability of this Lego is fundamentally governed by the stability of its
parts that is, the stability of the characteristic frequencies of its
parts. Whilst many appreciate the technical achievements of constructing
clocks to parts in 10^15, many don't ask the question...how is it that this
universe actually allows that accuracy to exist?

Its clearly anthropic. That is, if the Lego was not stable, it would have
dismantled itself a long time time ago, and hence, we would not be around to
observe ourselves.

Now.... general objects drift... they change with time. One notes this when
one designs ASICS for high performance xtal
oscillators...ahmmm.....everything degrades over time...

So... suppose that there is some property of this universe that cannot
drift...for example, there just happens to be a maximum velocity that
nothing can exceed, and that some objects automatically tend to approach
that velocity. Suppose that velocity is the key determinator for
frequency....v=f.x., and furthermore that that velocity is also the key
determinator for x.

Thus, one can argue that a maximum limiting velocity is the simplest way of
achieving stable Lego.

One can also argue... suppose the forces that hold the Lego parts together
varied with the the joint velocity of all the parts of the Lego... in such a
situation, as the Lego was gallivanting all other the place at various
velocities, over time, it would also dismantle itself, e.g.internal objects
would not stay in the same position relative to each other.

Thus one can argue that the laws of physics (forces between objects) must
be, essentially, independent of uniform velocity, for us to exist.

Thus, one can argue Special Relativity is a necessary consequence of our
existence.

[Keith Stein]

On 25/04/2020 14:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 3:36:23 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:


>> you should know very well, that C is showing less time
>> That is the famous twin paradox solved according to what SR prescribed
>> (the three twins version).

> Both Clock 2 and Clock 3 is justified in considering themselves at rest,

Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest relative
to a stationary medium, not if they are moving relative to easch other.

If for example Clock 2 was stationary in the medium,then only Clock 2
would be justified in considering itself at rest i think,Gary.
To correctly calculate what the clocks will be showing when you do
need to know what the medium is doing, and if you fail to consider the
medium, you will just get into the sort of mess Einstein did eh!

> but they disagree about Clock 1's rate. This is an argument against
> absolute time.
>

They will not disagree if they consider the medium,
and consider the velocity of light to be relative to the medium,of course.

> *Note that Galileo, Newton and Einstein all agree that motion is relative.

Note too that Galileo and Newton agree that time is Universal.

>> You should know very well that the time rate of the top clock is
>> faster what is the fuss of swindling around for an escape?
>
> No, I DON'T "know" that, and neither do you. You ASSUME that they're
> different, but an observer by each clock will say that their clock
> is running at the rate of one second per second.
>
> Just looking at gravitational time dilation, you could argue that clocks
> far from any g-field run at THE absolute rate and clocks in g-fields
> actually run slower (This is quite problematical because g-fields are
> EVERYWHERE because of the effect of galaxies and galaxies), but there's
> the problem of special relativistic time dilation where Clock 1 sees
> Clock 2's clock running slower and Clock 2 sees Clock 1's clock running > slower. Absolute time doesn't work for that scenario, so why should it
> be busted in one case but hold in another?

Absolute time does work for that scenario, if you do the calculations
correctly Gary, but one would have to know what the medium was doing to
do the sums correctly of course.

> Absolute simultaneity is refuted by experiment.

BULLSHIT !

> You aren't the king. Experimental evidence is the king.

What exeriment "refuted simultaneity" do you think Gary?


keith stein

[Elfové Kubanská]

Keith Stein wrote:

> Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest relative
> to a stationary medium, not if they are moving relative to easch other.
>
> If for example Clock 2 was stationary in the medium,then only Clock 2
> would be justified in considering itself at rest i think,Gary.
> To correctly calculate what the clocks will be showing when you do need
> to know what the medium is doing, and if you fail to consider the
> medium, you will just get into the sort of mess Einstein did eh!

Full petition:

We Call For Investigations Into The “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation” For
Medical Malpractice & Crimes Against Humanity Created by C.S. on April 10,
2020

As we look at events surrounding the “COVID-19 pandemic,” various
questions remain unanswered. On Oct. 18th of 2019, only weeks prior to
ground zero being declared in Wuhan, China, two major events took place.
One is “Event 201,” the other is the “Military World Games,” held in none
other than Wuhan. Since then a worldwide push for vaccines & biometric
tracking has been initiated.

At the forefront of this is Bill Gates, who has publicly stated his
interest in “reducing population growth” by 10-15%, by means of
vaccination. Gates, UNICEF & WHO have already been credibly accused of
intentionally sterilising Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG
antigen in tetanus vaccines.

Congress & all other governing bodies are derelict in duty until a
thorough and public inquiry is complete.

To sign the petition: click here.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-call-investigations-bill-
melinda-gates-foundation-medical-malpractice-crimes-against-humanity

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/25/20 9:51 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Einstein's idea does not involve "signals," Tom. In his 1905 SRT paper
> he suggested that you have two clocks side by side, you then move one
> at high speed and then return it. When the clocks are side by side
> again, the clock that was moved will "lag behind" the clock that was not
> moved, i.e, it will show less time has passed.
>
> The Hafele-Keating experiments demonstrated that FACT.

Sure. But these do NOT show that "clocks tick at different rates".
Rather, they show that clocks following different paths between a given
pair of points in spacetime can show different ELAPSED PROPER TIMES
between those endpoints.

> The experiment showed that
> time passed at a different rate for the clocks that moved and changed
> altitudes,

NO, IT DID NOT. It showed that their ELAPSED PROPER TIMES were different
from the ELAPSED PROPER TIME of the USNO clock. DUH!

You INSIST on reading more into their data than is
actually there. That's invalid.

> What you do, Tom, is create an impossible requirement, that a moving clock
> must be compared to a stationary clock WHILE the moving clock is moving
> and the stationary clock is not, and then you argue that everyone is wrong
> who does not perform your impossible experiment.

Independent of whether that is impossible or not, THAT IS WHAT THE WORDS
MEAN: "time passed at different rates for the two clocks". It is THOSE
WORDS that are wrong, not the experiments, or how SR and GR model them.

I cannot help it if all too many authors use those
INCORRECT words. They are NOT describing how this is
understood in modern physics, in the belief that by
simplifying the situation to the point of misstating
it, more people will understand it. But in doing so
they confuse people like you.

I sympathize with their attitude, because I see how
impossible it is for YOU to understand the correct
description. Nevertheless, THOSE WORDS ARE WRONG.

I see my purpose here as describing modern physics.
I refuse to "dumb down" anything. Others have less
integrity.

> Instead of rationalizing how your BELIEFS

This is not my "belief", THIS IS HOW SR AND GR MODEL THIS.

SR and GR are quite clear: clocks ALWAYS tick at
their usual rate. Anything else would violate
local Lorentz invariance and Einstein's first
postulate of SR.

> why don't you come up with an WORKABLE experiment which will show who
> is right?

There are LOTS of them already performed. Of course they all use SIGNALS
to compare the tick rates of clocks in relative motion, or to compare
the tick rates of clocks at different altitudes in earth's gravitational
field. We can, of course, calculate the effect on those signals, and
correct the data for it -- the result is that the clocks THEMSELVES tick
at the same rate. EVERY TIME.

I repeat: comparing tick rates is DIFFERENT from comparing
elapsed proper times.

Tom Roberts

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 10:44:50 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 25/04/2020 14:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Both Clock 2 and Clock 3 is justified in considering themselves at rest,
>
> Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest relative
> to a stationary medium,

There is no stationary medium, Keith.

> not if they are moving relative to easch other.

Irrelevant. The gliding ship can consider itself at rest. The stationary
dock can also.

> If for example Clock 2 was stationary in the medium,

There is no stationary medium, Keith.

> then only Clock 2
> would be justified in considering itself at rest i think,Gary.

Think, Keith, there is no stationary medium.

> To correctly calculate what the clocks will be showing when you do
> need to know what the medium is doing, and if you fail to consider the
> medium, you will just get into the sort of mess Einstein did eh!

If you assume a medium when there is no evidence of one, you get yourself
into the mess that you ARE in.

> > but they disagree about Clock 1's rate. This is an argument against
> > absolute time.
> >
>
> They will not disagree if they consider the medium,

There is no stationary medium, Keith.

> and consider the velocity of light to be relative to the medium,

There is no stationary medium, Keith.

> > *Note that Galileo, Newton and Einstein all agree that motion is
> > relative.
>
> Note too that Galileo and Newton agree that time is Universal.

Note that this is refuted by gravitational and velocity time dilation.

> > > You should know very well that the time rate of the top clock is
> > > faster what is the fuss of swindling around for an escape?
> >
> > No, I DON'T "know" that, and neither do you. You ASSUME that they're
> > different, but an observer by each clock will say that their clock
> > is running at the rate of one second per second.
> >
> > Just looking at gravitational time dilation, you could argue that clocks
> > far from any g-field run at THE absolute rate and clocks in g-fields
> > actually run slower (This is quite problematical because g-fields are
> > EVERYWHERE because of the effect of galaxies and galaxies), but there's
> > the problem of special relativistic time dilation where Clock 1 sees
> > Clock 2's clock running slower and Clock 2 sees Clock 1's clock running
> > slower. Absolute time doesn't work for that scenario, so why should it
> > be busted in one case but hold in another?
>
> Absolute time does work for that scenario,

Yes, it does, but not for velocity time dilation.

> if you do the calculations
> correctly Gary, but one would have to know what the medium was doing to
> do the sums correctly of course.

Medium? Are you wearing a bandana around your head and looking into
a crystal ball?

> > Absolute simultaneity is refuted by experiment.
>
> BULLSHIT !

Horse plop, Keith. Velocity and gravitational time dilation happen.
That means time in different places and in different states of motion
can't stay in sync. This happens because speed of light is invariant,
and that also means that simultaneity is relative.

> > You aren't the king. Experimental evidence is the king.
>
> What exeriment "refuted simultaneity" do you think Gary?
>
>
> keith stein

Time dilation happens, Keith.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/25/20 6:08 AM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Tom Roberts"  wrote in message
> news:pOednfNNwswWgT7D...@giganews.com...
>> This is NOT comparing clock tick rates, it is comparing elapsed proper
>> times. That is a DIFFERENT physical situation, with a DIFFERENT
>> explanation.
>
>> Bottom line: when you compare the elapsed proper times of two clocks
>> and find they are different, you CANNOT conclude "they tick at
>> different rates". You can only conclude their elapsed proper times are
>> different (DUH!). For such a difference to arise, in relativity it is
>> required that the clocks follow different paths through spacetime
>> (both your examples do), and those paths must have different path
>> lengths (both your examples do).
>
> Sure....
>
> ...and because those paths are time-like one can simply drop the "space"
> part of "space-time" and  write "that the clocks follow different paths
> through time".

Not really. "path through time" has no meaning. Or speaking VERY
loosely, we know there is a requirement of "traveling through time" at
the rate of one second per second -- no other "path" is possible.

> Which of course, is identically equivalent to time travel into the
> future, as per the TARDIS.

But it ISN'T. Each clock "traveled" at one second per second "through
time". The TARDIS is not so constrained (it's a fictional object).

> Thus the standard interpretation of SR, is necessarily, time travel into
> the future, in denial.

Not at all. YOU are confused by attempting to mis-apply words and use
PUNS on their meanings. "travel" does not, and CAN NOT apply to time.

Every phrase I quoted above is a PUN in your approach.
Those unacknowledged PUNS destroy your argument.

Tom Roberts

[Michael Moroney]

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:

>On 25/04/2020 14:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 3:36:23 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:


>>> you should know very well, that C is showing less time
>>> That is the famous twin paradox solved according to what SR prescribed
>>> (the three twins version).


>> Both Clock 2 and Clock 3 is justified in considering themselves at rest,

>Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest relative
>to a stationary medium, not if they are moving relative to easch other.

keith, we're discussing what happens in the real universe where according
to the first postulate the laws of physics are the same everywhere, not
Stein's make believe universe.

We know that Maxwell stated that the medium for light was not ordinary "gross"
matter, and we have since learned the aether which Maxwell believed in either
doesn't exist or is at least irrelevant (can't be detected). So obviously
there is no medium to be relative to, eh!

>If for example Clock 2 was stationary in the medium,then only Clock 2
>would be justified in considering itself at rest i think,Gary.

You think incorrectly.

>To correctly calculate what the clocks will be showing when you do
>need to know what the medium is doing,

What it is doing is not existing.

> and if you fail to consider the
>medium, you will just get into the sort of mess Einstein did eh!

Well if you make the mistake of light moving relative to a medium, then
yes you will get into a mess, but this is a mess Einstein avoided.

>> but they disagree about Clock 1's rate. This is an argument against
>> absolute time.

>> *Note that Galileo, Newton and Einstein all agree that motion is relative.


>Note too that Galileo and Newton agree that time is Universal.

That mistake is perfectly understandable. They had no examples whatsoever that
it wasn't, since they knew of nothing, other than light itself, which moved at
relativistic speeds.

>Absolute time does work for that scenario, if you do the calculations
>correctly Gary, but one would have to know what the medium was doing to
>do the sums correctly of course.


>> Absolute simultaneity is refuted by experiment.

> BULLSHIT !

No it has been refuted. You don't even need SR or GR or even motion to do so.
Consider two stars 10 light years apart from each other. Consider observers
A, B, C all located on the line between the two stars. A is closer to the
first star, B is at the midpoint, C is closer to the second star.

B sees both stars go supernova at the same time. B says the supernovae were
simultaneous. What do A and C say?

>> You aren't the king. Experimental evidence is the king.

>What exeriment "refuted simultaneity" do you think Gary?

See above.

What ecperiment confirms light moving relative to a "medium" when the "medium"
is a good laboratory vacuum or interstellar space?

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 25 April 2020 20:09:36 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On 25/04/2020 14:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 3:36:23 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:
>
>
> >>> you should know very well, that C is showing less time
> >>> That is the famous twin paradox solved according to what SR prescribed
> >>> (the three twins version).
>
>
> >> Both Clock 2 and Clock 3 is justified in considering themselves at rest,
>
> >Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest relative
> >to a stationary medium, not if they are moving relative to easch other.
>
> keith, we're discussing what happens in the real universe where according
> to the first postulate the laws of physics are the same everywhere

No, trash, sorry, you're discussing what happens
in stupid Mike's make believe universe.

[Keith Stein]

On 25/04/2020 18:50, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 10:44:50 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 25/04/2020 14:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> Both Clock 2 and Clock 3 is justified in considering themselves at rest,
>>
>> Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest relative
>> to a stationary medium,
>
> There is no stationary medium, Keith.

