Some questions about ArXiv.org

[Ed Lake]

I've got a scientific paper about Time Dilation that is getting a second review at a journal that prints quarterly. I'm now in the process of submitting a second paper to some other journal. It's a paper on the subject of Einstein's Second Postulate to his Special Theory of Relativity. I put an early version of it on my web site yesterday and somehow Odd Bodkin was among the first to read it. I saw his IP address on my site logs.

I also put the early version on Vixra.org at this link: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

On Wednesday, I tried submitting a shorter version to a monthly journal, but they rejected it because "Manuscripts that question well-established physical principles are outside the purview of [our journal] and should be submitted to a more specialized journal for consideration."

They also recommended (as do other journals) that I first put the paper on ArXiv.org. I don't understand that. I would think that they would want to have exclusive rights instead of having the paper already on some web site that everyone can read.

Is it because you need an endorser to put something on ArXiv.org? Does that help cut down on the number of screwball papers?

I have an endorser, but he can only endorse for the general relativity and quantum cosmology (gr-qc) "section" on arXiv. I don't understand that, either. I would think my paper would better fit into the physics "section." But, I don't know what difference it makes. It seems that the only purpose of the "sections" is to help people find papers that address the specialty that is of the most interest to them.

One journal I was about to try (until I found that they require their articles to be at least 8,000 words, and mine is less that 5,000 words) has started another web site like ViXra and ArXiv. Why? What purpose do those sites serve for a scientific journal?

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

In your fine PDF, ( There is NOT A SINGLE LINE that relates to physics & not a single proper formula )

An Elementary School Science Fair project is far more scientificly advanced than your scribbles.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v1.pdf

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:02:26 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> ....

> I also put the early version on Vixra.org at this link:
>
> http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

Sorry, Ed, but that paper has so many wrong claims and wrong interpretations
that I won't even start to criticize it.

[Eckard B]

Maybe, Ed is correct in that Einstein's 1905R was an emitter only theory.
This doesn't mean Einstein was correct. See my definition of c.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 1:39:06 AM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:
>
> Am Samstag, 22. April 2017 04:49:42 UTC+2 schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:02:26 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256
> >
> > Sorry, Ed, but that paper has so many wrong claims and wrong interpretations
> > that I won't even start to criticize it.
>
> Maybe, Ed is correct in that Einstein's 1905R was an emitter only theory.

Ed's idea is an ether theory, indistinguishable from Lorentz's ether theory.
And he's wrong about time slowing down for moving clocks. The LT predicts
that the moving clock measures the "stationary" clock as running slow, too.

> This doesn't mean Einstein was correct. See my definition of c.

I've seen your definition and you've seen my objections. And you've never
answered my question of why you believe one-way light speed measurement
tells you anything more than two-way measurement.

[Ed Lake]

Once again it is demonstrated that it is a waste of time to post anything here.

NO ONE even attempted to answer my questions about ArXiv.org.

Instead, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller argues that my paper doesn't have "a single proper formula." IT'S NOT A MATHEMATICS PAPER, IT'S A PHYSICS PAPER INTENDED FOR ALL AUDIENCES.

Gary Harnagel says that it contains "wrong claims" and "wrong interpretations" but he is incapable of stating how or why they are "wrong." In his second comment he writes his beliefs about Time Dilation, which I do not address in this paper. I address Time Dilation in the paper that is awaiting a second review at a scientific journal.

And all Eckard B does is use my post as an opportunity to express his own theory.

The facts and evidence are UNDENIABLE in my paper about the Second Postulate. They are even more so in the revised version. All that is required is that the facts and evidence be viewed without blind prejudice towards one's own theories.

Ed

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:05:37 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> Once again it is demonstrated that it is a waste of time to post anything
> here.
>
> NO ONE even attempted to answer my questions about ArXiv.org.
>

> Gary Harnagel says that it contains "wrong claims" and "wrong
> interpretations" but he is incapable of stating how or why they are
> "wrong." In his second comment he writes his beliefs about Time Dilation,
> which I do not address in this paper. I address Time Dilation in the paper
> that is awaiting a second review at a scientific journal.

The question is, what do you base your beliefs about time dilation on?
Is it based upon the Lorentz transforms or upon physical evidence or both?
We have in the LT a prediction of time dilation that matches the physical
evidence.

> The facts and evidence are UNDENIABLE in my paper about the Second
> Postulate. They are even more so in the revised version. All that is
> required is that the facts and evidence be viewed without blind prejudice
> towards one's own theories.
>
> Ed

I think your views are based upon blind prejudice toward your own ideas.

“People love answers, but only as long as they are the ones who came up
with them.” ― Criss Jami

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 9:19:47 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:05:37 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > Once again it is demonstrated that it is a waste of time to post anything
> > here.
> >
> > NO ONE even attempted to answer my questions about ArXiv.org.
> >
> > Gary Harnagel says that it contains "wrong claims" and "wrong
> > interpretations" but he is incapable of stating how or why they are
> > "wrong." In his second comment he writes his beliefs about Time Dilation,
> > which I do not address in this paper. I address Time Dilation in the paper
> > that is awaiting a second review at a scientific journal.
>
> The question is, what do you base your beliefs about time dilation on?
> Is it based upon the Lorentz transforms or upon physical evidence or both?
> We have in the LT a prediction of time dilation that matches the physical
> evidence.

In my paper on Time Dilation I simply cite the EXPERIMENTS AND EVIDENCE supporting the REALITY of Time Dilation, i.e., the NIST experiment, GPS, Hafele-Keating, etc. Then I cite the implications resulting from those experiments - implications that mathematicians refuse to even consider. (Example: Time Dilation is NOT reciprocal.)

I think one of the biggest problems that most people here seem to have is that they cannot look at evidence without some blind prejudice toward some other theory.

I don't have any particular theory. I'm just looking at the experiments and evidence and wondering why others do not see what I see. And I can't get any straight answers. The only answers I get is that what I see disagrees with other people's prejudices and beliefs (which were evidently instilled in them in some physics-mathematics class).

>
> > The facts and evidence are UNDENIABLE in my paper about the Second
> > Postulate. They are even more so in the revised version. All that is
> > required is that the facts and evidence be viewed without blind prejudice
> > towards one's own theories.
> >
> > Ed
>
> I think your views are based upon blind prejudice toward your own ideas.
>
> “People love answers, but only as long as they are the ones who came up
> with them.” ― Criss Jami

The only arguments I get around here are that I need to read what people here have read, study what they have studied, take the classes that they took, and then I will believe as they believe.

I have NO THEORY. I just have what I see is a CORRECT interpretation of EINSTEIN'S theories. When I point out what Einstein wrote, the mathematicians argue that that isn't what Einstein MEANT or they argue that Einstein was "wrong about that."

I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A SINGLE INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT AGAINST MY INTERPRETATION OF EINSTEIN'S THEORIES. Mostly I just get personal attacks.