There is medium EVERYWHERE Gary,
FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE, Gary,
MATTER/low pressure gas EVERYWHERE
If that MATTER has no momentum in any direction,
THEN the medium is stationary, Gary

>> If for example Clock 2 was stationary in the medium,
>
> There is no stationary medium, Keith.
>

There is medium EVERYWHERE Gary,
FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE, Gary,
MATTER/low pressure gas EVERYWHERE
If that MATTER has no momentum in any direction,
THEN the medium is stationary, Gary

>> then only Clock 2
>> would be justified in considering itself at rest i think,Gary.
>
> Think, Keith, there is no stationary medium.

There is medium EVERYWHERE Gary,
FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE, Gary,
MATTER/low pressure gas EVERYWHERE
If that MATTER has no momentum in any direction,
THEN the medium is stationary, Gary


You have no hope of understanding the subject while you refuse to see
the medium. So i am going.........bye for now,

keith stein

[Dono,]

KOOKFIGHT

[Dono,]

KOOKFIGHT

[Michael Moroney]

No, Keith. There is no medium anywhere. Maxwell said ordinary matter couldn't
be the medium, he believed in the aether. Later on science discovered that
the aether was irrelevant.

Think about it, Keith. Ordinary light from the sun has an average interaction
with one atom from between the sun and the earth. How could there be a medium
when there are millions of miles between interactions?

Now think of an X-ray in intergalactic space. It may go much farther between
atoms, and with a much shorter wavelength there are many, many more wave cycles
between interactions. What "medium", Keith?

>You have no hope of understanding the subject while you refuse to see
>the medium. So i am going.........bye for now,

Run awaym Keith! Science depends on observation and evidence, not a make believe
medium.

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 12:47:44 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/25/20 9:51 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Einstein's idea does not involve "signals," Tom. In his 1905 SRT paper
> > he suggested that you have two clocks side by side, you then move one
> > at high speed and then return it. When the clocks are side by side
> > again, the clock that was moved will "lag behind" the clock that was not
> > moved, i.e, it will show less time has passed.
> >
> > The Hafele-Keating experiments demonstrated that FACT.
>
> Sure. But these do NOT show that "clocks tick at different rates".
> Rather, they show that clocks following different paths between a given
> pair of points in spacetime can show different ELAPSED PROPER TIMES
> between those endpoints.

We KNOW the clocks showed different amounts of time had passed.
Einstein's theory is that is because the clocks ticked at different rates.

The idea that they traveled different paths through spacetime is
just an ALTERNATIVE BELIEF that cannot be proven. Plus, it makes no
sense except to mathematicians.

>
> > The experiment showed that
> > time passed at a different rate for the clocks that moved and changed
> > altitudes,
>
> NO, IT DID NOT. It showed that their ELAPSED PROPER TIMES were different
> from the ELAPSED PROPER TIME of the USNO clock. DUH!
>
> You INSIST on reading more into their data than is
> actually there. That's invalid.
>

No, the data says that the moving clocks MUST HAVE run slower BECAUSE
the ACCUMULATED time was LESS. The clocks use the actions of atoms
and particles to measure time. If those actions slow down due to
motion or altitude, the clocks show that less time has passed.

It is CAUSE AND EFFECT. The speed of light is a speed limit in the
universe. A spinning particle cannot exceed that limit. If the
particle is part of an object that is moving, the spin must slow down
to stay within Nature's speed limit.

Motion CAUSES the particle to bump against the speed limit of light.
The EFFECT is that the particle spin must slow down and the clock
runs slower.

My paper on "What is Time?" is at this link:
https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf

What is the CAUSE of the difference in elapsed time according to
your beliefs? Is it because one clock moves faster than the other?
If not, how does the fact that one traveled FARTHER than the other
CAUSE time to slow?

> > What you do, Tom, is create an impossible requirement, that a moving clock
> > must be compared to a stationary clock WHILE the moving clock is moving
> > and the stationary clock is not, and then you argue that everyone is wrong
> > who does not perform your impossible experiment.
>
> Independent of whether that is impossible or not, THAT IS WHAT THE WORDS
> MEAN: "time passed at different rates for the two clocks". It is THOSE
> WORDS that are wrong, not the experiments, or how SR and GR model them.
>
> I cannot help it if all too many authors use those
> INCORRECT words. They are NOT describing how this is
> understood in modern physics, in the belief that by
> simplifying the situation to the point of misstating
> it, more people will understand it. But in doing so
> they confuse people like you.
>
> I sympathize with their attitude, because I see how
> impossible it is for YOU to understand the correct
> description. Nevertheless, THOSE WORDS ARE WRONG.
>
> I see my purpose here as describing modern physics.
> I refuse to "dumb down" anything. Others have less
> integrity.

Actually, it is DUMBING DOWN things to BELIEVE that time
passes at the same rate everywhere. That is what everyone before
Einstein believed. It is intuitive. No explanations needed.

But Einstein realized that time is related to the speed of light.
The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. But the
LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES depending upon the speed and altitude
of the emitter of the light.

People who cannot accept that, because they BELIEVE that time ticks
at the same rate everywhere and light always travels at a fixed speed,
are fitting reality to their beliefs. They are dumbing things down
so they can understand them.

Which is more complicated: (1) Time always passes at the same rate?
(2) Time passes at different rates depending upon motion and altitude?

You are dumbing things down so that YOU can understand them.

>
> > Instead of rationalizing how your BELIEFS
>
> This is not my "belief", THIS IS HOW SR AND GR MODEL THIS.
>
> SR and GR are quite clear: clocks ALWAYS tick at
> their usual rate. Anything else would violate
> local Lorentz invariance and Einstein's first
> postulate of SR.

You simply do not understand Einstein's postulates. THERE ARE
TWO OF THEM. Einstein stated that one may SEEM to conflict
with the other, but when you understand his theory, you will
see that they do NOT conflict. His theory is about how the two
postulates work together.

I explain that in great detail in my most popular paper:
"Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments."
https://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0251v3.pdf

And my paper "An Analysis of Einstein’s Second Postulate to his
Theory of Special Relativity" clarifies how the two postulates
work together. https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

You should read them. Don't be afraid. They are not as complicated
as you may think.

>
> > why don't you come up with an WORKABLE experiment which will show who
> > is right?
>
> There are LOTS of them already performed. Of course they all use SIGNALS
> to compare the tick rates of clocks in relative motion, or to compare
> the tick rates of clocks at different altitudes in earth's gravitational
> field. We can, of course, calculate the effect on those signals, and
> correct the data for it -- the result is that the clocks THEMSELVES tick
> at the same rate. EVERY TIME.
>
> I repeat: comparing tick rates is DIFFERENT from comparing
> elapsed proper times.

If two people interpret the same experiment differently, then the
chore becomes to find an experiment that shows who is right and who
is wrong.

My list of time dilation experiments which show that time ticks at
different rates is at this link:
http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Ed

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/25/20 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> [...]The Hafele-Keating experiment

>
> We KNOW the clocks showed different amounts of time had passed.

Yes.

> Einstein's theory is that is because the clocks ticked at different rates.

NO! You CLEARLY do not understand Einstein's theory. You keep making
stuff up and pretending it is true.

I repeat: if they "ticked at different rates" that would
violate Einstein's first postulate. The fact that you
are unable to see this shows that you do not understand
the theory at all.

> The idea that they traveled different paths through spacetime is
> just an ALTERNATIVE BELIEF that cannot be proven.

It is much more than "belief", it _IS_ how relativity models this.
There's no problem here, because NOTHING in physics can be proven --
proof is a MATHEMATICAL concept inapplicable to the world we inhabit.

[You have demonstrated many times that you are completely
and utterly unable to understand SR. So unless you come
up with something new, I won't bother to continue.]

Tom Roberts

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 12:44:26 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 25/04/2020 18:50, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 10:44:50 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest
> > > relative to a stationary medium,
> >
> > There is no stationary medium, Keith.
>
> There is medium EVERYWHERE Gary,

You keep asserting that without reason.

> FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE, Gary,

Virtually zero everywhere.

> MATTER/low pressure gas EVERYWHERE

Too far apart for any rational person to accept as a medium.

> If that MATTER has no momentum in any direction,
> THEN the medium is stationary, Gary

Which has no bearing on light propagation.

> >> If for example Clock 2 was stationary in the medium,
> >
> > There is no stationary medium, Keith.
> >
> There is medium EVERYWHERE Gary,
> FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE, Gary,
> MATTER/low pressure gas EVERYWHERE
> If that MATTER has no momentum in any direction,
> THEN the medium is stationary, Gary

Repeating falsehood

> >> then only Clock 2
> >> would be justified in considering itself at rest i think,Gary.
> >
> > Think, Keith, there is no stationary medium.
>
> There is medium EVERYWHERE Gary,
> FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE, Gary,
> MATTER/low pressure gas EVERYWHERE
> If that MATTER has no momentum in any direction,
> THEN the medium is stationary, Gary

Repeating hogwash doesn't make it true.

> You have no hope of understanding the subject while you refuse to see
> the medium. So i am going.........bye for now,
>
> keith stein

You have no hope of understanding that particles widely spaced cannot
rationally be considered a medium.

[beda pietanza]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 9:24:07 PM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On 25/04/2020 18:50, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> >> Think, Keith, there is no stationary medium.
>
> >There is medium EVERYWHERE Gary,
> >FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE, Gary,
> >MATTER/low pressure gas EVERYWHERE
> >If that MATTER has no momentum in any direction,
> >THEN the medium is stationary, Gary
>
> No, Keith. There is no medium anywhere. Maxwell said ordinary matter couldn't
> be the medium, he believed in the aether. Later on science discovered that
> the aether was irrelevant.

You should say that SR is arranged in such a way to do without the ether and without the absolute speeds, but they are there and your SR and GR are fully explained by the immanent presence of the ether and of the absolute speeds of the objects versus the local ether: just like light is moving versus the local ether.

denying the ether and the absolutes you deny the hidden but essential function those fundamental concepts have, not only in the work of your theory

All the essence of the reality has in the absoluteness the possibility of the relative interaction amongst objects that you correctly call relative-

That is a serious metaphysical error, and you bring that error in your physics theory, with serious consequences.

cheers
beda

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 25 April 2020 23:48:43 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> It is much more than "belief", it _IS_ how relativity models this.
> There's no problem here, because NOTHING in physics can be proven --
> proof is a MATHEMATICAL concept inapplicable to the world we inhabit.

Sure! Mathamatics was always inapplicable in the world we
inhabit. Particularly its oldest part, Euclidean, which
is in conflict with the Holy Postulates of our beloved
Giant Guru.

[Keith Stein]

On 25/04/2020 20:24, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:

>> There is medium EVERYWHERE Gary,
>> FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE, Gary,
>> MATTER/low pressure gas EVERYWHERE
>> If that MATTER has no momentum in any direction,
>> THEN the medium is stationary, Gary
>
> No, Keith. There is no medium anywhere. Maxwell said ordinary matter couldn't
> be the medium, he believed in the aether. Later on science discovered that
> the aether was irrelevant.

Indeed it was Maxwell himself discovered that the "aether" was
irrelevant, which is why he does not mention it once in his Magnus Opus
"A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", the final chapter of which he
calls "A MEDIUM NECESSARY",

> Think about it, Keith. Ordinary light from the sun has an average interaction

> one atom from between the sun and the earth. How could there be a medium
> when there are millions of miles between interactions?

And how many interactions does it have as it passes through the Earth's
atmosphere Michael ? Air, which was Maxwell's primary example of a
medium, slows light, but it does not do so by means of photons colliding
with atoms Michael. Obviously not or it would not travel in straight lines.

> Now think of an X-ray in intergalactic space. It may go much farther between
> atoms, and with a much shorter wavelength there are many, many more wave cycles
> between interactions. What "medium", Keith?

It is mostly hydrogen Michael, and it does not require photona to
collide with hydrogen atoms for the hydrogen to slow the light, any more
than the air does, of course,

>> You have no hope of understanding the subject while you refuse to see
>> the medium. So i am going.........bye for now,
>
> Run awaym Keith! Science depends on observation and evidence, not a make believe
> medium.

"A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Maxwell.

[Keith Stein]

While You Gary, CAN NOT SEE the wood(/gas/medium) for the trees(/gas
molecules).

[Kevin Aylward]

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message

news:X9GdneEdwICA5DnD...@giganews.com...

>On 4/25/20 6:08 AM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
>> news:pOednfNNwswWgT7D...@giganews.com...
>>> This is NOT comparing clock tick rates, it is comparing elapsed proper
>>> times. That is a DIFFERENT physical situation, with a DIFFERENT
>>> explanation.
>
>> Bottom line: when you compare the elapsed proper times of two clocks and
>> find they are different, you CANNOT conclude "they tick at
>>> different rates". You can only conclude their elapsed proper times are
>>> different (DUH!). For such a difference to arise, in relativity it is
>>> required that the clocks follow different paths through spacetime (both
>>> your examples do), and those paths must have different path lengths
>>> (both your examples do).
>
>> Sure....
>
>> ...and because those paths are time-like one can simply drop the "space"
>> part of "space-time" and write "that the clocks follow different paths
>> through time".

>Not really. "path through time" has no meaning. Or speaking VERY

_.-._
(_-.-_)
.\-/.
__/ /-. \__
( (___/___) )
'.Oo___oO.'


Sure it does it does. I just gave it its most natural meaning, that is
entirely consistent with the claims attributed to "space-time". The fact
that you have not been acquainted with that meaning is not a refutation as
to that meaning. You have now been taught something new.

Either space-time is a generalisation of space and time as being,
essentially, equivalent as claimed by pretty much any academic source on
Relativity, or it isn't. Its something entirety different such that time
and space cannot be combined in a manner that treats them on somewhat of an
equal footing.

"Path through time" is entirely consistent with physical reality, the
mathematical descriptions of SR, and as demonstrated correct by
experiments.

Indeed, your own persistent claims that "objects take paths in space-time"
when you explain how clock don't slow down is what is actually meaningless
if it is denied that "path through time" has no meaning.

You can't have it both ways.

One has a path or one doesn't. Its truly that simple.

>loosely, we know there is a requirement of "traveling through time" at the
>rate of one second per second -- no other "path" is possible.

Nonsense. If there is only one path though time, the clocks couldn't read
different.

> Which of course, is identically equivalent to time travel into the future,
> as per the TARDIS.

>But it ISN'T. Each clock "traveled" at one second per second "through
>time". The TARDIS is not so constrained (it's a fictional object).

Sure, the TARDIS is fictional, that's why may professionals don't like the
idea that what they claim for SR, is entirely equivalent to fictional
descriptions.

It rubs them the wrong way.

If the clock don't travel at a rate greater than 1 sec/sec with respect to
another observer's clock, than it is simply impossible to claim that the
clock "reads different because it travels a longer path". There is only one
rational way to *physically* interpret the mathematics, according to the
space-time model.

The clock reads different. There are only two way that can happen,
physically. Either the clock ticks different, or it takes a different path
in *time*.

You are engaging in word salad. You are claiming that "Clocks take a
different path in space-time to account for the different readings, except
when they don't".

Its ludicrous. Truly nonsensical denial to claim that "a clock takes a
different path in space-time" but that does not also mean "a clock takes a
different path in time".

Clocks don't change readings because they change their space position
(co-ordinate). They change readings when they change their time position
(co-ordinate). That's how co-ordinate system models work. The "space" bit of
"space-time" is quite irrelevant when considering *time* changes. Its truly
that simple.

Despite your clear considerable expertise in Relativity, which I do
acknowledge, you have clearly missed the boat on this one. This is very
unfortunate.

You seem to have missed that space-time co-ordinates represent real
positions in space & time. Moving along the space axis represents a real
physical movement in space, moving along the time axis represents a real
physical movement in time. It can't be any other way. That what maths does.
Models the physical reality.

Sure, it may be that mathematical models may not actually be on a one to
one map to reality, they might truly be just a behavioural model. However,
in this case, it is well accepted that the mathematical space co-ordinate
truly *do* represents real space as perceived, for example, traveling from
LA to NY by different routes. Thus one cannot just deny that that doesn't
equally apply to the time co-ordinate.

Unfortunately, its clear that not only you, but the mainstream have just
haven't cottoned on the inescapable physical interpretation that the concept
of "space-time" must result in, hence, the tooth and nails, claw dragging
denials.

> Thus the standard interpretation of SR, is necessarily, time travel into
> the future, in denial.

>Not at all. YOU are confused by attempting to mis-apply words and use PUNS
>on their meanings. "travel" does not, and CAN NOT apply to time.

Of course it can. There is no misapplication of words whatsoever. What is
your actual *argument* that it cannot apply to time?

In principle, I can arbitrarily engage in any velocity profile I desire, and
hence as a twin, travel to any point in the future of my twin brother and
his universe, whilst, essentially, staying the same age. Everything in the
universe has moved on, yet I can be at any point of my own age status.

That is time travel, by DEFINITION. Period. End of. No iffs or butts. That
is what time travel means.

Time is simply the current state of all the objects in the universe. My
state relative to the universes state can be arbitrarily varied, thus its
time travel.

Your discomfort on this is quite irrelevant to the facts, nor is your simple
denial.

You have made it quite clear in previous posts that the explanation for
different readings on clocks is entirely analogous to odometers reading
different. If this is not true, then there is no explanation at all. Its
simple the mathematics says this, with no physical reason whatsoever. That
is, word salad.

It is clearly nonsensical to claim that the there is this generalised entity
called "space-time" that one can use use for regular "space" arguments to
describe odometers readings, but one is not allowed to use them for time
arguments. Indeed, more so when the argument leads to the correct
conclusions.

In what specific way do you claim that the final experimental results
disagree with the the argument that the SR space-time model is time travel?

Indeed, the classic 1 meter pole being able to drop through a 0.5 meter hole
is explainable simply by noting that the front and back of the pole are at
different points in time, in contrast to this grandiose highbrow "relativity
of simultaneity", which obfuscates the physical reality.

If events don't happen at the same time in all frames, that necessarily ,
physically means, for example, the the front ant back of the rod are at
different points in time with respect to different observers.

There is no other rational way that this isn't the case. That is what
co-ordinates mean. They describe physical events in space & time.

Events at different co-ordinates tell one what physically happens at
different points in space, and at different points in time. The mathematics
tell us that events at a point in time, change dependant on the velocity
profile. This necessarily has the physical interpretation that events can
move through time at different rates with respect to other observers.

This is so trivially obvious that it is truly stunning how anyone that
correctly understands the relation of co-ordinate systems to reality, can
rationally deny it.

It means that paths though time, relative to other observers, can vary,
just as paths through space can vary.

The issue is truly denial for political reasons.

>Every phrase I quoted above is a PUN in your approach.
>Those unacknowledged PUNS destroy your argument.

Clearly they don't.

PUNS are not an argument. They are an attempt to refute by ridicule, not
facts.

You have presented no actual argument why the replacement of words of space
for time is invalid, over than simple denial. You don't have an actual
argument, other than it doesn't sit comfortably within your worldview. Hint:
its embarrassing to admit that the SR space-time model means the TARDIS
model.

You have presented no argument that contradicts that co-ordinates describe
real physical events happening at those co-ordinates, and that such change
of co-ordinates mean movements in what they model.

Please present an actual argument that I can not, in principle, arbitrarily
position my state with that of the universe such that it is entirely
consistent with the well understood notion of time travel into the future.

I do note, that over the years Tom, you have spent considerable time and
effort producing extensive treatises refuting the usual "Einstein was wrong"
brigade, yet you seem quite unable to produce even a simple *argument* that
even remotely refutes "SR, as modelled by space-time, is time travel".

Unfortunately, you just can't seem to get to grips with the fact that a
time co-ordinate change, necessarily means physical movement in time, just
as a space co-ordinate change is movement in space.

It would seem that you just haven't looked at the problem from this angle
before and are now unwilling to acknowledge that you simply missed
something, which is pretty obvious, with hindsight.

Whether the space-time model is a correct physical description, is another
matter...

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 26 April 2020 12:49:04 UTC+2, Kevin Aylward wrote:

> The clock reads different.

In the dreams of your idiot guru. In the real GPS
they don't. Face it.

[Kevin Aylward]

>"Tom Roberts" wrote in message

>news:3didnWQsz5CoLTnD...@giganews.com...

>> The idea that they traveled different paths through spacetime is
>> just an ALTERNATIVE BELIEF that cannot be proven.

Yes.

>It is much more than "belief",

No. It isn't.

>it _IS_ how relativity models this.

Sure, but that don't make it more than a belief. SR models time by
calculating a line integral... However, that is indeed all it is. Its just a
model with no pretence as to how or why it is as it is.

Another model is LET. It achieve exactly the same results, and thus is
impossible to refute if the SR model is correct.

One can even dispense with the LET axiom of light "is a disturbance in a
medium". One can simply claim that there is some sort of physical background
field that objects interact with in a manner consistent with the LT. Indeed,
arguably, QFT with its "particles are an excitation in the field" is just an
aether theory in denial.

To quote Einstein:

"The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As
such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this
theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."

That is, physical hypothesis (mechanisms) are ignored from the outset, so
makes no statement as to what those processes might be. Einstein is directly
declaring here explicitly, that he not not going to offer an explanation,
for example, a hypothesis as to why "sources could immediately find a
common speed". He just takes it as a fact.

Unfortunately, many take this to mean that there isn't a reason why, for
example, objects age at different rates relative to other observers,
depending on their velocity profiles. The claim is that, that's just how
space an time works, which is just word salad.

One could apply the same argument to inertia. One can write F=d(p)/dt and
completely ignore why or how inertia actually exists, but that clearly
doesn't imply that there isn't a mechanism.

So...SR is just a pure behavioural model. It doesn't "understand" what time
is. It just takes a clock tick definition. What time is though, actually
matters, in understanding why clocks read different when undergoing
different velocity profiles, which is the route to all the debates on SR in
this NG.

What time is, is trivially obvious, qualitatively. A point in time, is the
current state of all the positions and momentums of all the objects in the
universe, from quarks to stars. If any object changes position or momentum,
time has changed.

Aging of an object, is the change of position and momentums of all the
individual objects constructing that object. Aging is a real physical
process. Objects change their position based on physical principles.
Space-time co-ordinates cannot explain why or how objects physically change
their positions and momentums differently.

Now... taking, say a twin on a round trip has one twin aged more than
another. The space-time model model must hold that this is due to
experiencing more space-time, that is, more time. That is, objects travel
into the future. This makes sense from a TARDIS viewpoint. One intuitively
understands how Dr. Who hasn't aged when he get 100 years into the future.
Professional Special Relativists though are not happy with this logical
conclusion. It makes them sound crazy...so they get into this state of
denial about what SR actually means....They, essentially, just deny the
issue exists. "You just don't understand that no explanation is required,
time just does that, but its not time travel".

Indeed even stating "more space-time" rather than "a longer path in
space-time", let alone "more time" is enough to raise the hairs on the backs
of a Special Relativist. Possibly because it exposes the cracks in that
particular space-time continuum.

An alterative is that there is a real physical background field that objects
interact with, and that interaction results in the LT, and that the "laws of
physics are independent of inertial systems" is only an illusion. It only
seems that way from one perspective. From another perspective, the laws are
not the same and the result is that, for example, objects age differently
depending on their velocity profiles. So, arguably, the experimentally
fact that clocks read different, is evidence in support of the view that the
laws of physics are not independent of velocity. That is, if they were,
they wouldn't read different. Others disagree with that viewpoint.

>There's no problem here, because NOTHING in physics can be proven --
>proof is a MATHEMATICAL concept inapplicable to the world we inhabit.

Yes.

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 4:48:43 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/25/20 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > [...]The Hafele-Keating experiment
> >
> > We KNOW the clocks showed different amounts of time had passed.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Einstein's theory is that is because the clocks ticked at different rates.
>
> NO! You CLEARLY do not understand Einstein's theory. You keep making
> stuff up and pretending it is true.
>
> I repeat: if they "ticked at different rates" that would
> violate Einstein's first postulate. The fact that you
> are unable to see this shows that you do not understand
> the theory at all.

What YOU are demonstrating is that YOU do not understand Einstein's
Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein's paper EXPLAINS why the
Second Postulate is "only apparently irreconcilable with" the
First Postulate.

The Second Postulate says "that light is always propagated in empty
space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state
of motion of the emitting body." In other words, no matter how fast
an emitter is moving, the emitter still emits light at c.

That APPEARS to violate the First Postulate because the First Postulate
says, "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

In other words, if light travels at c in a "stationary laboratory" AND
in a moving laboratory, it should be a MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE WITHIN those
two laboratories. Each should measure a DIFFERENT SPEED OF LIGHT.
HOWEVER, NO difference is measured. Why? Because TIME ticks at a
different rate in those two labs. And the speed of light is measured
as 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND in both labs. If the LENGTH OF A
SECOND is different, "the equations of mechanics hold good," and the
laws are the same, but YOU CAN ONLY SEE THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU CAN
LOOK FROM ONE LABORATORY INTO THE OTHER.

It's really very simple and straight-forward. I don't see why you
cannot understand it.

>
> > The idea that they traveled different paths through spacetime is
> > just an ALTERNATIVE BELIEF that cannot be proven.
>
> It is much more than "belief", it _IS_ how relativity models this.
> There's no problem here, because NOTHING in physics can be proven --
> proof is a MATHEMATICAL concept inapplicable to the world we inhabit.

Wow! That is JUST PLAIN CRAZY! But, interestingly, two days ago,
I watched CalTech physics professor Sean Carroll say basically the
same thing on a video version of a podcast:
http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/sean-carroll-3

At about the 54 minute mark, host Joe Rogan asks why so many people
seem to dispute Quantum Mechanics ideas, and Prof. Carroll replies,
"We use Quantum Mechanics but we do not try very hard to understand it.
You can talk to physicists on the street and they will tell you that
understanding reality is not their job." Moments later he says,
"Because they don't care about these questions, they will often be sloppy
in answering." Then he says, "Even if you are a super-duper expert at
solving the equations and making predictions, understanding what is going
on is a whole nother activity that a lot of physicists do not try very
hard to do."

What he seems to be saying is that those physicists believe their job
is to compute the equations, and if the equations do not fit reality,
that's not their concern. They just modify their equations to fit
what they believe.

Isn't that the same thing as "NOTHING in physics can be proven -- [because]

proof is a MATHEMATICAL concept inapplicable to the world we inhabit."

I think Quantum Mechanics should be renamed "Myth Math."

Ed
https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake

[Dono,]

On Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 9:17:27 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:

> I think Quantum Mechanics should be renamed "Myth Math."
>

Dumbestfuck,

The reason that idiots like you can post on the internet IS QM. Without QM, transistors would not exist. Without transistors computers, routers, etc. would not exist.

[beda pietanza]

Dear Ed Lake,
I see what you are trying to say, but you don't have the full picture of what happens, so you are likely to succumb even though you feel on the right side.
I just opened a thread on this, please read it, is not so easy to get it correctly at first glance, so please spend some time thinking over the whole picture and if possible do some little calculations or drawings.
When you have the full picture of what happen you will be much more effective in debating being on the sunny side of the street.

please, don't take it as an offense,
let me know
beda

[Michael Moroney]

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:

>On 25/04/2020 20:24, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:

>>> There is medium EVERYWHERE Gary,
>>> FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE, Gary,
>>> MATTER/low pressure gas EVERYWHERE
>>> If that MATTER has no momentum in any direction,
>>> THEN the medium is stationary, Gary
>>
>> No, Keith. There is no medium anywhere. Maxwell said ordinary matter couldn't
>> be the medium, he believed in the aether. Later on science discovered that
>> the aether was irrelevant.

>Indeed it was Maxwell himself discovered that the "aether" was
>irrelevant, which is why he does not mention it once in his Magnus Opus

Nope. He explicitly stated that the medium for light was not ordinary matter
but the aether.

>"A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", the final chapter of which he
>calls "A MEDIUM NECESSARY",

It's a mystery what he meant by that. Nobody knows.

>> Think about it, Keith. Ordinary light from the sun has an average interaction
>> one atom from between the sun and the earth. How could there be a medium
>> when there are millions of miles between interactions?

>And how many interactions does it have as it passes through the Earth's
>atmosphere Michael ?

Who cares? The point is that no medium is necessary for light to reach us from
the sun, over the distance between the sun's atmosphere and the earth's
atmosphere. If the earth-sun distance is 93 million miles, let's call it 90
million miles with an average of 1 interaction.

> Air, which was Maxwell's primary example of a
>medium,

Except when he said the aether was the medium, of course.

> slows light, but it does not do so by means of photons colliding
>with atoms Michael. Obviously not or it would not travel in straight lines.

Show me with the modern physics of optics.