Ed

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:41:51 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 9:19:47 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:05:37 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > Once again it is demonstrated that it is a waste of time to post anything
> > > here.
> > >
> > > NO ONE even attempted to answer my questions about ArXiv.org.
> > >
> > > Gary Harnagel says that it contains "wrong claims" and "wrong
> > > interpretations" but he is incapable of stating how or why they are
> > > "wrong." In his second comment he writes his beliefs about Time Dilation,
> > > which I do not address in this paper. I address Time Dilation in the
> > > paper that is awaiting a second review at a scientific journal.
> >
> > The question is, what do you base your beliefs about time dilation on?
> > Is it based upon the Lorentz transforms or upon physical evidence or both?
> > We have in the LT a prediction of time dilation that matches the physical
> > evidence.
>
> In my paper on Time Dilation I simply cite the EXPERIMENTS AND EVIDENCE
> supporting the REALITY of Time Dilation, i.e., the NIST experiment, GPS,
> Hafele-Keating, etc.

And results from particle accelerator experiments, I presume?

> Then I cite the implications resulting from those experiments

IOW, interpretations. And unless you look at situations where velocity-
induced TD is separated from gravitational effects, interpretations will
be only half-baked.

> - implications that mathematicians refuse to even consider. (Example:
> Time Dilation is NOT reciprocal.)

True, AFAIK, reciprocal TD has not been directly measured, but it is
STRONGLY implied by the Principle of Relativity, which has never been
refuted.

> I think one of the biggest problems that most people here seem to have is
> that they cannot look at evidence without some blind prejudice toward some
> other theory.

I think you exemplify that very well :-)

> I don't have any particular theory. I'm just looking at the experiments
> and evidence and wondering why others do not see what I see.

It's because they look at ALL the evidence, not just part of it.

> And I can't get any straight answers. The only answers I get is that what
> I see disagrees with other people's prejudices and beliefs (which were
> evidently instilled in them in some physics-mathematics class).

My position is based upon my own journey to understanding.

> > > The facts and evidence are UNDENIABLE in my paper about the Second
> > > Postulate. They are even more so in the revised version. All that is
> > > required is that the facts and evidence be viewed without blind prejudice
> > > towards one's own theories.
> > >
> > > Ed
> >
> > I think your views are based upon blind prejudice toward your own ideas.
> >
> > “People love answers, but only as long as they are the ones who came up
> > with them.” ― Criss Jami
>
> The only arguments I get around here are that I need to read what people
> here have read, study what they have studied, take the classes that they
> took, and then I will believe as they believe.
>
> I have NO THEORY. I just have what I see is a CORRECT interpretation of
> EINSTEIN'S theories.

Really? WHICH "theories"? Do you understand general relativity? All
the evidence that you quoted involves that, not SR.

> When I point out what Einstein wrote, the mathematicians argue that that
> isn't what Einstein MEANT or they argue that Einstein was "wrong about that."

Why would you believe some dead guy over a living, breathing experimentalist?

> I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A SINGLE INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT AGAINST MY INTERPRETATION
> OF EINSTEIN'S THEORIES. Mostly I just get personal attacks.
>
> Ed

Maybe that's because you appear to be extremely opinionated and hidebound.

Gary

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 10:00:39 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:41:51 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 9:19:47 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:05:37 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Once again it is demonstrated that it is a waste of time to post anything
> > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > NO ONE even attempted to answer my questions about ArXiv.org.
> > > >
> > > > Gary Harnagel says that it contains "wrong claims" and "wrong
> > > > interpretations" but he is incapable of stating how or why they are
> > > > "wrong." In his second comment he writes his beliefs about Time Dilation,
> > > > which I do not address in this paper. I address Time Dilation in the
> > > > paper that is awaiting a second review at a scientific journal.
> > >
> > > The question is, what do you base your beliefs about time dilation on?
> > > Is it based upon the Lorentz transforms or upon physical evidence or both?
> > > We have in the LT a prediction of time dilation that matches the physical
> > > evidence.
> >
> > In my paper on Time Dilation I simply cite the EXPERIMENTS AND EVIDENCE
> > supporting the REALITY of Time Dilation, i.e., the NIST experiment, GPS,
> > Hafele-Keating, etc.
>
> And results from particle accelerator experiments, I presume?
>

Nope. Just experiments which show the effects of Time Dilation WITHOUT any need for an interpretation and explanation from some physics-mathematician.

> > Then I cite the implications resulting from those experiments
>
> IOW, interpretations. And unless you look at situations where velocity-
> induced TD is separated from gravitational effects, interpretations will
> be only half-baked.

Nope. I cite IMPLICATIONS, NOT INTERPRETATIONS. The NIST experiment involved lifting an atomic clock just one foot and OBSERVING that it ran faster when raised. "Interpretations" are arguments that what happened didn't really happen. "Implications" are that the test IMPLIES that time is a property of matter, since time only changed for the clock that was raised and not for anything else.

>
> > - implications that mathematicians refuse to even consider. (Example:
> > Time Dilation is NOT reciprocal.)
>
> True, AFAIK, reciprocal TD has not been directly measured, but it is
> STRONGLY implied by the Principle of Relativity, which has never been
> refuted.
>

The Principle of Relativity DOES NOT imply reciprocal Time Dilation. It ONLY says that time will be DIFFERENT in different frames of reference. The MORONIC idea that it is reciprocal came from mathematicians who ignore the EVIDENCE and EXPERIMENTS and create FICTITIOUS situations that do not apply to the real world.

> > I think one of the biggest problems that most people here seem to have is
> > that they cannot look at evidence without some blind prejudice toward some
> > other theory.
>
> I think you exemplify that very well :-)

So you BELIEVE.

>
> > I don't have any particular theory. I'm just looking at the experiments
> > and evidence and wondering why others do not see what I see.
>
> It's because they look at ALL the evidence, not just part of it.

So you BELIEVE.

>
> > And I can't get any straight answers. The only answers I get is that what
> > I see disagrees with other people's prejudices and beliefs (which were
> > evidently instilled in them in some physics-mathematics class).
>
> My position is based upon my own journey to understanding.

Yes, and it appears nothing can open your mind to other possibilities.

>
> > > > The facts and evidence are UNDENIABLE in my paper about the Second
> > > > Postulate. They are even more so in the revised version. All that is
> > > > required is that the facts and evidence be viewed without blind prejudice
> > > > towards one's own theories.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > >
> > > I think your views are based upon blind prejudice toward your own ideas.
> > >
> > > “People love answers, but only as long as they are the ones who came up
> > > with them.” ― Criss Jami
> >
> > The only arguments I get around here are that I need to read what people
> > here have read, study what they have studied, take the classes that they
> > took, and then I will believe as they believe.
> >
> > I have NO THEORY. I just have what I see is a CORRECT interpretation of
> > EINSTEIN'S theories.
>
> Really? WHICH "theories"? Do you understand general relativity? All
> the evidence that you quoted involves that, not SR.