>> Now think of an X-ray in intergalactic space. It may go much farther between
>> atoms, and with a much shorter wavelength there are many, many more wave cycles
>> between interactions. What "medium", Keith?

>It is mostly hydrogen Michael,

What hydrogen? In intergalactic space, it may go a light year or more between
encounters. Given how short the wavelength of an X-ray is, how could you not
say that that is, as far as the X-ray is concerned, a perfect vacuum.

> and it does not require photona to
>collide with hydrogen atoms for the hydrogen to slow the light, any more
>than the air does, of course,

Of course the difference between the speed of light in a lab vacuum (or
interplanetary space) and a theoretical perfect vacuum is not even measurable.
So what "slowing"?

> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Maxwell.

I wonder what he really meant by that, an obscure chapter title not discussed
in the chapter. I guess we'll never know....

[Keith Stein]

On 28/04/2020 02:08, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 25/04/2020 20:24, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> There is medium EVERYWHERE Gary,
>>>> FINITE DENSITY EVERYWHERE, Gary,
>>>> MATTER/low pressure gas EVERYWHERE
>>>> If that MATTER has no momentum in any direction,
>>>> THEN the medium is stationary, Gary

>>> No, Keith. There is no medium anywhere. Maxwell said ordinary
matter couldn't
>>> be the medium, he believed in the aether. Later on science
discovered that
>>> the aether was irrelevant.

>> Indeed it was Maxwell himself discovered that the "aether" was
>> irrelevant, which is why he does not mention it once in his Magnus Opus

> Nope. He explicitly stated that the medium for light was not ordinary
matter
> but the aether.

You have clearly never read Maxwell's Magnus Opus Michael. It is called
"A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" and if you had read it you
would know that he mentions neither "aether" nor "ether". He does
stresss the importance of the "medium", and he gives just two examples
of what he means by a "medium". One is "air" the other is "paraffin wax".

>> "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", the final chapter of which he
>> calls "A MEDIUM NECESSARY",
>
> It's a mystery what he meant by that. Nobody knows.

Funny 'cos i know very well what Maxwell meant Michael.

What Maxwell meant by "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Michael, was that without a
medium his electromagnetic theory makes no sense, because the speed of
the electromagnetic waves which Maxwell derives is a speed relative to
the medium.

>>> Think about it, Keith. Ordinary light from the sun has an average
interaction
>>> one atom from between the sun and the earth. How could there be a
medium
>>> when there are millions of miles between interactions?
>
>> And how many interactions does it have as it passes through the Earth's
>> atmosphere Michael ?

> Who cares?

Think about it< Michael. By an "interaction" you mean an "absorption" or
"deflection" of a photon, and if the air in the room you are now in were
to be absorbing of deflecting the light as it traveled across the room
then you would not be able see to the far side the room, and yet the air
in the room IS what determines the velocity of light in the room eh!

The point is that no medium is necessary for light to reach us from
> the sun, over the distance between the sun's atmosphere and the earth's
> atmosphere.

You are wrong Michael. This is what Maxwell meant by

" A MEDIUM NECESSARY "

> If the earth-sun distance is 93 million miles, let's call it 90
> million miles with an average of 1 interaction.

How many interactions in the 40 cms the light travels from your
computer screen to your eye Michael ?

>> Air, which was Maxwell's primary example of a
>> medium,

> Except when he said the aether was the medium, of course.

Not in his Magnus Opus he didn't. Although he certainly
does mention "air" e.g. "..where the medium is air..."

>> slows light, but it does not do so by means of photons colliding
>> with atoms Michael. Obviously not or it would not travel in straight
lines.
>
> Show me with the modern physics of optics.
>
>>> Now think of an X-ray in intergalactic space. It may go much
farther between
>>> atoms, and with a much shorter wavelength there are many, many more
wave cycles
>>> between interactions. What "medium", Keith?
>
>> It is mostly hydrogen Michael,
>
> What hydrogen? In intergalactic space, it may go a light year or more
between
> encounters. Given how short the wavelength of an X-ray is, how could
you not
> say that that is, as far as the X-ray is concerned, a perfect vacuum.

Like all relativists, you can't see the wood for the trees Michael.

>> and it does not require photona to
>> collide with hydrogen atoms for the hydrogen to slow the light, any more
>> than the air does, of course,
>
> Of course the difference between the speed of light in a lab vacuum (or
> interplanetary space) and a theoretical perfect vacuum is not even
measurable.
> So what "slowing"?
>
>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" Maxwell.
>
> I wonder what he really meant by that, an obscure chapter title not
discussed
> in the chapter. I guess we'll never know....

What Maxwell meant by " A MEDIUM NECESSARY " Michael was:

A MEDIUM [is] NECESSARY


keith stein

[Kevin Aylward]

>"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
>news:90b92ed8-0ce1-48ff...@googlegroups.com...

>On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 10:44:50 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 25/04/2020 14:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Both Clock 2 and Clock 3 is justified in considering themselves at rest,
>
>> Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest relative
>> to a stationary medium,

>There is no stationary medium, Keith.

Well... even Einstein never claimed that. He actually stated :

"The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous in
as much as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely
stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a
velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place. "

and indeed SR gives a precise reason as why an aether, or otherwise
background frame, could exist yet still not be detectable my detecting
motion through it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

No mathematical theory requires a physical process. F=d(mv)/dt doesnt care
whether there is cause for inertia, but that doesn't imply that there
isn't. Its just not a question any mathematical behavioural model addresses,
by design. Indeed:

Einstein specifically stated:

"The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As
such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this
theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."

Its pretty much a matter of taste as to whether one takes the SR model or
the LET model, or an equivalent model to LET, that does not even have light
as a disturbance in it, or even that it is stationary, probably.

One only has to appreciate that QFE, with its "particles are an excitation
in the a field " model that many mainstreamers are, apparently, heading to
the same "disturbance in a medium" models.

Royal Institution Lecture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg 19:30 "... the ripples of the
electron fluid....are what we call particles"

Ahmmmm.....

> then only Clock 2
> would be justified in considering itself at rest i think,Gary.

>Think, Keith, there is no stationary medium.

Ahmmm.....

>> To correctly calculate what the clocks will be showing when you do
>> need to know what the medium is doing, and if you fail to consider the
>> medium, you will just get into the sort of mess Einstein did eh!

>If you assume a medium when there is no evidence of one, you get yourself
>into the mess that you ARE in.

That depends on ones definition of "evidence for".

One of the claims of LET is that clocks taken on round trips will read less
elapsed time from the one that stayed put, because of an interaction between
the aether and the clock. Thus, such known experiments are evidence in
support of LET. Furthermore, the LET model existed as a correct description
for these observations, prior to the SR model.

SR doesn't have a physical explanation at all, that is, for example,
something that resolves, essentially, to exchange of momentum. It has two
axioms and chucks out results from a mathematical, behavioural model. It
works, but so does LET, which does have a physical model.

The SR model itself, is actually a model that many deny its logical physical
consequences to. That is...

Odometers measure space travelled

Odometers measure how much space has been covered from LA to NY. If an
odometer always reads distance correctly, if it reads different from another
one one going from LA to NY, it must have covered more space. That is it
took a different route.

Clocks measure time travelled.

To be clear, clocks only measure time, not "space-time".

Before SR/LET there was only one way to travel from Monday to Friday. Not
anymore, apparently...

Thus, clocks measure how much time has been covered from getting from Monday
to Friday. If a clock always reads correctly, that is ticks at the same
rate, if it reads different than another clock it must because it covered
more time.

This is an inescapable deduction from the path integral formulation of
"space-time", a "longer path in space-time path" intrinsically means "a
longer time path". Clocks have no idea of what space-time is, they just read
"time".

Thus, SR necessarily results in the Dr. Who and his TARDIS scenery as an
explanation as to how clocks that always tick the same rate, but read
different when compared with another clock, also ticking at the same rate.

Dr. Who jaunts off in his TARDIS, heading into the future at say, 100 sec/s,
and gets to meet a 40 year old how was only 20 year old when he set off.
That is, his clock and his age, just mosses on merrily as usual, but he
covers more time then that of another observer.

Which is where the problem arises. It makes professional relativists sound a
tad crazy. Its why they use use such as "closed time-like curves" in GR as
a euphuism for "time travel into the past" which would really make them
sound demented...

So... the SR model produces a TARDIS, with its difficulty in physically
explaining how velocity profiles allow for different time paths, whilst the
LET model has interactions with a background field that effects physical
aging processes by physical means, and only has the illusion of invariant c.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 28 April 2020 21:33:18 UTC+2, Kevin Aylward wrote:

> Einstein specifically stated:

Sorry, samely as most other fanatic idiots
einsteinians only care what their idiot guru
said - when they like too.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 1:33:18 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> > "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> > news:90b92ed8-0ce1-48ff...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 10:44:50 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest
> > > relative to a stationary medium,
> >
> > There is no stationary medium, Keith.
>
> Well... even Einstein never claimed that. He actually stated :
>
> "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous
> in as much as the view here to be developed will not require an
> "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor
> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
> electromagnetic processes take place. "
>
> and indeed SR gives a precise reason as why an aether, or otherwise
> background frame, could exist yet still not be detectable my detecting
> motion through it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

The fact Fitzgerald and Lorentz came up with the correct equation by
puzzling over the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment makes the
Lorentz transform empirically-derived. Lorentz initially didn't have
time dilation in it, that being suggested by Poincare, IIRC.

The interpretation of the LT was cast in such a way to fit the ether
theory; hence, it was presumed that the process of moving through a
stationary ether was responsible for length contraction and time
dilation. That the earth is moving through the presumed stationary
ether was a BIG problem with that, so other Ptolemaic epicycles were
hypothesized, like the ether was "sticky" and was carried along with
the earth. That was refuted by aberration of starlight. No experiment
confirmed the existence of the ether, leading Einstein to write:

"the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the
ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility."

http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

> No mathematical theory requires a physical process. F=d(mv)/dt
> doesnt care whether there is cause for inertia, but that doesn't
> imply that there isn't. Its just not a question any mathematical
> behavioural model addresses, by design. Indeed:
>
> Einstein specifically stated:
>
> "The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...
> As such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements
> of this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."
>
> Its pretty much a matter of taste as to whether one takes the SR model
> or the LET model, or an equivalent model to LET, that does not even
> have light as a disturbance in it, or even that it is stationary,
> probably.

The problem with the LET model is that it's only a kinematic theory.
As such, it's a dead end. It's a matter of taste if 90% of your
taste buds are dead.

> One only has to appreciate that QFE, with its "particles are an
> excitation in the a field " model that many mainstreamers are,
> apparently, heading to the same "disturbance in a medium" models.
>
> Royal Institution Lecture:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg 19:30 "... the ripples of the
> electron fluid....are what we call particles"
>
> Ahmmmm.....
>
> > > then only Clock 2
> > > would be justified in considering itself at rest i think,Gary.
>
> > Think, Keith, there is no stationary medium.
>
> Ahmmm.....

Einstein derived the LT from postulates that can be tested. None of
the postulated assumed the existence of a medium.

> > > To correctly calculate what the clocks will be showing when you do
> > > need to know what the medium is doing, and if you fail to consider the
> > > medium, you will just get into the sort of mess Einstein did eh!
>
> > If you assume a medium when there is no evidence of one, you get
> > yourself into the mess that you ARE in.
>
> That depends on ones definition of "evidence for".
>
> One of the claims of LET is that clocks taken on round trips will read
> less elapsed time from the one that stayed put, because of an interaction
> between the aether and the clock. Thus, such known experiments are
> evidence in support of LET.

They're also in support of SR, in which an ether has no measurable effect.

> Furthermore, the LET model existed as a correct description
> for these observations, prior to the SR model.

Of course, because the used the same equations.

> SR doesn't have a physical explanation at all, that is,

Of course it does. One physical explanation for the LT is that the
speed of light is invariant. THAT is experimentally verified.

> for example, something that resolves, essentially, to exchange of
> momentum. It has two axioms

Actually, four. Einstein mentions the other two in his text.

> and chucks out results from a mathematical, behavioural model.

One of the other presumptions is that space is uniform and homogeneous.
Consequently, the generic transform is

x' = G*x + H*t
t' = A*t + B*x

and motion in a given frame is x = x0 + v*t. Add the first postulate,
or the part that says a sailor on a moving ship can consider himself
at rest and can claim that the dock is moving away from the ship.

Those three axioms are common to both the Galilean transform and the
LT. Add one more, t' = t, and you get the GT; or put in invariant c
and you get the LT.

> It works, but so does LET, which does have a physical model.

By postulating an unphysical ether.

> The SR model itself, is actually a model that many deny its logical
> physical consequences to. That is...
>
> Odometers measure space travelled
>
> Odometers measure how much space has been covered from LA to NY. If an
> odometer always reads distance correctly, if it reads different from
> another one one going from LA to NY, it must have covered more space.
> That is it took a different route.
>
> Clocks measure time travelled.
>
> To be clear, clocks only measure time, not "space-time".
>
> Before SR/LET there was only one way to travel from Monday to Friday. Not
> anymore, apparently...
>
> Thus, clocks measure how much time has been covered from getting from
> Monday to Friday. If a clock always reads correctly, that is ticks at
> the same rate, if it reads different than another clock it must because
> it covered more time.
>
> This is an inescapable deduction from the path integral formulation of
> "space-time", a "longer path in space-time path" intrinsically means "a
> longer time path". Clocks have no idea of what space-time is, they just
> read "time".

It's called "proper time."

> Thus, SR necessarily results in the Dr. Who and his TARDIS scenery as
> an explanation as to how clocks that always tick the same rate, but
> read different when compared with another clock, also ticking at the
> same rate.
>
> Dr. Who jaunts off in his TARDIS, heading into the future at say, 100
> sec/s, and gets to meet a 40 year old how was only 20 year old when he
> set off. That is, his clock and his age, just mosses on merrily as
> usual, but he covers more time then that of another observer.
>
> Which is where the problem arises. It makes professional relativists
> sound a tad crazy.

But experimentally verified. A crazy person is one who denies reality.

> Its why they use use such as "closed time-like curves" in GR as
> a euphuism for "time travel into the past" which would really make them
> sound demented...

So your appeal to the TARDIS is ... demented? :-)

> So... the SR model produces a TARDIS, with its difficulty in physically
> explaining how velocity profiles allow for different time paths, whilst
> the LET model has interactions with a background field that effects
> physical aging processes by physical means, and only has the illusion
> of invariant c.

You have to choose your reality. You appear to choose one that has an
immeasurable ether. I choose an invariant c, not an illusion of one.

[Ned Latham]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

----snip----

> The fact Fitzgerald and Lorentz came up with the correct equation
> by puzzling over the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment
> makes the Lorentz transform empirically-derived.

No. It makes the *math* of the Lorentz transform empirically derived.

Gamma() is empirical. The Lorentz transform is conjecture.

----snip----

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 8:33:15 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > The fact Fitzgerald and Lorentz came up with the correct equation
> > by puzzling over the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment
> > makes the Lorentz transform empirically-derived.
>
> No. It makes the *math* of the Lorentz transform empirically derived.

The LT is math.

> Gamma() is empirical.

Not in the SR version. It is derived mathematically as a result of the
2nd postulate.

> The Lorentz transform is conjecture.

Not in the SR version.

[beda pietanza]

beda
ether is not detectable, that doesn't mean that it doesn't make light speed be c: nothing is there to do so, whatever the ether is, is what make light move at c versus local space, yourself without the ether properties would evaporate.

>
> > The SR model itself, is actually a model that many deny its logical
> > physical consequences to. That is...
> >
> > Odometers measure space travelled
> >
> > Odometers measure how much space has been covered from LA to NY. If an
> > odometer always reads distance correctly, if it reads different from
> > another one one going from LA to NY, it must have covered more space.
> > That is it took a different route.
> >
> > Clocks measure time travelled.
> >
> > To be clear, clocks only measure time, not "space-time".
> >
> > Before SR/LET there was only one way to travel from Monday to Friday. Not
> > anymore, apparently...
> >
> > Thus, clocks measure how much time has been covered from getting from
> > Monday to Friday. If a clock always reads correctly, that is ticks at
> > the same rate, if it reads different than another clock it must because
> > it covered more time.
> >
> > This is an inescapable deduction from the path integral formulation of
> > "space-time", a "longer path in space-time path" intrinsically means "a
> > longer time path". Clocks have no idea of what space-time is, they just
> > read "time".
>
> It's called "proper time."

beda
beyond proper time there is a hidden absolute value

>
> > Thus, SR necessarily results in the Dr. Who and his TARDIS scenery as
> > an explanation as to how clocks that always tick the same rate, but
> > read different when compared with another clock, also ticking at the
> > same rate.
> >
> > Dr. Who jaunts off in his TARDIS, heading into the future at say, 100
> > sec/s, and gets to meet a 40 year old how was only 20 year old when he
> > set off. That is, his clock and his age, just mosses on merrily as
> > usual, but he covers more time then that of another observer.
> >
> > Which is where the problem arises. It makes professional relativists
> > sound a tad crazy.
>
> But experimentally verified. A crazy person is one who denies reality.

beda
experimentally verified, but SRists look illogic or unaware conjurers

>
> > Its why they use use such as "closed time-like curves" in GR as
> > a euphuism for "time travel into the past" which would really make them
> > sound demented...
>
> So your appeal to the TARDIS is ... demented? :-)

beda:
what is TARDIS??

>
> > So... the SR model produces a TARDIS, with its difficulty in physically
> > explaining how velocity profiles allow for different time paths, whilst
> > the LET model has interactions with a background field that effects
> > physical aging processes by physical means, and only has the illusion
> > of invariant c.
>
> You have to choose your reality. You appear to choose one that has an
> immeasurable ether. I choose an invariant c, not an illusion of one.

beda:
But YOU are the one that makes the invariant c, in nature there is not.
In a MANIPULATES NATURE, there is SRists and Mr.Gary Harnagel, that make light speed invariant in the SR frames adjusting opportunely the clocks SR frames.

Say so, openly, and we can go on and we will see that that trick is not needed
to the scope for which has been brought around: the all story can be reconstructed with no contradictions in the hypothesized ether, whatever it is.

cheers
beda

[Cnici Obálku]

beda pietanza wrote:

> beda:
> But YOU are the one that makes the invariant c, in nature there is not.
> In a MANIPULATES NATURE, there is SRists and Mr.Gary Harnagel, that make
> light speed invariant in the SR frames adjusting opportunely the clocks
> SR frames.
> Say so, openly, and we can go on and we will see that that trick is not
> needed to the scope for which has been brought around: the all story can
> be reconstructed with no contradictions in the hypothesized ether,
> whatever it is.

they came for the elder and you didn't stood up to oppose. Blacks, jews,
kids, working class, the poor, the sick, and you didn't revolt because
you were none of them. When they come after you, there will be nobody
left to stand up and revolt.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 29 April 2020 11:36:06 UTC+2, beda pietanza wrote:

> beda
> beyond proper time there is a hidden absolute value

You're getting it.
Suppose you have a guy believing "I'm GIFTED BY GODS!!!
Time is running 10%slower for me!!!". He's free to prepare his
own clock confirming him what he wants and his own callendar
saying that from his point of view it's december 2019 right
now; but if he wants to catch a train he has to record the
ordinary time too.
Relativists are quite a similiar case.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 3:36:06 AM UTC-6, beda pietanza wrote:

>
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 1:07:59 AM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The fact Fitzgerald and Lorentz came up with the correct equation by
> > puzzling over the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment makes the
> > Lorentz transform empirically-derived. Lorentz initially didn't have
> > time dilation in it, that being suggested by Poincare, IIRC.
> >
> > The interpretation of the LT was cast in such a way to fit the ether
> > theory; hence, it was presumed that the process of moving through a
> > stationary ether was responsible for length contraction and time
> > dilation. That the earth is moving through the presumed stationary
> > ether was a BIG problem with that, so other Ptolemaic epicycles were
> > hypothesized, like the ether was "sticky" and was carried along with
> > the earth. That was refuted by aberration of starlight. No experiment
> > confirmed the existence of the ether, leading Einstein to write:
> >
> > "the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
> > theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the
> > ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility."
> >
> > http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
> >

> > The problem with the LET model is that it's only a kinematic theory.
> > As such, it's a dead end. It's a matter of taste if 90% of your
> > taste buds are dead.

> > ....
> > Einstein derived the LT from postulates that can be tested. None of
> > the postulated assumed the existence of a medium.

> > ....

> > They're also in support of SR, in which an ether has no measurable
> > effect.

> > ....

> > Of course it does. One physical explanation for the LT is that the
> > speed of light is invariant. THAT is experimentally verified.

> > ....

> > Actually, four. Einstein mentions the other two in his text.

> > ....

> > One of the other presumptions is that space is uniform and homogeneous.
> > Consequently, the generic transform is
> >
> > x' = G*x + H*t
> > t' = A*t + B*x
> >
> > and motion in a given frame is x = x0 + v*t. Add the first postulate,
> > or the part that says a sailor on a moving ship can consider himself
> > at rest and can claim that the dock is moving away from the ship.
> >
> > Those three axioms are common to both the Galilean transform and the
> > LT. Add one more, t' = t, and you get the GT; or put in invariant c
> > and you get the LT.
> >
> > > It works, but so does LET, which does have a physical model.
> >
> > By postulating an unphysical ether.
> beda
> ether is not detectable, that doesn't mean that it doesn't make light
> speed be c:

Actually, it can't. If you assume light is truly a wave in a medium,
the properties of said medium must be stiffer than diamond and/or
have a very low density in order to support such a high velocity:

V =sqrt(C/rho)

where C is the elasticity constant and rho is density of the medium.

https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ultrasonics/Physics/elasticsolids.htm

Rho cannot be zero, so the medium must have SOME mass, which means it
can be detected.

> nothing is there to do so, whatever the ether is, is what make light
> move at c versus local space, yourself without the ether properties
> would evaporate.

And then you have to explain why particles can pass through this ether
and are also limited to c.

> > It's called "proper time."
>
> beda
> beyond proper time there is a hidden absolute value

Assertion with zero evidence.

> > > ....

> > > Which is where the problem arises. It makes professional relativists
> > > sound a tad crazy.
> >
> > But experimentally verified. A crazy person is one who denies
> > reality.
> beda
> experimentally verified, but SRists look illogic or unaware conjurers

Assertion with absolutely nothing to back it up.

> > So your appeal to the TARDIS is ... demented? :-)
>
> beda:
> what is TARDIS??

A device from the Dr. Who TV series that looks like a police phone
booth that allows him to travel through time.

> > > ....

> > You have to choose your reality. You appear to choose one that has an
> > immeasurable ether. I choose an invariant c, not an illusion of one.
>
> beda:
> But YOU are the one that makes the invariant c,

DOn't blame ME for that. I just follow the EVIDENCE.

> in nature there is not.

Another assertion with ZERO evidence that is refuted by copious evidence.

> In a MANIPULATES NATURE, there is SRists and Mr.Gary Harnagel, that make
> light speed invariant in the SR frames adjusting opportunely the clocks
> SR frames.

Inertial frames are inertial frames. Clocks are clocks. They measure
proper time. There's no such things as SR frames and SR clocks, as if
they're something strange and different.

> Say so, openly, and we can go on and we will see that that trick is
> not needed to the scope for which has been brought around: the all
> story can be reconstructed with no contradictions in the hypothesized
> ether, whatever it is.
>
> cheers
> beda

Funny, you insist on an explanation for why c is constant, yet blithely
pass over how an ether can possibly exist given its required mechanical
properties.

[Ned Latham]

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> beda pietanza wrote:

----snip----

> > ether is not detectable, that doesn't mean that it doesn't make
> > light speed be c:
>
> Actually, it can't. If you assume light is truly a wave in a medium,

and that the medium is composed of matter,

> the properties of said medium must be stiffer than diamond and/or
> have a very low density in order to support such a high velocity:
>
> V =sqrt(C/rho)
>
> where C is the elasticity constant and rho is density of the medium.
>
> https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/
> Ultrasonics/Physics/elasticsolids.htm
>
> Rho cannot be zero, so the medium must have SOME mass, which means
> it can be detected.

or if you assume that the medium's a field, and the "waves" are
disturbances in it...

----sbip----

[Gary Harnagel]

The question is, what's a field? For example, is an electric field
"real"? It's actually just a table of forces on a test charge as a
function of position. We're so aghast at action at a distance that
we invent a field (medium) to carry the interaction. QFT dispenses
with a medium and has interchange of virtual particles. Perhaps
virtual particles are more real than a field?

[Odd Bodkin]

Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:54:56 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>>
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> beda pietanza wrote:
>>
>> ----snip----
>>
>>>> ether is not detectable, that doesn't mean that it doesn't make
>>>> light speed be c:
>>>
>>> Actually, it can't. If you assume light is truly a wave in a medium,
>>
>> and that the medium is composed of matter,
>>
>>> the properties of said medium must be stiffer than diamond and/or
>>> have a very low density in order to support such a high velocity:
>>>
>>> V =sqrt(C/rho)
>>>
>>> where C is the elasticity constant and rho is density of the medium.
>>>
>>> https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/
>>> Ultrasonics/Physics/elasticsolids.htm
>>>
>>> Rho cannot be zero, so the medium must have SOME mass, which means
>>> it can be detected.
>>
>> or if you assume that the medium's a field, and the "waves" are
>> disturbances in it...
>>
>> ----sbip----
>
> The question is, what's a field? For example, is an electric field
> "real"? It's actually just a table of forces on a test charge as a
> function of position.

I disagree. For example, there is energy stored in *empty space* where the
field is nonzero. That is wholly different than a table of what a
measurable force would be on a test charge IF the charge were there.

For that matter, it’s been frequently mentioned that “forces” are actually
a fictional creation, a construction out of Newton’s 2nd law that DEFINES a
force in terms of measured masses and accelerations. In that view, energy
and momentum can have primacy over forces anyway, and in that view, fields
are also more fundamental than the “force” construct. After all, the energy
stored in the field is INDEPENDENT of the magnitude of the test charge
you’d put in it; the force isn’t.

> We're so aghast at action at a distance that
> we invent a field (medium) to carry the interaction. QFT dispenses
> with a medium and has interchange of virtual particles. Perhaps
> virtual particles are more real than a field?
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ned Latham]

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > beda pietanza wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > ether is not detectable, that doesn't mean that it doesn't make
> > > > light speed be c:
> > >
> > > Actually, it can't. If you assume light is truly a wave in a medium,
> >
> > and that the medium is composed of matter,
> >
> > > the properties of said medium must be stiffer than diamond and/or
> > > have a very low density in order to support such a high velocity:
> > >
> > > V =sqrt(C/rho)
> > >
> > > where C is the elasticity constant and rho is density of the medium.
> > >
> > > https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/
> > > Ultrasonics/Physics/elasticsolids.htm
> > >
> > > Rho cannot be zero, so the medium must have SOME mass, which means
> > > it can be detected.
> >
> > or if you assume that the medium's a field, and the "waves" are
> > disturbances in it...
>

> The question is, what's a field? For example, is an electric field
> "real"? It's actually just a table of forces on a test charge as a
> function of position.

No, those describe an aspect if it.

> We're so aghast at action at a distance that
> we invent a field (medium) to carry the interaction.

The thing is, it's insubstantial. Particles can traverase it unimpeded.

> QFT dispenses with a medium and has interchange of virtual particles.

Except that "virtual" means "unreal", that might account for push,
but pull?

> Perhaps virtual particles are more real than a field?

People gotta get away from the idea that the map is the territory.
Merely having a mathematical statement is not evidence of anything
real.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 9:05:13 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:54:56 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> > The question is, what's a field? For example, is an electric field
> > "real"? It's actually just a table of forces on a test charge as a
> > function of position.
>
> I disagree. For example, there is energy stored in *empty space*
> where the field is nonzero.

Is there? It is said there is, but is that reality or a convention?

> That is wholly different than a table of what a measurable force would
> be on a test charge IF the charge were there.

We're unaware of a "field" unless we present something that interacts
with it. Are virtual particles being exchanged if there's nothing to
exchange with?

> For that matter, it’s been frequently mentioned that “forces” are
> actually a fictional creation, a construction out of Newton’s 2nd law
> that DEFINES a force in terms of measured masses and accelerations.
> In that view, energy and momentum can have primacy over forces anyway,
> and in that view, fields are also more fundamental than the “force”
> construct.

I'm not adverse to viewing E and p as primary. After all, F = dp/dt
and v = dE/dp.

> After all, the energy stored in the field

or in the primary source of the "field"

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > or if you assume that the medium's a field, and the "waves" are
> > > disturbances in it...
> >
> > The question is, what's a field? For example, is an electric field
> > "real"? It's actually just a table of forces on a test charge as a
> > function of position.
>
> No, those describe an aspect if it.
>
> > We're so aghast at action at a distance that we invent a field
> > (medium) to carry the interaction.
>
> The thing is, it's insubstantial. Particles can traverase it unimpeded.
>
> > QFT dispenses with a medium and has interchange of virtual particles.
>
> Except that "virtual" means "unreal",

Virtual particles are responsible for vacuum polarization, which is a
real effect.