I think I understand special relativity AND general relativity -- as far as Time Dilation is concerned. I'm not concerned with any other aspect.

SR and GR are not incompatible. Time is affected by motion and gravity in the same way. They both slow down time. And they slow down time ONLY for the specific object that changed velocity or location.

>
> > When I point out what Einstein wrote, the mathematicians argue that that
> > isn't what Einstein MEANT or they argue that Einstein was "wrong about that."
>
> Why would you believe some dead guy over a living, breathing experimentalist?

That's an example of PREJUDICE. It shouldn't matter where the idea comes from. It should only matter whether it is right or wrong.

I believe the facts and evidence. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that disputes Einstein's views on Time Dilation. There are only INTERPRETATIONS by mathematician-physicists.

>
> > I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A SINGLE INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT AGAINST MY INTERPRETATION
> > OF EINSTEIN'S THEORIES. Mostly I just get personal attacks.
> >
> > Ed
>
> Maybe that's because you appear to be extremely opinionated and hidebound.
>
> Gary

Or maybe it is because there ARE NO INTELLIGENT ARGUMENTS against my interpretations.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

When I received back the "peer reviews" for my paper on Time Dilation, one of the reviewers suggested that in the second version of my paper I mention "cause and effect" more often, apparently because the reviewer felt that that is where mathematicians have no answers.

Mathematicians will MORONICALLY argue that we cannot tell if a car crashed into a wall or if the wall crashed into the car. But, when you take "cause and effect" into consideration, the idea that the wall crashed into the car becomes PREPOSTEROUS.

So, when I argue against "reciprocal time dilation," I should refer to cause and effect. What CAUSES the EFFECT of time slowing down for an object that is lowered toward the earth? And how can that EFFECT BE RECIPROCAL?

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I was just looking through the author guidelines for the journal called "Reports on Progress in Physics." http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0034-4885/page/Author%20guidelines

I noticed section 3:

------------
3. You should:

Use language accessible to the non-specialist reader (e.g. avoid too mathematical a treatment).
Aim at objectivity and avoid dealing largely with current research and reflecting your own views.
-----------------

It's one of the top 20 scientific journals, and they say the same as other journals say: AVOID TOO MATHEMATICAL A TREATMENT. (Other journals say the same thing.)

Unfortunately, they also say that the articles need to be between 20,000 and 25,000 words. Mine is just under 5,000 words, so I cannot submit there.

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

So, when I argue against "reciprocal time dilation," I should refer to cause and effect. What CAUSES the EFFECT of time slowing down for an object that is lowered toward the earth? And how can that EFFECT BE RECIPROCAL?

Rising Entropy causes the EFFECT of time slowing down for an object that is lowered toward the earth as earth gravity redshifts the Kinetic Energy of space time.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 9:34:45 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 10:00:39 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 8:41:51 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > In my paper on Time Dilation I simply cite the EXPERIMENTS AND EVIDENCE
> > > supporting the REALITY of Time Dilation, i.e., the NIST experiment, GPS,
> > > Hafele-Keating, etc.
> >
> > And results from particle accelerator experiments, I presume?
>
> Nope. Just experiments which show the effects of Time Dilation WITHOUT
> any need for an interpretation and explanation from some physics-
> mathematician.

OF COURSE those experiments need interpretation, particularly GPS and HK
since both velocity and gravitational potential contribute to the results.
The aluminum clock NIST experiment can separate them. The problem, though,
is what the velocity-only experiment is telling you about your interpretation.

> > > Then I cite the implications resulting from those experiments
> >
> > IOW, interpretations. And unless you look at situations where velocity-
> > induced TD is separated from gravitational effects, interpretations will
> > be only half-baked.
>
> Nope. I cite IMPLICATIONS, NOT INTERPRETATIONS.

Implications ARE interpretations, particularly when you ignore half of the
phenomena.

> The NIST experiment involved lifting an atomic clock just one foot and
> OBSERVING that it ran faster when raised.

OBSERVING from a point deeper in the gravitational potential, yes. NOT
observing AT the raised clock.

> "Interpretations" are arguments that what happened didn't really happen.

Nope.

> "Implications" are that the test IMPLIES that time is a property of matter,
> since time only changed for the clock that was raised and not for anything
> else.

But implications are not always what actually happens. It is only IMPLIED.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/imply?s=t

"to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated"

It leaves open the probability that the indication is wrong.

> > > - implications that mathematicians refuse to even consider. (Example:
> > > Time Dilation is NOT reciprocal.)
> >
> > True, AFAIK, reciprocal TD has not been directly measured, but it is
> > STRONGLY implied by the Principle of Relativity, which has never been
> > refuted.
>
> The Principle of Relativity DOES NOT imply reciprocal Time Dilation.

Actually, it implies it IF one-way TD is true.

> It ONLY says that time will be DIFFERENT in different frames of reference.
> The MORONIC idea that it is reciprocal came from mathematicians who ignore
> the EVIDENCE and EXPERIMENTS and create FICTITIOUS situations that do not
> apply to the real world.

Your use of prejudicial adjectives is MOST unscientific.

> > > I think one of the biggest problems that most people here seem to have is
> > > that they cannot look at evidence without some blind prejudice toward some
> > > other theory.
> >
> > I think you exemplify that very well :-)
>
> So you BELIEVE.

Yep. And in your arrogance, you believe otherwise.

> > > I don't have any particular theory. I'm just looking at the experiments
> > > and evidence and wondering why others do not see what I see.
> >
> > It's because they look at ALL the evidence, not just part of it.
>
> So you BELIEVE.

And in your arrogance, you believe otherwise.

> > > And I can't get any straight answers. The only answers I get is that what
> > > I see disagrees with other people's prejudices and beliefs (which were
> > > evidently instilled in them in some physics-mathematics class).
> >
> > My position is based upon my own journey to understanding.
>
> Yes, and it appears nothing can open your mind to other possibilities.

I've been all through these "other possibilities" and had to reject them
because of the EVIDENCE and the logic proceeding from it.

> > > > > The facts and evidence are UNDENIABLE in my paper about the Second
> > > > > Postulate. They are even more so in the revised version. All that
> > > > > is required is that the facts and evidence be viewed without blind
> > > > > prejudice towards one's own theories.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed
> > > >
> > > > I think your views are based upon blind prejudice toward your own ideas.
> > > >
> > > > “People love answers, but only as long as they are the ones who came up
> > > > with them.” ― Criss Jami
> > >
> > > The only arguments I get around here are that I need to read what people
> > > here have read, study what they have studied, take the classes that they
> > > took, and then I will believe as they believe.
> > >
> > > I have NO THEORY. I just have what I see is a CORRECT interpretation of
> > > EINSTEIN'S theories.
> >
> > Really? WHICH "theories"? Do you understand general relativity? All
> > the evidence that you quoted involves that, not SR.
>
> I think I understand special relativity AND general relativity -- as far as
> Time Dilation is concerned. I'm not concerned with any other aspect.