> that might account for push, but pull?

I don't know how that works, either, but physicists like Feynman are
fine (feyn?) with it. :-) I guess they're not really like rubber balls.

> > Perhaps virtual particles are more real than a field?
>
> People gotta get away from the idea that the map is the territory.
> Merely having a mathematical statement is not evidence of anything
> real.

All we have are maps of terra incognita.

[beda pietanza]

beda:

Mach: the masses there the inertia here.

What are the effects of the presence of universal messes on the properties of local space?

local space properties cannot be unaffected like the universe were empty.

So it is vain to ask what is the nature of local space and how does affect light speed and moving objects.

what we know is the light moves at c in open flat space, is different in presence of near masses; objects feel inertia when forced to move, inertial mass and gravity mass are identical.

whatever the ether is, is the local summation result of the effects exerted by universal and local masses, the properties of local space changes according to that interaction and this affects light, moving objects and local inertia.

What is the ether, whatever you want to call it, is out of our reach now, but is there and does its work, and this explains in the easiest way what happens locally.

cheers
beda

[Odd Bodkin]

Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 9:05:13 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:54:56 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>>> The question is, what's a field? For example, is an electric field
>>> "real"? It's actually just a table of forces on a test charge as a
>>> function of position.
>>
>> I disagree. For example, there is energy stored in *empty space*
>> where the field is nonzero.
>
> Is there? It is said there is, but is that reality or a convention?

It’s really there. And recoverable.

>
>> That is wholly different than a table of what a measurable force would
>> be on a test charge IF the charge were there.
>
> We're unaware of a "field" unless we present something that interacts
> with it.

You mean by extracting the energy and momentum content of the field itself?

> Are virtual particles being exchanged if there's nothing to
> exchange with?

Who said anything about virtual particles.

I’m a little surprised you’re unaware of the energy and momentum carried by
the field, even classically.

[Paparios]

El miércoles, 29 de abril de 2020, 13:00:49 (UTC-4), beda pietanza escribió:
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:14:16 PM UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>
> Mach: the masses there the inertia here.
>
> What are the effects of the presence of universal messes on the properties of local space?
>
> local space properties cannot be unaffected like the universe were empty.
>

You do not know what you do not know!!

Sun's gravity does not (much) affect the speed of light of signals
between the Earth and the Moon!!!

Earth gravity does not (much) affect the SR effects in the Large Hadron
Collider.

> So it is vain to ask what is the nature of local space and how does affect light speed and moving objects.
>
> what we know is the light moves at c in open flat space, is different in presence of near masses; objects feel inertia when forced to move, inertial mass and gravity mass are identical.
>
> whatever the ether is, is the local summation result of the effects exerted by universal and local masses, the properties of local space changes according to that interaction and this affects light, moving objects and local inertia.
>
> What is the ether, whatever you want to call it, is out of our reach now, but is there and does its work, and this explains in the easiest way what happens locally.
>

Wrong, see above!

[Tom Roberts]

(Responding to the subject line)

I certainly do know how to compare the tick rates of relatively moving
clocks, and how to compare the tick rates of clocks at different
altitudes in a gravitational field. But ALL such methods involve signals
between the clocks and the instrument used for the comparison, because
these physical situations demand that. Once one accounts for the effects
on those signals one finds that the clocks tick at the same rate
(presuming the clocks are identical).

This is merely one more example of the original poster not understanding
very basic physics, and attributing their personal confusion to me.

Tom Roberts

[beda pietanza]

Beda:
don't be ridiculous paparios,
you say doesn't affect "much", which implies that the affection is there, so you contradict yourself.
Have ever heard of the Eddington experiment?, read it again and apologize.
cheers
beda

[Michael Moroney]

beda pietanza <beda-p...@libero.it> writes:

>On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:11:38 PM UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

>> You do not know what you do not know!!

>> Sun's gravity does not (much) affect the speed of light of signals
>> between the Earth and the Moon!!!

>> Earth gravity does not (much) affect the SR effects in the Large Hadron
>> Collider.

>Beda:
>don't be ridiculous paparios,
>you say doesn't affect "much", which implies that the affection is there, so
>you contradict yourself.

No, he uses "much" the way an experimenter or engineer would. The effect is
smaller than the experimental error or tolerance and can be disregarded as if
0, even if not exactly 0.

Consider the effect of earth's gravity on a proton beamline moving horizontally
at .99 c over a distance of 10 meters.

[beda pietanza]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:34:12 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> (Responding to the subject line)
>
> I certainly do know how to compare the tick rates of relatively moving
> clocks, and how to compare the tick rates of clocks at different
> altitudes in a gravitational field.

beda:
How can you say that the clock at different altitudes can tick at the same rate?
you don't need any signal to compare those clocks if you wait long enough there will be no effects to change the fact that a clock at the top runs faster; after all, the time elapsed displays of the clocks can be large enough to be seen by each other directly, what are you bringing about, everyone knows that phenomenon.

> But ALL such methods involve signals
> between the clocks and the instrument used for the comparison, because
> these physical situations demand that. Once one accounts for the effects
> on those signals one finds that the clocks tick at the same rate
> (presuming the clocks are identical).
>
> This is merely one more example of the original poster not understanding
> very basic physics, and attributing their personal confusion to me.
>
> Tom Roberts

Poor you Tom Roberts, you are asserting that a clock at top of Eiffel Tower runs at the same rate of one at the ground.
I don't comment further I leave to the intelligence of the readers to judge your absurdities. It is not you anymore.

regards
beda

[beda pietanza]

beda:
you must be kidding, you are fooling yourself,
gravity operates always, you are cheating!

cheers
beda

[Otoète Akrobatù]

beda pietanza wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:34:12 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> (Responding to the subject line)
>>
>> I certainly do know how to compare the tick rates of relatively moving
>> clocks, and how to compare the tick rates of clocks at different
>> altitudes in a gravitational field.
> beda: How can you say that the clock at different altitudes can tick at
> the same rate?
> you don't need any signal to compare those clocks if you wait long
> enough there will be no effects to change the fact that a clock at the
> top runs faster; after all, the time elapsed displays of the clocks can
> be large enough to be seen by each other directly, what are you bringing
> about, everyone knows that phenomenon.

No, you are already too late. Take you paper money and all the electronic
money, then go out and buy some land and animals. In the remote area.
Establish small communities, off the grid, and learn how to grow your
food and how to treat your animals. Learn agriculture. It's already too
late.

[Michael Moroney]

Of course gravity is always present. But calculate the deflection of the
10 meter long beamline by gravity vs. what would happen without gravity.
Is the difference smaller than assorted other errors in the system? Do the
math.

[Paparios]

Clearly you don't know what you don't know.

You have never beeen near a physics laboratory!!

[Paparios]

El miércoles, 29 de abril de 2020, 14:08:22 (UTC-4), beda pietanza escribió:
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 7:34:12 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > (Responding to the subject line)
> >
> > I certainly do know how to compare the tick rates of relatively moving
> > clocks, and how to compare the tick rates of clocks at different
> > altitudes in a gravitational field.
> beda:
> How can you say that the clock at different altitudes can tick at the same rate?
> you don't need any signal to compare those clocks if you wait long enough there will be no effects to change the fact that a clock at the top runs faster; after all, the time elapsed displays of the clocks can be large enough to be seen by each other directly, what are you bringing about, everyone knows that phenomenon.
>

There is a difference (which you do not know due to your ignorance) between
a clock ticking rate and a clock elapsed time.

In the gravitational redshift experiments (and also in the GPS system) there are
signals used to transport the information of the clock rates from there to here.
Those signals (photons) are also subjected to gravitational redshifts.

In the Hafele Keating experiments, the flying clocks followed trajectories
through spacetime (x,y,z,t) which were different from the ground clock, which
was still at (0,0,0,to).

> Poor you Tom Roberts, you are asserting that a clock at top of Eiffel Tower runs at the same rate of one at the ground.

Sure, because both clocks experience the same physical laws, according to the
principle of relativity:

"The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other
of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion".

> I don't comment further I leave to the intelligence of the readers to judge your absurdities. It is not you anymore.
>

Yes you should not comment, because every time you does you show your complete
ignorance of basic physics.

[Kevin Aylward]

wrote in message
news:26c30d5d-40a4-4ae0...@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, 28 April 2020 21:33:18 UTC+2, Kevin Aylward wrote:

> Einstein specifically stated:

>Sorry, samely as most other fanatic idiots
>einsteinians only care what their idiot guru
>said - when they like too.

Apparently, you missed the point...

[Kevin Aylward]

"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message

news:d73d9444-c259-4dd6...@googlegroups.com...

Not according to some QFT theorists... as I noted,

"... the ripples of the electron fluid....are what we call particles"

Royal Institution Lectures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg 19:30

I don't necessarily agree with this view, but that's not the point...

[Kevin Aylward]

>"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message

>news:89fe8b33-3a0d-43c1...@googlegroups.com...

>On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 1:33:18 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>

> >> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message

> >> news:90b92ed8-0ce1-48ff...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 10:44:50 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> >> > Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest
> >> > relative to a stationary medium,
>> >
>> > There is no stationary medium, Keith.
>
>> Well... even Einstein never claimed that. He actually stated :
>
>> "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous
>> in as much as the view here to be developed will not require an
>> "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor
>> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
>> electromagnetic processes take place. "
>
> and indeed SR gives a precise reason as why an aether, or otherwise
> background frame, could exist yet still not be detectable my detecting
> motion through it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

{snip pointless history}

You missed the point...

> No mathematical theory requires a physical process. F=d(mv)/dt
> doesnt care whether there is cause for inertia, but that doesn't
> imply that there isn't. Its just not a question any mathematical
> behavioural model addresses, by design. Indeed:
>
> Einstein specifically stated:
>
>> "The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...
>> As such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements
>> of this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."
>
>> Its pretty much a matter of taste as to whether one takes the SR model
>> or the LET model, or an equivalent model to LET, that does not even
>> have light as a disturbance in it, or even that it is stationary,
>> probably.

>The problem with the LET model is that it's only a kinematic theory.
>As such, it's a dead end. It's a matter of taste if 90% of your
>taste buds are dead.

Ahmmm......

> One only has to appreciate that QFE, with its "particles are an
> excitation in the a field " model that many mainstreamers are,
> apparently, heading to the same "disturbance in a medium" models.
>
> Royal Institution Lecture:
>

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg 19:30 "... the ripples of the

> electron fluid....are what we call particles"
>

>> Ahmmmm.....
>
> >> > then only Clock 2
> > > would be justified in considering itself at rest i think,Gary.
>
>> > Think, Keith, there is no stationary medium.
>
> Ahmmm.....

>Einstein derived the LT from postulates that can be tested. None of
>the postulated assumed the existence of a medium.

Not exactly.

Einstein back derived what would be the most simplest postulates to derive
the LT. The LT already existed. He did what Plank did in arriving at the
black body radiation law. That is, he knew the correct formula, and worked
backwards to discover what was required to produce the formula.

Einstein knew that the LT was an accurate account of observations, so he
deduced his two axioms from those facts, then used those as the cornerstone
of SR.

He thus then proved that those axioms, after the fact, could then be used
as the basis of a theory. He didn't just postulate them from nowhere.

For example, if one takes the postulate (EFE):

T_ab = R_ab - 1/2 g_ab.R + lambda.g^ab

Where T_ab is the stress-energy tensor and the Rs are constructed from the
Riemann tensor, see for example my derivation here:

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/riemann/riemann.html

Einstein did not just pick that fundamental axiomatic equation out of
space-time. It took around 7 years of hard slog from 1907 10 1914 to
discover what axioms led to some known correct results such as the
perihelion of Mercury.

> > > To correctly calculate what the clocks will be showing when you do
> > > need to know what the medium is doing, and if you fail to consider the
> > > medium, you will just get into the sort of mess Einstein did eh!
>
> > If you assume a medium when there is no evidence of one, you get
> > yourself into the mess that you ARE in.
>
>> That depends on ones definition of "evidence for".
>
>> One of the claims of LET is that clocks taken on round trips will read
>> less elapsed time from the one that stayed put, because of an interaction
>> between the aether and the clock. Thus, such known experiments are
>> evidence in support of LET.

>They're also in support of SR,

Sure... no debate on that point

>in which an ether has no measurable effect.

I agree, direct effects of change in velocity of light are not detectable in
either SR or LET.

However, as I noted, the aether, according to the LET model, most certainly
has an effect. It claims that clocks will read different when moving it it.

That is an observation conformed by experiment.

I get the feeling from your latter and following text.... that you might not
be familiar with the term "devils advocate"

>> Furthermore, the LET model existed as a correct description
>> for these observations, prior to the SR model.

>Of course, because the used the same equations.

Indeed.

>> SR doesn't have a physical explanation at all, that is,

>Of course it does. One physical explanation for the LT is that the
>speed of light is invariant. THAT is experimentally verified.

No it doesn't. It "explains" by way of the *axiom* of invariant light speed.
Axioms are statements taken as an assumption, with no further explanation.
If the axioms had an explanation, they would not be axioms, er... by
definition....

Explaining the LT by the notion that the SOL is invariant, of which fact is
how one deduces the LT, is trivially a circular argument. Its a why is god
true, well it says so in the bible. Why is the bible true. Because god says
so..... Yeah...

As already noted, the invariant speed of light was back derived as the
simplest explanation for a range of results. It works as an axiom. Why it is
true, is another matter.

My own view is that the invariance property and relativity property may be
derived from anthropic principles. That is, if they were not true, we
wouldn't exist.

Essentially, the argument is that a method is required to construct clocks
of the accuracy of 1 in 10^18 stability for the Lego of this universe to
exist

For example:

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/anthropic_physics.html

However, anthropic principles don't explain the physical process as to how.

>> for example, something that resolves, essentially, to exchange of
>> momentum. It has two axioms

>Actually, four. Einstein mentions the other two in his text.

Whatever...

> and chucks out results from a mathematical, behavioural model.

>One of the other presumptions is that space is uniform and homogeneous.
>Consequently, the generic transform i

Sure, however one can conclude that space must be uniform and homogenous
from the anthropic principle as a more fundamental explanation.

For example, we are made of atomic Lego. If the forces between the
components of that Lego, changed as that Lego was simply moving about about
the universe, it would dismantle itself in time, thus we wouldn't exist.

Or for example:

Suppose conservation of momentum was not true. For example, suppose that
every single interaction between atomic particles resulted in a net loss of
momentum. This would mean that all objects would eventually grind to a halt.
Clearly, we could not exist if all objects are not moving. Neither could we
exist, if all objects were continually increasing to infinite velocities.

So, we must live in a universe that has conservation of momentum.

>and motion in a given frame is x = x0 + v*t. Add the first postulate,
>or the part that says a sailor on a moving ship can consider himself
>at rest and can claim that the dock is moving away from the ship.

>Those three axioms are common to both the Galilean transform and the
>LT. Add one more, t' = t, and you get the GT; or put in invariant c
>and you get the LT.

Although certainly no Hawking, I do believe that I am a tad familiar with
the rudiments of Relativity.

However, regarding the aforementioned overview of the Riemann tensor, please
feel free to point out where I dropped the minus sign in:

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/riemann/riemann.html

> It works, but so does LET, which does have a physical model.

>By postulating an unphysical ether.

Which, according to its model, results in an interaction with physical
objects such as a twins aging less than his other twin. That's about as
physical as one can get.

...and as I pointed out... mainstream academic, noted scientists are quite
content to claim aethers:

"... the ripples of the electron fluid....are what we call particles"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg 19:30

in what conceptual way, is that not also an aether?

>> The SR model itself, is actually a model that many deny its logical
>> physical consequences to. That is...
>
>> Odometers measure space travelled
>
>> Odometers measure how much space has been covered from LA to NY. If an
>> odometer always reads distance correctly, if it reads different from
>> another one one going from LA to NY, it must have covered more space.
>> That is it took a different route.
>
>> Clocks measure time travelled.
>
>> To be clear, clocks only measure time, not "space-time".
>
>> Before SR/LET there was only one way to travel from Monday to Friday. Not
>> anymore, apparently...
>
>> Thus, clocks measure how much time has been covered from getting from
>> Monday to Friday. If a clock always reads correctly, that is ticks at
>> the same rate, if it reads different than another clock it must because
>> it covered more time.
>
>> This is an inescapable deduction from the path integral formulation of
>> "space-time", a "longer path in space-time path" intrinsically means "a
>> longer time path". Clocks have no idea of what space-time is, they just
>> read "time".

>It's called "proper time."

Yeah....What it's called is one thing. What it actually means is another.

>> Thus, SR necessarily results in the Dr. Who and his TARDIS scenery as
>> an explanation as to how clocks that always tick the same rate, but
>> read different when compared with another clock, also ticking at the
>> same rate.
>
>> Dr. Who jaunts off in his TARDIS, heading into the future at say, 100
>> sec/s, and gets to meet a 40 year old how was only 20 year old when he
>> set off. That is, his clock and his age, just mosses on merrily as
>> usual, but he covers more time then that of another observer.
>

>> Which is where the problem arises. It makes professional relativists
>> sound a tad crazy.

>But experimentally verified. A crazy person is one who denies reality.

Oh dear....

I think you have missed the point again. There is certainly no doubt that if
one jaunts of at speed on a round trip, one will get to a point in time that
one would not otherwise been able to get to according physics prior to
SR/LET. That is, one twin, may meet an older twin. The physics that result
from SR/LET are a given to be a correct account of observations.

The crazy reference, is because many professionals that accept SR, are
unable to acknowledge the words that go along with it, because it makes them
sound crazy

To be even clearer:

If my twin, and I am a twin, sits in his van watching his odometer whilst
parked, and I travel to London and back, and then compare odometers, they
will be a difference, that will clearly be attributed to that fact that I,
COVERED MORE SPACE. We know the odometers are accurate and don't read
distance any differently. They just measure distance travelled.

Now, specifically according to SR:

If my twin, sits in his van watching his clock, and I travel really fast by
engaging my turbo charger, he might sit there for 10 years, I might travel
for 1 year, such that we both go from Friday Apr 2020 to Monday 2030. His
clock will say 10 years have passed, my clock will say 1 years have past.
Thus, as, according to SR my clock does not slow down, it just reads time.
However, the clocks read *different*, therefore I *must* have COVERED MORE
TIME, relative to by brother's time.

Thus, according to SR, the only physical interpretation of the euphuism of
"has a longer path in space-time" is "covered more time".

That is, the observational situation is that one has time travelled into the
future, as per Dr. Who and the TARDIS. Its truly that obvious.

However, there are very otherwise knowledgeable experts in Relativity, for
example, Tom Roberts, that are quite unable to deal with such an idea.

I have no such problem. Its a model that makes sense, physically.

>> Its why they use use such as "closed time-like curves" in GR as
>> a euphuism for "time travel into the past" which would really make them
>> sound demented...

> So your appeal to the TARDIS is ... demented? :-)

I don't quite understand your point.

The TARDIS explanation is about the way it is for the SR model. Its an
excellent description. In the LET model, it isn't time travel, but
interactions actually slow clocks down.

The point of my quote here, is that there is a reluctance to use certain
phrases by some.

On the secondary point of possibility of time travel to the past in GR, that
is false. Its trivially contradicted by physical reasoning. An issue here,
is that many are confused between models and reality.

Typically, when one has a non-linear equation there are many solutions. More
so for non-linear partial differential equations. Many of these solutions
can be rejected because of other physical conditions. Many have simply lost
the plot and don't understand this. The take the view that all the solutions
to equations are physically meaningful. Its daft.

>> So... the SR model produces a TARDIS, with its difficulty in physically
>> explaining how velocity profiles allow for different time paths, whilst
>> the LET model has interactions with a background field that effects
>> physical aging processes by physical means, and only has the illusion
> >of invariant c.

>You have to choose your reality. You appear to choose one that has an
>immeasurable ether. I choose an invariant c, not an illusion of one.

I guess you have some problems with English comprehension. I suggest that
you re-read what I actually wrote.

Hint: Devils Advocate.

[Kevin Aylward]

"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message

news:ed8deb8f-4a3d-4b7f...@googlegroups.com...

>On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 9:05:13 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> >Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:54:56 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> >> The question is, what's a field? For example, is an electric field
> >> "real"? It's actually just a table of forces on a test charge as a
> >> function of position.
>
>> I disagree. For example, there is energy stored in *empty space*
>> where the field is nonzero.

>Is there? It is said there is, but is that reality or a convention?

This is my take:

We exist.

For us to exist there must be physical objects. "Physical object" is its own
definition.

Space is accounting for the fact that physical objects don't all sit on top
of each other. That is, there are distinct objects.

Tine is accounting for the fact that physical objects change their
positions. That is, if all objects stopped moving, time is meaningless.

That is, time and space are co-ordinate systems that describe where objects
are and how they move, relative to each other.

Space and time are completely meaningless without the existence of discrete
physical objects that change their positions. Space and time have no
characteristics on their own. They only describe the characteristics of real
physical objects. There is no physical way to verify a claim that "space or
time is curved" without physical objects to determine what curved actually
means.

"Mass", by way of the notion of "inertia", is that fundamental
characteristic of an object that prevents all objects changing their
position at the same rate relative to each other. That is, it prevents all
objects traveling at the same velocity (i.e. a characteristic of how objects
change their position). It is the fundamental property of an object that
makes it different from another object. If all objects travelled at the same
speed, we could not exist. Thus there must be a property of objects that
allow them to travel at different rates.

Mass in conjunction with velocity, wrapped up as "momentum" is how objects
change their relative positions and relative motions, by exchanging
momentum. Momentum must be conserved for us to exist. For example, suppose

that every single interaction between atomic particles resulted in a net
loss of momentum. This would mean that all objects would eventually grind to
a halt.

....and so the qualitative description goes on....

[beda pietanza]

beda:
you are fooling yourself, you jumped off the issue, and bring about a ridiculous specious argument, what a shame!

regards
beda

[Dono,]

Serves you right, you are trying to debate with insane asylum inhabitants :-)

[beda pietanza]

So you paparios and Tom Roberts say and repeat, that the clock on Eiffel Tower has the same time rate as the clock on the ground, I will not comment I leave to the readers to judge. It is a well-known phenomenon predicted by your Einstein.

As the difference between elapsed time and time rate of a clock, there is not a difference but there is a relation, the elapsed time is the sum of all the ticks of the clock multiplier for the duration of the tick.
between two continuously visually contacted clocks like the one on the tower and one on the ground, no ticks get lost, so comparing their elapsed time you immediately compare their time rates(duration of the ticks).

Too difficult for a SRist???
Too far for your mantras???

cheers
beda

[Gary Harnagel]

I was quite enamored with Sciama's book, "The Unity of the Universe"
when I read it long ago. I like the concept but I don't know of any
confirmatory experiments.

> What are the effects of the presence of universal messes on the
> properties of local space?
>
> local space properties cannot be unaffected like the universe were empty.
>
> So it is vain to ask what is the nature of local space and how does
> affect light speed and moving objects.

YOU are the one trying to unscrew the inscrutable. SR just takes rules
as they appear, which is a perfectly valid approach. Maybe c is due to
something like Mach's principle, maybe it's due to something else. We
just don't know. Any underlying reason why c is c will undoubtedly have
postulates that we'll have to take for granted, so YOU will NEVER be
satisfied.

> what we know is the light moves at c in open flat space, is different
> in presence of near masses;

No, not locally, which is all that GR says. And GR tells us WHY c
appears to be different around masses. It's called Shapiro delay.
But at every point along the trajectory, the local speed of light is c.

> objects feel inertia when forced to move, inertial mass and gravity
> mass are identical.

It sure appears to be.

> whatever the ether is, is the local summation result of the effects
> exerted by universal and local masses, the properties of local space
> changes according to that interaction and this affects light, moving
> objects and local inertia.

But when gravitational effects are insignificant (either in weak grav.
fields or over small distances, SR gives accurate predictions.
Maybe someday there'll be a tight explanation for why c is constant,
but for now we can do no more than accept that it is.

> What is the ether, whatever you want to call it, is out of our reach
> now, but is there and does its work, and this explains in the easiest
> way what happens locally.
>
> cheers
> beda

Easiest? Really? Try defining its properties, then. Not easy at all!

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 11:05:25 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 9:05:13 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:54:56 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > The question is, what's a field? For example, is an electric field
> > > > "real"? It's actually just a table of forces on a test charge as a
> > > > function of position.
> > >
> > > I disagree. For example, there is energy stored in *empty space*
> > > where the field is nonzero.
> >
> > Is there? It is said there is, but is that reality or a convention?
>
> It’s really there. And recoverable.

The only ones that have claimed that they get energy from the zero
point field are con artists.

> > > That is wholly different than a table of what a measurable force
> > > would be on a test charge IF the charge were there.
> >
> > We're unaware of a "field" unless we present something that interacts
> > with it.
>
> You mean by extracting the energy and momentum content of the field
> itself?

How else can something be measured without extracting some E and p?
But where does it come from? We mentally create the field concept
to account for it, but perhaps the universe does something different.

“Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we
suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane

Well, maybe that's a little over the top. I hope :-)

> > Are virtual particles being exchanged if there's nothing to
> > exchange with?
>
> Who said anything about virtual particles.

QFT says they're the "field" in EM.

> I’m a little surprised you’re unaware of the energy and momentum
> carried by the field, even classically.

Of course I'm aware of the concept. It's a convention that works.
I'm just saying the universe may be queerer than we imagine.

[Odd Bodkin]

Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 11:05:25 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 9:05:13 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 6:54:56 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> The question is, what's a field? For example, is an electric field
>>>>> "real"? It's actually just a table of forces on a test charge as a
>>>>> function of position.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. For example, there is energy stored in *empty space*
>>>> where the field is nonzero.
>>>
>>> Is there? It is said there is, but is that reality or a convention?
>>
>> It’s really there. And recoverable.
>
> The only ones that have claimed that they get energy from the zero
> point field are con artists.

Electric field, not the zero point field.

That electric field in a significant volume of empty space is a well known
reality. Same for magnetic field.

>
>>>> That is wholly different than a table of what a measurable force
>>>> would be on a test charge IF the charge were there.
>>>
>>> We're unaware of a "field" unless we present something that interacts
>>> with it.
>>
>> You mean by extracting the energy and momentum content of the field
>> itself?
>
> How else can something be measured without extracting some E and p?
> But where does it come from? We mentally create the field concept
> to account for it, but perhaps the universe does something different.

Perhaps, schmerhaps.

Fine to speculate, but my point is that fields are real insofar as they are
directly imbued with physical properties like energy and momentum, and they
are not just “constructions” derived from more physically fundamental or
“real” forces. If anything, it’s the other way around.

Now, you are saying that there may be some deeper concept beyond all of
these, which is true but until codified, the speculation is too vague to be
of value.

>
> “Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we
> suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane
>
> Well, maybe that's a little over the top. I hope :-)
>
>>> Are virtual particles being exchanged if there's nothing to
>>> exchange with?
>>
>> Who said anything about virtual particles.
>
> QFT says they're the "field" in EM.

No, not quite.

Propagating DISTURBANCES in the field are field quanta. And those field
quanta can be labeled as “virtual” or “real” depending how close they are
to being on-mass-shell, though the line is blurry and a bit arbitrary.

[Paparios]

El miércoles, 29 de abril de 2020, 17:24:14 (UTC-4), beda pietanza escribió:
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 8:41:17 PM UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

>
> So you paparios and Tom Roberts say and repeat, that the clock on Eiffel Tower has the same time rate as the clock on the ground, I will not comment I leave to the readers to judge. It is a well-known phenomenon predicted by your Einstein.
>

Sure, you do not know this stuff, so your comments are worthless!!

> As the difference between elapsed time and time rate of a clock, there is not a difference but there is a relation, the elapsed time is the sum of all the ticks of the clock multiplier for the duration of the tick.
> between two continuously visually contacted clocks like the one on the tower and one on the ground, no ticks get lost, so comparing their elapsed time you immediately compare their time rates(duration of the ticks).
>

The reason a top clock appears to tick slower than a lower clock, is that both
clocks follow different paths through spacetime. Therefore, even if all clocks
tick at exactly the same frequency, the clock which follows a longer spacetime
path will accumulate less elapsed time.

Of course you know nothing of this.