It's plain to me that you understand neither.

> SR and GR are not incompatible.

Wrong! SR is a subset of GR.

> Time is affected by motion and gravity in the same way.

Then why is the velocity part of the GPS negative and the gravitational
part positive?

> They both slow down time.

Wrong!

> And they slow down time ONLY for the specific object that changed velocity
> or location.

Since velocity is purely relative, that is the crux of your misunderstanding.
Are you an etherist?

> > > When I point out what Einstein wrote, the mathematicians argue that that
> > > isn't what Einstein MEANT or they argue that Einstein was "wrong about
> > > that."
> >
> > Why would you believe some dead guy over a living, breathing
> > experimentalist?
>
> That's an example of PREJUDICE.

Yes, it is ... on YOUR part.

> It shouldn't matter where the idea comes from. It should only matter
> whether it is right or wrong.

So wh do you believe a guy that died seven decades ago knew more than a
living, breathing guy today who has spent his whole career dealing with
far more experimental evidence than was available then?

> I believe the facts and evidence. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that disputes
> Einstein's views on Time Dilation. There are only INTERPRETATIONS by
> mathematician-physicists.

An implication must be logical. What you draw from the evidence is not
logical.

> > > I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A SINGLE INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT AGAINST MY INTERPRETATION
> > > OF EINSTEIN'S THEORIES. Mostly I just get personal attacks.
> > >
> > > Ed
> >
> > Maybe that's because you appear to be extremely opinionated and hidebound.
> >
> > Gary
>
> Or maybe it is because there ARE NO INTELLIGENT ARGUMENTS against my
> interpretations.
>
> Ed

So you arrogantly believe that you are smarter than hundreds of physicists
who disagree with you. You DO realize that this implies crackpotism, don't
you?

Well, if all you had was the NIST experiment, you could argue that time
actually slowed down in deeper gravitational potentials. But velocity-
induced TD belies that implication. I once thought as you did until I
realized that VITD logically could NOT actually slow down clocks. From
that, one can conclude that GITD doesn't actually slow down clocks either.

> So, when I argue against "reciprocal time dilation," I should refer to
> cause and effect. What CAUSES the EFFECT of time slowing down for an
> object that is lowered toward the earth? And how can that EFFECT BE
> RECIPROCAL?

GITD is not reciprocal. You're trying to compare two different things.

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:09:30 PM UTC-5, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> So, when I argue against "reciprocal time dilation," I should refer to cause and effect. What CAUSES the EFFECT of time slowing down for an object that is lowered toward the earth? And how can that EFFECT BE RECIPROCAL?
>
> Rising Entropy causes the EFFECT of time slowing down for an object that is lowered toward the earth as earth gravity redshifts the Kinetic Energy of space time.

An interesting OPINION, but it doesn't seem to match the facts. If the object is raised again, time will speed up for it again. Entropy would appear to be irreversible. Yet, time can be sped up or slowed down for an object. Does "disorder" correct itself and become "order" by moving the object in some direction or at a different speed? Or were you just spouting gibberish?

Ed

[Larry Harson]

Putting it on arxiv.org means it's open to criticism before publication.

Regards,

Larry Harson.

[Kevin Aylward]

>"Ed Lake" wrote in message
>news:9e8673f9-123d-4458...@googlegroups.com...

>> The question is, what do you base your beliefs about time dilation on?
>> Is it based upon the Lorentz transforms or upon physical evidence or
>> both?
>> We have in the LT a prediction of time dilation that matches the physical
>> evidence.

>In my paper on Time Dilation I simply cite the EXPERIMENTS AND EVIDENCE
>supporting the REALITY of Time Dilation,

I had a skim of your "What is time?" paper. The basic, raw idea that time is
the result of a physical process, by real physical objects, is, of course
quite sound. In an empty universe, neither time or space can exist,
obviously.

You have a few pretty pictures illustrating your own particular model of how
this process might be constructed. However, I don't see any sums.

It is clear that the LT is an extremely successful mathematical description
of what physical object do, so just as the LET theory does, your model, if
correct, must result in the same equations. Do you have such a derivation,
and if so, would you please present it?

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

[Ed Lake]

Yeah, I was coming to that conclusion, thanks. I just found this on viXra.org at http://vixra.org/why

---------------
Why viXra?

In 1991 the electronic e-print archive, now known as arXiv.org, was founded at Los Alamos National Laboratories. In the early days of the World Wide Web it was open to submissions from all scientific researchers, but gradually a policy of moderation was employed to block articles that the administrators considered unsuitable. In 2004 this was replaced by a system of endorsements to reduce the workload and place responsibility of moderation on the endorsers. The stated intention was to permit anybody from the scientific community to continue contributing. However many of us who had successfully submitted e-prints before then found that we were no longer able to. Even those with doctorates in physics and long histories of publication in scientific journals can no longer contribute to the arXiv unless they can find an endorser in a suitable research institution.

The policies of the administrators of Cornell University who now control the arXiv are so strict that even when someone succeeds in finding an endorser their e-print may still be rejected or moved to the "physics" category of the arXiv where it is likely to get less attention. Those who endorse articles that Cornell find unsuitable are under threat of losing their right to endorse or even their own ability to submit e-prints. Given the harm this might cause to their careers it is no surprise that endorsers are very conservative when considering articles from people they do not know. These policies are defended on the arXiv's endorsement help page

A few of the cases where people have been blocked from submitting to the arXiv have been detailed on the Archive Freedom website, but as time has gone by it has become clear that Cornell has no plans to bow to pressure and change their policies. Some of us now feel that the time has come to start an alternative archive which will be open to the whole scientific community. That is why viXra has been created. viXra will be open to anybody for both reading and submitting articles. We will not prevent anybody from submitting and will only reject articles in extreme cases of abuse, e.g. where the work may be vulgar, libellous, plagiaristic or dangerously misleading.

It is inevitable that viXra will therefore contain e-prints that many scientists will consider clearly wrong and unscientific. However, it will also be a repository for new ideas that the scientific establishment is not currently willing to consider. Other perfectly conventional e-prints will be found here simply because the authors were not able to find a suitable endorser for the arXiv or because they prefer a more open system. It is our belief that anybody who considers themselves to have done scientific work should have the right to place it in an archive in order to communicate the idea to a wide public. They should also be allowed to stake their claim of priority in case the idea is recognised as important in the future.
---------------

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I just look at things logically. I'm an ANALYST, not a mathematician. And, even if I were a mathematician, I don't think anyone has yet provided any real numbers on how particles spin in different reference frames.