> Too difficult for a SRist???
> Too far for your mantras???
>

For sure it is too dificult for you, as you are ignorant of all these subjects.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:02:30 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:

>
> > "Gary Harnagel" wrote:
> >
> > Einstein derived the LT from postulates that can be tested. None of
> > the postulated assumed the existence of a medium.
>
> Not exactly.
>
> Einstein back derived what would be the most simplest postulates to derive
> the LT. The LT already existed. He did what Plank did in arriving at the
> black body radiation law. That is, he knew the correct formula, and worked
> backwards to discover what was required to produce the formula.
> Einstein knew that the LT was an accurate account of observations,
> so he deduced his two axioms from those facts, then used those as the
> cornerstone of SR.
>
> He thus then proved that those axioms, after the fact, could then be used
> as the basis of a theory. He didn't just postulate them from nowhere.

Not so, Kevin. Einstein used various experimental data to argue for the
constancy of the speed of light. He also used the Principle of Relativity
plus other obvious effects as his starting point.

> For example, if one takes the postulate (EFE):

The subject was SPECIAL relativity.

> {Off-topic GR deleted]

> > > One of the claims of LET is that clocks taken on round trips will
> > > read less elapsed time from the one that stayed put, because of
> > > an interaction between the aether and the clock. Thus, such known
> > > experiments are evidence in support of LET.
> >
> > They're also in support of SR,
>
> Sure... no debate on that point
>
> > in which an ether has no measurable effect.
>
> I agree, direct effects of change in velocity of light are not
> detectable in either SR or LET.
>
> However, as I noted, the aether, according to the LET model, most
> certainly has an effect. It claims that clocks will read different
> when moving it it.
>
> That is an observation conformed by experiment.

SR claims that the effects are due to relative motion between the
clocks, which is all that the experiments can measure. No ether
necessary.

> I get the feeling from your latter and following text.... that you
> might not be familiar with the term "devils advocate"

Oh, I am. And the devil is the ether.

> > > Furthermore, the LET model existed as a correct description
> > > for these observations, prior to the SR model.
>
> > Of course, because the used the same equations.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > > SR doesn't have a physical explanation at all, that is,
> >
> > Of course it does. One physical explanation for the LT is that the
> > speed of light is invariant. THAT is experimentally verified.
>
> No it doesn't.

You believe that invariant c is NOT experimentally verified. How weird!

> It "explains" by way of the *axiom* of invariant light speed.
> Axioms are statements taken as an assumption, with no further
> explanation.

Your talking mathematics. In physics, everything must be verified.

> If the axioms had an explanation, they would not be axioms,
> er... by definition....

Then invariant light speed isn't just an axiom.

> Explaining the LT by the notion that the SOL is invariant, of which
> fact is how one deduces the LT, is trivially a circular argument.

Only because YOU are playing mathematical games and denying experimental
evidence.

> Its a why is god true, well it says so in the bible. Why is the
> bible true. Because god says so..... Yeah...

Not the same at all. Invariant c is a fact of life, at least throughout
the solar system.

> As already noted, the invariant speed of light was back derived as
> the simplest explanation for a range of results. It works as an
> axiom.

Repreating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

> Why it is true, is another matter.
>
> My own view is that the invariance property and relativity property
> may be derived from anthropic principles. That is, if they were not
> true, we wouldn't exist.

Sounds to me that you're in the tank for circular arguments :-)

> > > for example, something that resolves, essentially, to exchange of
> > > momentum. It has two axioms
>
> > Actually, four. Einstein mentions the other two in his text.
>
> Whatever...
>
> > > and chucks out results from a mathematical, behavioural model.
> >
> > One of the other presumptions is that space is uniform and homogeneous.
> > Consequently, the generic transform i
>
> Sure, however one can conclude that space must be uniform and homogenous
> from the anthropic principle as a more fundamental explanation.

That explains nothing, as you said.

> [Anthropic principle stuff deleted]

> > and motion in a given frame is x = x0 + v*t. Add the first postulate,
> > or the part that says a sailor on a moving ship can consider himself
> > at rest and can claim that the dock is moving away from the ship.
> >
> > Those three axioms are common to both the Galilean transform and the
> > LT. Add one more, t' = t, and you get the GT; or put in invariant c
> > and you get the LT.

> ....

> > > It works, but so does LET, which does have a physical model.
> >
> > By postulating an unphysical ether.
>
> Which, according to its model, results in an interaction with physical
> objects such as a twins aging less than his other twin. That's about as
> physical as one can get.

So something unphysical causes a physical effect. Ghost Hunters
believe that :-)

> ...and as I pointed out... mainstream academic, noted scientists are quite
> content to claim aethers:
>
> "... the ripples of the electron fluid....are what we call particles"
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg 19:30
>
> in what conceptual way, is that not also an aether?

Individual particles cannot be a medium for light because they can't
support transverse waves.

> > > ....

> > > This is an inescapable deduction from the path integral formulation
> > > of "space-time", a "longer path in space-time path" intrinsically
> > > means "a longer time path". Clocks have no idea of what space-time
> > > is, they just read "time".
>
> >It's called "proper time."
>
> Yeah....What it's called is one thing. What it actually means is another.

It's perfectly clear what proper time is.

> > > ....

> > > Which is where the problem arises. It makes professional relativists
> > > sound a tad crazy.
>
> > But experimentally verified. A crazy person is one who denies reality.
>
> Oh dear....
>
> I think you have missed the point again.

Oh, I haven't missed anything. I just think you're a bit crazy.
My attention span just ran out. Sorry.

And the TARDIS is not at all like SR. SR doesn't go backward in time.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:25:17 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 11:05:25 AM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >
> > > It’s really there. And recoverable.
> >
> > The only ones that have claimed that they get energy from the zero
> > point field are con artists.
>
> Electric field, not the zero point field.

Or maybe from the electron.

> That electric field in a significant volume of empty space is a
> well known reality. Same for magnetic field.

Something exists. Convention says it's a field.

> > > You mean by extracting the energy and momentum content of the field
> > > itself?
> >
> > How else can something be measured without extracting some E and p?
> > But where does it come from? We mentally create the field concept
> > to account for it, but perhaps the universe does something different.
>
> Perhaps, schmerhaps.
>
> Fine to speculate, but my point is that fields are real insofar as
> they are directly imbued with physical properties like energy and
> momentum, and they are not just “constructions” derived from more
> physically fundamental or “real” forces. If anything, it’s the other
> way around.

Don't get me wrong. I spent most of my whole career in physics labs
and used the field concept throughout. It works.

> Now, you are saying that there may be some deeper concept beyond all
> of these, which is true but until codified, the speculation is too
> vague to be of value.

Agreed, except ALL of physics has something deeper.

> > “Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we
> > suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane
> >
> > Well, maybe that's a little over the top. I hope :-)
> >
> > > > Are virtual particles being exchanged if there's nothing to
> > > > exchange with?
> > >
> > > Who said anything about virtual particles.
> >
> > QFT says they're the "field" in EM.
>
> No, not quite.
>
> Propagating DISTURBANCES in the field are field quanta. And those field
> quanta can be labeled as “virtual” or “real” depending how close they are
> to being on-mass-shell, though the line is blurry and a bit arbitrary.

Sure, you get fields from a field theory.

> > > I’m a little surprised you’re unaware of the energy and momentum
> > > carried by the field, even classically.
> >
> > Of course I'm aware of the concept. It's a convention that works.
> > I'm just saying the universe may be queerer than we imagine.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy.” -- Shakespeare

Rather, in OUR philosophy. I'm afraid everyone who takes Celestial
E&M class in the next life will be in for a shock :-)

[Ned Latham]

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > or if you assume that the medium's a field, and the "waves" are
> > > > disturbances in it...
> > >

> > > The question is, what's a field? For example, is an electric field
> > > "real"? It's actually just a table of forces on a test charge as a
> > > function of position.
> >

> > No, those describe an aspect if it.

> >
> > > We're so aghast at action at a distance that we invent a field
> > > (medium) to carry the interaction.
> >

> > The thing is, it's insubstantial. Particles can traverase it unimpeded.

> >
> > > QFT dispenses with a medium and has interchange of virtual particles.
> >

> > Except that "virtual" means "unreal",
>
> Virtual particles are responsible for vacuum polarization, which is a
> real effect.

"Virtual particles" are blamed for it. Different thing.

> > that might account for push, but pull?
>
> I don't know how that works, either, but physicists like Feynman

Their acceptance doesn't make it true.

> are fine (feyn?) with it. :-)

Pay that.

> I guess they're not really like rubber balls.

>
> > > Perhaps virtual particles are more real than a field?
> >

> > People gotta get away from the idea that the map is the territory.
> > Merely having a mathematical statement is not evidence of anything
> > real.
>
> All we have are maps of terra incognita.

Terra pars cognita.

[Keith Stein]

On 28/04/2020 20:32, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> "Gary Harnagel"  wrote in message
>> news:90b92ed8-0ce1-48ff...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 10:44:50 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>

>> On 25/04/2020 14:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> >
>> > Both Clock 2 and Clock 3 is justified in considering themselves at
>> rest,

>>
>>> Not true Gary, for Clock 2 and Clock 3 can not both be at rest relative
>>> to a stationary medium,
>
>> There is no stationary medium, Keith.
>
> Well... even Einstein never claimed that. He actually stated :
>
> "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous
> in as much as the view here to be developed will not require an
> "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor
> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
> electromagnetic processes take place. "
>
> and indeed SR gives a precise reason as why an aether, or otherwise
> background frame, could exist yet still not be detectable my detecting
> motion through it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>

> No mathematical theory requires a physical process. F=d(mv)/dt doesnt
> care whether  there is cause for inertia, but that doesn't imply that
> there isn't. Its just not a question any mathematical behavioural model
> addresses, by design. Indeed:
>
> Einstein specifically stated:
>
> "The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As
> such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of
> this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."
>
> Its pretty much a matter of taste as to whether one takes the SR model
> or the LET model, or an equivalent model to LET, that does not even have
> light as a disturbance in it, or even that it is stationary, probably.
>

> One only has to appreciate that QFE, with its "particles are an
> excitation in the a field " model that many mainstreamers are,
> apparently, heading to the same "disturbance in a medium" models.
>
> Royal Institution Lecture:
>

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg  19:30 "... the ripples of

> the electron fluid....are  what we call particles"
>

> Ahmmmm.....
>
>
>> then only Clock 2
>> would be justified in considering itself at rest i think,Gary.
>
>> Think, Keith, there is no stationary medium.
>
> Ahmmm.....
>

>>> To correctly calculate what the clocks will be showing when you do
>>> need to know what the medium is doing, and if you fail to consider the
>>> medium, you will just get into the sort of mess Einstein did eh!
>
>> If you assume a medium when there is no evidence of one, you get yourself
>> into the mess that you ARE in.
>
> That depends on ones definition of "evidence for".
>

> One of the claims of LET is that clocks taken on round trips will read
> less elapsed time from the one that stayed put, because of an
> interaction between the aether and the clock. Thus, such known

> experiments are evidence in support of LET. Furthermore, the LET model

> existed as a correct description for these observations, prior to the SR
> model.
>

> SR doesn't have a physical explanation at all, that is, for example,

> something that resolves, essentially,  to exchange of momentum. It has

> two axioms and chucks out results from a mathematical, behavioural
> model. It works, but so does LET, which does have a physical model.

>
> The SR model itself, is actually a model that many deny its logical
> physical consequences to. That is...
>
> Odometers measure space travelled
>
> Odometers measure how much space has been covered from LA to NY. If an
> odometer always reads distance correctly, if it reads different from
> another one one going from LA to NY, it must have covered more space.
> That is it took a different route.
>
> Clocks measure time travelled.
>
> To be clear, clocks only measure time, not "space-time".
>
> Before SR/LET there was only one way to travel from Monday to Friday.
> Not anymore, apparently...
>
> Thus, clocks measure how much time has been covered from getting from
> Monday to Friday. If a clock  always reads correctly, that is ticks at
> the same rate, if it reads different than another clock it must because
> it covered more time.
>

> This is an inescapable deduction from the path integral formulation of
> "space-time", a "longer path in space-time path" intrinsically means "a
> longer time path". Clocks have no idea of what space-time is, they just
> read "time".
>

> Thus, SR necessarily results in the Dr. Who and his TARDIS scenery as an
> explanation as to how clocks that always tick the same rate, but read
> different when compared with another clock, also ticking at the same rate.
>
> Dr. Who jaunts off in his TARDIS, heading into the future at say, 100
> sec/s, and gets to meet a 40 year old how was only 20 year old when he
> set off. That is, his clock and his age, just mosses on merrily as
> usual, but he covers more time then that of another observer.
>

> Which is where the problem arises. It makes professional relativists

> sound a tad crazy.  Its why they use use such as "closed time-like

> curves" in GR as a euphuism for "time travel into the past" which would
> really make them sound demented...
>

> So... the SR model produces a TARDIS, with its difficulty in physically
> explaining how velocity profiles allow for different time paths, whilst
> the LET model has interactions with a background field that effects
> physical aging processes by physical means, and only has the illusion of
> invariant c.
>

> -- Kevin Aylward
> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

Hi Kevin. I like your style, although there are some crucial points
where i am not quite sure what you believe. Let's start with those
wretched SR twins. I am tempted to ask if you believe that they really
age at different rates, but i have, at last, learnt that even Mr.Roberts
would assure us that they both age at the same rate of 1 second per
second, which I agree with. However to my Newtonian mind this implies
that they will indeed still be the same age when they are reunited,
irrespective of how far and how fast one of them has traveled. If
anything i think the traveler will look the older when they are reunited
due to his/her more hazardous life style eh! What do you think, is it
really possible to travel into the future like SRists claim, or is it
just bullshit ?

keith stein




keith stein

[Ned Latham]

Keith Stein wrote:
> Kevin Aylward wrote:

----snip----

> > Einstein specifically stated:
> >
> > "The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As
> > such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of
> > this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."

But one of those empirical discoveries is that lightspeed is always
measured as c (within the error bars), *interpreted* as lightspeed
is *always* c.

And *that* sir, is hypothesis.

----snip----

> Hi Kevin. I like your style, although there are some crucial points
> where i am not quite sure what you believe. Let's start with those
> wretched SR twins. I am tempted to ask if you believe that they really
> age at different rates, but i have, at last, learnt that even Mr.Roberts
> would assure us that they both age at the same rate of 1 second per
> second, which I agree with. However to my Newtonian mind this implies
> that they will indeed still be the same age when they are reunited,
> irrespective of how far and how fast one of them has traveled. If
> anything i think the traveler will look the older when they are reunited
> due to his/her more hazardous life style eh! What do you think, is it
> really possible to travel into the future like SRists claim, or is it
> just bullshit ?

BS, Keith. FTL doesn't imply time travel. It just means v > c.