Logically, particles MUST spin slower in a reference frame that is moving at high speeds AND in a reference frame that is closer to a gravitational mass, since those are the situations where time slows down. Of course, an observer in that reference frame would view everything as "normal," so, until someone actually demonstrates it and makes the comparisons BETWEEN reference frames, it is just LOGICAL and not confirmed.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

It's an hour past lunch time, and I've got errands to run. I'll be back later.

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Monkey Ed Gibbered:

> Time is affected by motion and gravity in the same way.

Then why is the velocity part of the GPS negative and the gravitational part positive?

Gravity = Entropy = negative
(F=m*a) = Energy = positive

You are the only one GIBBERING GIBBERISH

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Monkey Ed Gibbered:
- show quoted text -

> Time is affected by motion and gravity in the same way.

Then why is the velocity part of the GPS negative and the gravitational part positive?

Gravity = Entropy = negative
(F=m*a) = Energy = positive

https://goo.gl/photos/kP3dT35xFHja5Bjy9

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:19:10 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 9:34:45 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Nope. I cite IMPLICATIONS, NOT INTERPRETATIONS.
>
> Implications ARE interpretations, particularly when you ignore half of the
> phenomena.

Implications are NOT interpretations. You IMPLY they are, I INTERPRET that as another mistaken BELIEF you have.

>
> > The NIST experiment involved lifting an atomic clock just one foot and
> > OBSERVING that it ran faster when raised.
>
> OBSERVING from a point deeper in the gravitational potential, yes. NOT
> observing AT the raised clock.

There was no observation from any "point deeper in the gravitational potential." The same results would have been obtained regardless of whether the observer moved with the clock or not.

>
> > "Interpretations" are arguments that what happened didn't really happen.
>
> Nope.
>
> > "Implications" are that the test IMPLIES that time is a property of matter,
> > since time only changed for the clock that was raised and not for anything
> > else.
>
> But implications are not always what actually happens. It is only IMPLIED.
>

You just confirmed what I said. You are saying that what happened may not have actually happened.

> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/imply?s=t
>
> "to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated"
>
> It leaves open the probability that the indication is wrong.

It leaves open a POSSIBILITY that the indication is wrong. But, that is the nature of science. Mathematicians prefer to believe math is NEVER wrong, but that just shows how WRONG they can be.

In my paper on Time Dilation I refer to the mathematics which confirmed for a THOUSAND YEARS that the earth was the center of the universe. When it was proved that the Earth orbited around the Sun, the mathematicians argued for hundreds of years that the Sun was the center of the Universe. And then came the discovery that there were other solar systems. Mathematicians argue that they cannot possibly be wrong until they are proven wrong, which has been done again and again.

>
> > > > - implications that mathematicians refuse to even consider. (Example:
> > > > Time Dilation is NOT reciprocal.)
> > >
> > > True, AFAIK, reciprocal TD has not been directly measured, but it is
> > > STRONGLY implied by the Principle of Relativity, which has never been
> > > refuted.

I is NOT implied by the Principle of Relativity. That is what my paper on the Second Postulate is all about. Mathematicians have an INCORRECT understanding of the First Postulate.

> >
> > The Principle of Relativity DOES NOT imply reciprocal Time Dilation.
>
> Actually, it implies it IF one-way TD is true.

What is "one-way Time Dilation"? If you raise an object, time speeds up for it. If you lower the object, time slows down for it.

> > I think I understand special relativity AND general relativity -- as far as
> > Time Dilation is concerned. I'm not concerned with any other aspect.
>
> It's plain to me that you understand neither.
>
> > SR and GR are not incompatible.
>
> Wrong! SR is a subset of GR.

How does that make them incompatible? That says the ARE compatible.

>
> > Time is affected by motion and gravity in the same way.
>
> Then why is the velocity part of the GPS negative and the gravitational
> part positive?

They aren't. It just happens that way with earth satellites. The higher they are, the less gravitational effect there is and the satellite can go slower without fear of falling to earth. Remember the orbiting wheel-like space station in "2001: A Space Odyssey"? If someone stands in the inside of the wheel of that satellite, you would feel gravity just as you would feel it on earth. It results from centrifugal force. You get the same effect when accelerating. It can be called "artificial gravity." It affects time the same way as real gravity. It's easier to demonstrate Time Dilation with gravity, because you have to go really REALLY fast to get an equal effect from velocity.

>
> > They both slow down time.
>
> Wrong!
>

No, it has been demonstrated MANY times that velocity and gravity slow down time. They just do not do it in the same way.

> > And they slow down time ONLY for the specific object that changed velocity
> > or location.
>
> Since velocity is purely relative, that is the crux of your misunderstanding.
> Are you an etherist?

The way velocity is typically measured may be "purely relative," but that doesn't make it reciprocal.

I am not an etherist. Energy waves travel through the VACUUM of space.

> So wh do you believe a guy that died seven decades ago knew more than a
> living, breathing guy today who has spent his whole career dealing with
> far more experimental evidence than was available then?
>
> > I believe the facts and evidence. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that disputes
> > Einstein's views on Time Dilation. There are only INTERPRETATIONS by
> > mathematician-physicists.
>
> An implication must be logical. What you draw from the evidence is not
> logical.

It is totally logical. It just disagrees with the BELIEFS of many mathematicians who somehow BELIEVE that math = logic.

> Well, if all you had was the NIST experiment, you could argue that time
> actually slowed down in deeper gravitational potentials. But velocity-
> induced TD belies that implication. I once thought as you did until I
> realized that VITD logically could NOT actually slow down clocks. From
> that, one can conclude that GITD doesn't actually slow down clocks either

In reality, of course, experiments have REPEATEDLY shown that clocks DO slow down due to velocity time dilation AND due to gravitational time dilation. Mathematicians just find ways to IGNORE OR EXPLAIN AWAY THE EVIDENCE.

>
> > So, when I argue against "reciprocal time dilation," I should refer to
> > cause and effect. What CAUSES the EFFECT of time slowing down for an
> > object that is lowered toward the earth? And how can that EFFECT BE
> > RECIPROCAL?
>
> GITD is not reciprocal. You're trying to compare two different things.

No, you BELIEVE gravitational time dilation and velocity time dilation are two different things. They are not. They are the same EFFECT just CAUSED by two different manifestations of the same force.

I don't see much point in continuing this. No matter what EVIDENCE I present, you will still find ways to IGNORE THE EVIDENCE and twist things to fit your beliefs.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Einstein showed that gravity is the same as acceleration.

Gravity = accelerating motion.
Velocity = constant speed motion.

Same thing, just applied differently.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I'm done for today.

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

solve c/(((0.15915494309/1) * 86400) / (45.86835565 us)) * ((1 * 86400) / (5.7664051 us)) = 1/G

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+1%2F(((((0.15915494309%2Fc)+)+%2F+(4.586835565e-5+*+seconds))+*+((G+)+%2F+(5.7664051+microseconds))))%5E0.5


solve (((0.15915494309/c) * 86400) / (45.86835565 us)) * ((G * 86400) / (5.7664051 us)) = 1

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+(((0.15915494309%2Fc)+*+86400)+%2F+(45.86835565+us))+*+((G+*+86400)+%2F+(5.7664051+us))


solve G * (((0.15915494309) * 86400) / (45.86835565 us)) * ((86400) / (5.7664051 us)) = c

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+G+*+(((0.15915494309)+*+86400)+%2F+(45.86835565+us))+*+((86400)+%2F+(5.7664051+us))

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> I'm done for today.
>
> Ed

(((86400 seconds) / c) / (45.86835565 us)) * (((86400 seconds) * G) / (5.7664051 us)) = 6.28318533

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System

People often ask me "What good is Relativity?" It is a commonplace to think of Relativity as an abstract and highly arcane mathematical theory that has no consequences for everyday life. This is in fact far from the truth.

Consider for a moment that when you are traveling in a commercial airliner, the pilot and crew are navigating to your destination with the aid of data from the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), of which the United States NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS for short) is the most familiar component. In fact, "GPS" is often synonymous with satellite navigation, even it is now one of three global satellite navigation systems in operation along with the Russian GLONASS and EU Galileo satellite systems (they will be joined by the Chinese BeiDou-2 system when it expands to global scale in the early 2020s), While this article is specifically about NAVSTAR GPS, the basic operating principles are similar across the various GNSS implementations.

GPS was developed by the United States Department of Defense to provide a satellite-based navigation system for the U.S. military. It was later put under joint DoD and Department of Transportation control to provide for both military and civilian navigation uses, and has become a part of daily life. Most recent-model cars are equipped with built-in GPS navigation systems (increasingly as standard equipment), you can purchase hand-held GPS navigation units that will give you your position on the Earth (latitude, longitude, and altitude) to an accuracy of 5 to 10 meters that weigh only a few ounces and cost around $100, and GPS technology is increasingly found in smartphones (though not all smartphones derive location information from GPS satellites).

The nominal GPS configuration consists of a network of 24 satellites in high orbits around the Earth, but up to 30 or so satellites may be on station at any given time. Each satellite in the GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of about 20,000 km from the ground, and has an orbital speed of about 14,000 km/hour (the orbital period is roughly 12 hours - contrary to popular belief, GPS satellites are not in geosynchronous or geostationary orbits). The satellite orbits are distributed so that at least 4 satellites are always visible from any point on the Earth at any given instant (with up to 12 visible at one time). Each satellite carries with it an atomic clock that "ticks" with a nominal accuracy of 1 nanosecond (1 billionth of a second). A GPS receiver in an airplane determines its current position and course by comparing the time signals it receives from the currently visible GPS satellites (usually 6 to 12) and trilaterating on the known positions of each satellite[1]. The precision achieved is remarkable: even a simple hand-held GPS receiver can determine your absolute position on the surface of the Earth to within 5 to 10 meters in only a few seconds. A GPS receiver in a car can give accurate readings of position, speed, and course in real-time!

More sophisticated techniques, like Differential GPS (DGPS) and Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) methods, deliver centimeter-level positions with a few minutes of measurement. Such methods allow use of GPS and related satellite navigation system data to be used for high-precision surveying, autonomous driving, and other applications requiring greater real-time position accuracy than can be achieved with standard GPS receivers.

To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion [2].

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.

The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to "tick" at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that, in addition to performing the calculation of position using 3D trilateration, will also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required [3], using data provided by the satellites.

Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 4:57:20 PM UTC-5, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 3:52:57 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I'm done for today.
> >
> > Ed
>
> (((86400 seconds) / c) / (45.86835565 us)) * (((86400 seconds) * G) / (5.7664051 us)) = 6.28318533
>
> http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

((1 / tau) * days) / (45.86835565 microseconds) = 299792458

((1 / tau) * days) / (4.586835565e-5 * seconds) = 299792458


(5.7664051 microseconds) / (1 day) = 6.67407998e-11

((1 * days) / (5.7664051 microseconds)) * G = 1

(45.86835565 microseconds) - (5.7664051 microseconds) = 40.1019506 microseconds

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

https://goo.gl/photos/XLYaECJVtuqCMhRZ7

https://goo.gl/photos/yAk2B8fuKPY38dmu5

https://goo.gl/photos/fNgNBJFygrDj4kMa7

https://goo.gl/photos/KCvF9a84SvBvj8gf7

[Kevin Aylward]

"Ed Lake" wrote in message

news:168cabb5-9f32-4781...@googlegroups.com...

Not sure what you mean. The Dirac Equation is a complete description of
particle spin in any inertial reference frame. It is a combination of QM and
SR, and works correctly in any inertial reference frame, by construction.
It is a stunningly successful equation.

>Logically, particles MUST spin slower in a reference frame that is moving
>at high speeds AND in a reference frame that is closer to a gravitational
>mass, since those are the situations >where time slows down. Of course, an
>observer in that reference frame would view everything as "normal," so,
>until someone actually demonstrates it and makes the comparisons >BETWEEN
>reference frames, it is just LOGICAL and not confirmed.

The problem though, is going from a nice idea, to a detailed theory that
works (predicts new results), is internally consistent, and does not have
predictions that are known to disagree with experiment.

It took Einstein from around 1907 till 1915 to get from the gravity equals
acceleration idea, to get to such a theory. It was a stunning difficult hard
slog. He even rejected an idea that turned out later to be correct. The
math is very difficult. It is easy to make mistakes. The sanitised
derivations given to students, just don't do justice to how non obvious the
final result was, before all the work was done. Its a matter of hindsight.

Something the book "Gravitation" - by MTW addresses. For example, it
illustrates numerous proposed alternatives to GR. Some failed pretty much
straightaway, but one in particular, took a few decades before it was shown
to make a false prediction, despite agreeing in the 4 standard tests of GR.

Usually, most novice ideas have already been thrashed out by the experts,
and rejected for some technical reason. These ideas, for the most part,
never even get published, so the novices just don't know that they are going
up the garden path.

Einstein, imo, realised that it is so difficult to try and get a provable
physical model that he just gave up on trying. He just declared, whatever
the reason, light does this, and laws do this, so this is the result. For
the most part, that approach works. I personally think it failed with GR
predicting time travel to the past. I think this is where one needs to know
what the actual physical process that causes aging, i.e. causes time, is, to
know where the behavioural modelling bit is going to fail.

So, somewhat unfortunately, unless you can actually do all the relevant sums
on your ideas, they will never be treated seriously. Ideas are 10 a penny
sort of thing.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

1e-5/(((45.86835565 us / 5.7664051 us)))*c

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

(45 microseconds) - ((45 microseconds) / tau) = 37.8380276 microseconds

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 12:19:10 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 9:34:45 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > Nope. I cite IMPLICATIONS, NOT INTERPRETATIONS.
> >
> > Implications ARE interpretations, particularly when you ignore half of the
> > phenomena.
>
> Implications are NOT interpretations. You IMPLY they are, I INTERPRET that
> as another mistaken BELIEF you have.

Irrelevant. Your implication is dead wrong, as demonstrated by a simple
logical argument -- unless you can prove Lorentz ether theory is correct,
which you can't do.

> > > The NIST experiment involved lifting an atomic clock just one foot and
> > > OBSERVING that it ran faster when raised.
> >
> > OBSERVING from a point deeper in the gravitational potential, yes. NOT
> > observing AT the raised clock.
>
> There was no observation from any "point deeper in the gravitational potential."

Of COURSE there was! Good grief, you don't even understand the experiment.
The clock that didn't get raised was deeper in the G-field. DUH!

> The same results would have been obtained regardless of whether the
> observer moved with the clock or not.

Now that is just flat-out stupidly wrong. THINK!

> > > "Interpretations" are arguments that what happened didn't really happen.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > > "Implications" are that the test IMPLIES that time is a property of
> > > matter, since time only changed for the clock that was raised and not
> > > for anything else.
> >
> > But implications are not always what actually happens. It is only IMPLIED.
>
> You just confirmed what I said. You are saying that what happened may not
> have actually happened.

Wow! You have really gone off the deep end! Something may be implied and
still not be correct.

> > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/imply?s=t
> >
> > "to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated"
> >
> > It leaves open the probability that the indication is wrong.
>
> It leaves open a POSSIBILITY that the indication is wrong. But, that is
> the nature of science. Mathematicians prefer to believe math is NEVER
> wrong, but that just shows how WRONG they can be.

So you don't understand math, either. Got it!

> In my paper on Time Dilation I refer to the mathematics which confirmed
> for a THOUSAND YEARS that the earth was the center of the universe.

Again you prove you understand neither mathematics nor logic. If the
postulates are wrong, the mathematical derivation is wrong. But IF the
postulates are confirmed, the mathematical derivation means the conclusions
must therefore apply to the real world.

> [Irrational rant deleted]

>
> > > > True, AFAIK, reciprocal TD has not been directly measured, but it is
> > > > STRONGLY implied by the Principle of Relativity, which has never been
> > > > refuted.
>
> I is NOT implied by the Principle of Relativity.

???

> That is what my paper on the Second Postulate is all about. Mathematicians
> have an INCORRECT understanding of the First Postulate.

And you have a misunderstanding of what constitutes math, physics and logic.

> > > The Principle of Relativity DOES NOT imply reciprocal Time Dilation.
> >
> > Actually, it implies it IF one-way TD is true.
>
> What is "one-way Time Dilation"? If you raise an object, time speeds up
> for it. If you lower the object, time slows down for it.

Forget about GR. It just confuses you.

> > > I think I understand special relativity AND general relativity --
> > > as far as Time Dilation is concerned. I'm not concerned with any
> > > other aspect.
> >
> > It's plain to me that you understand neither.
> >
> > > SR and GR are not incompatible.
> >
> > Wrong! SR is a subset of GR.
>
> How does that make them incompatible? That says the ARE compatible.

So you don't understand that an orange is a fruit but a fruit may not be
an orange? Does that make a banana incompatible with fruit?

> > > Time is affected by motion and gravity in the same way.
> >
> > Then why is the velocity part of the GPS negative and the gravitational
> > part positive?
>
> They aren't. It just happens that way with earth satellites.

They aren't but it happens? Did you fry your logic chip?

> [Completely mixed up ramblings deleted]

>
> > > They both slow down time.
> >
> > Wrong!
> >
>
> No, it has been demonstrated MANY times that velocity and gravity slow down
> time. They just do not do it in the same way.

Movement ALWAYS results in clocks appearing to slow down. When the clock
is high up, it appears to go faster. This NEVER happens with velocity.

> > > And they slow down time ONLY for the specific object that changed velocity
> > > or location.
> >
> > Since velocity is purely relative, that is the crux of your
> > misunderstanding. Are you an etherist?
>
> The way velocity is typically measured may be "purely relative," but that
> doesn't make it reciprocal.

Now there goes your logic chip burning up again. Do you believe that
when a cop with a radar gun measures you going 100 kph, your radar gun
won't measure HIM doing 100 kph?

> I am not an etherist. Energy waves travel through the VACUUM of space.

You sound like an etherist since your claiming that velocity is somehow
related to some absolute frame.

> > So wh do you believe a guy that died seven decades ago knew more than a
> > living, breathing guy today who has spent his whole career dealing with
> > far more experimental evidence than was available then?
> >
> > > I believe the facts and evidence. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that disputes
> > > Einstein's views on Time Dilation. There are only INTERPRETATIONS by
> > > mathematician-physicists.
> >
> > An implication must be logical. What you draw from the evidence is not
> > logical.
>
> It is totally logical. It just disagrees with the BELIEFS of many
> mathematicians who somehow BELIEVE that math = logic.

Ummm, so you believe your ideas are totally logical, and that math is NOT
logical. Did you flunk math?

> > Well, if all you had was the NIST experiment, you could argue that time
> > actually slowed down in deeper gravitational potentials. But velocity-
> > induced TD belies that implication. I once thought as you did until I
> > realized that VITD logically could NOT actually slow down clocks. From
> > that, one can conclude that GITD doesn't actually slow down clocks either
>
> In reality, of course, experiments have REPEATEDLY shown that clocks DO
> slow down due to velocity time dilation AND due to gravitational time
> dilation.

You believe measurement of something somewhere else means that that is
EXACTLY what MUST be there. The universe doesn't agree with you.

> Mathematicians just find ways to IGNORE OR EXPLAIN AWAY THE EVIDENCE.

This is just another of your rants. It is wrong and you are a tiresome
hidebound kook.

> I don't see much point in continuing this. No matter what EVIDENCE I
> present, you will still find ways to IGNORE THE EVIDENCE and twist
> things to fit your beliefs.
>
> Ed

Actually, that's what YOU are doing.

> Einstein showed that gravity is the same as acceleration.

Not exactly.

> Gravity = accelerating motion.
> Velocity = constant speed motion.
>
> Same thing, just applied differently.

So now you're saying velocity is the same as acceleration? You really
need to get a new logic chip.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/22/17 4/22/17 8:19 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>> The NIST experiment involved lifting an atomic clock just one foot and
>>>> OBSERVING that it ran faster when raised.
>>>
>>> OBSERVING from a point deeper in the gravitational potential, yes. NOT
>>> observing AT the raised clock.
>>
>> There was no observation from any "point deeper in the gravitational potential."
>
> Of COURSE there was! Good grief, you don't even understand the experiment.
> The clock that didn't get raised was deeper in the G-field. DUH!

And, of course, as I have said so many times, they did NOT "observe that it ran
faster when raised". What was ACTUALLY observed was that SIGNALS from the raised
clock arrived at the un-raised clock more frequently than when the former was
not raised.

Lake keep making unwarranted assumptions and inferences, apparently due to his
abysmal understanding of what was ACTUALLY done. His personal GUESSES sound too
loudly in his mind for him to READ WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE.

Of course the authors confuse the issue by speaking loosely
at times.

>>>> Time is affected by motion and gravity in the same way.

Yes -- NOT AT ALL. As I keep saying and Lake keeps ignoring, it is the
MEASUREMENTS OF SIGNALS that are affected by relative motion and by gravity.

One must abandon the notion that time is somehow universal. We observe that it
is specific to each and every clock [#]. When we put clocks at rest in a
(locally) inertial frame, they can work together and observe a common time among
themselves, in that frame (and ONLY in that frame).

[#] Because "time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others].
This is QUITE CLEAR, at least in physics, because in EVERY
experiment that uses time, it is measured by a clock.

>> No, it has been demonstrated MANY times that velocity and gravity slow down
>> time.

You got your facts WRONG. This has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. What actually has been
observed MANY times is that relative motion and gravity can and do affect THE
WAY SIGNALS ARE MEASURED.

Tom Roberts

[Kevin Aylward]

>"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
>news:zKKdnd70Bsl-g2HF...@giganews.com...

>that uses time, it is measured by a clock.

>Yes -- NOT AT ALL. As I keep saying and Lake keeps ignoring, it is the
>MEASUREMENTS OF SIGNALS that are affected by relative motion and by
>gravity.

>> No, it has been demonstrated MANY times that velocity and gravity slow
>> down
>> time.

>You got your facts WRONG. This has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. What actually has
>been observed MANY times is that relative motion and gravity can and do
>affect THE WAY SIGNALS ARE MEASURED.

Again, this is very misleading language Tom. It implies that effects due to
gravity and motion are not physical, but merely "a measurement effect".
i.e. effectively, measurement errors. This implication is not true, as you
well know.

As previously noted, many times, taking initially synchronised clocks on a
round trip results in a loss of synchronisation. This is direct proof that
there is a real, physical effect associated with time, due to gravity and
motion, and not just a measuring effect. Even if the experiment had never
been done, SR/GR predicts that such a physical result would indeed occur.

So, whilst one may debate what is the correct description of this physical
effect, i.e. whether its due to "different paths in space-time" or the
"rates of clocks" or "slowing down time", it is arguably, disingenuous to
simply make statements such as written above that can reasonably
interpreted to be a claim that all motion and gravity effects, are
measurement errors, not physical effects.

Tom, as you are the resident expert on GR/SR here, one would expect that you
would understand the underlying point being made, irrespective of the actual
wording, that less knowingly individuals are trying to put forward, and
address that underlying point, as futile as that might turn out to be.


Its pretty obvious that if all of GR/SR were only just about "the way
signals are measured", this NG would never have been created, as neither
would GR/SR be created.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/23/17 4/23/17 2:24 AM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
> news:zKKdnd70Bsl-g2HF...@giganews.com...

>> As I keep saying and Lake keeps ignoring, it is the
>> MEASUREMENTS OF SIGNALS that are affected by relative motion and by gravity.
>>> No, it has been demonstrated MANY times that velocity and gravity slow down
>>> time.
>> You got your facts WRONG. This has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. What actually has been
>> observed MANY times is that relative motion and gravity can and do affect THE
>> WAY SIGNALS ARE MEASURED.
>
> Again, this is very misleading language Tom. It implies that effects due to
> gravity and motion are not physical, but merely "a measurement effect". i.e.
> effectively, measurement errors.

Hmmmm. I make no such implication, and your inference that I did is WRONG. These
are indeed not "physical" (in the usual sense of "changing" the clock), they are
GEOMETRICAL. Anyone who thinks I mean they are "merely a measurement effect" has
not been reading what I write around here.

Note I was responding to Lake's mistakes, and was not writing a general text on
SR/GR. That _IS_ how newsgroups like this work.

> As previously noted, many times, taking initially synchronised clocks on a round
> trip results in a loss of synchronisation. This is direct proof that there is a
> real, physical effect associated with time, due to gravity and motion, and not
> just a measuring effect.

No. YOU also got your facts wrong, and make an invalid inference (just like Lake
does). Yes, this proves it is not a "measuring effect", but then again I never
said or implied that it is. But this does NOT "prove it is physical", because a
GEOMETRICAL effect can also explain this. And indeed, in modern physics this is
explained as a GEOMETRICAL effect.

Note this physical situation does NOT describe "time dilation". It describes the
fact that different paths can have different path lengths. which is a different
GEOMETRICAL effect. For timelike paths, such as those traversed by massive
objects like clocks, path length is the elapsed proper time of a clock that
traverses the path.

"Time dilation" and "length contraction" are differential
effects that occur independently at each point along an
object's path; they are both simple geometrical projections.
Elapsed proper time, however, is an INTEGRAL along the path.
The fourth SR effect, the difference in simultaneity, is due
to the way coordinates transform between inertial frames.

> Even if the experiment had never been done, SR/GR
> predicts that such a physical result would indeed occur.

NOPE! SR and GR predict that such a GEOMETRICAL effect does occur. And that
prediction has been verified many times.

> [... elaboration of the same error]

Tom Roberts

[Ubet Hitaosi]

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> Again, this is very misleading language Tom. It implies that effects
>> due to gravity and motion are not physical, but merely "a measurement
>> effect". i.e. effectively, measurement errors.
>
> Hmmmm. I make no such implication, and your inference that I did is
> WRONG.
> These are indeed not "physical" (in the usual sense of "changing" the
> clock), they are GEOMETRICAL. Anyone who thinks I mean they are "merely
> a measurement effect" has not been reading what I write around here.

You miss the point, since he is absolutely wrong. And you seemingly
likewise. The think IS physical, since it IS geometrical. It has to be
like that. These peopel are not understanding their own theory.

I would suggest moving on over to my Divergent Matter, like I, Gary
Harnagel and many others did.

[Ed Lake]

Okay. The source I cited in an earlier version of my paper stated that they do not really know what particle spin is. I suspect they meant they do not really understand it LOGICALLY. The fact that mathematicians can develop a formula to work with particle spin doesn't seem to change the fact that no one really understands particle spin. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-spin/

Quantum mechanics is also "stunningly successful" even though it uses a fixed time, not a variable time. All that means is that it works in any specific reference frame. It doesn't mean it is the same in every reference frame, i.e., that a comparison between frames would find time to pass at an identical rate.

You could be right. But, I really have no choice. As I stated earlier, I have one paper on Time Dilation that is awaiting a second review at a scientific journal, and I am now looking to send my paper on Einstein's Second Postulate to another journal. If I can get it published, I probably won't be trying to get any other papers published.

I just want to see my papers INTELLIGENTLY discussed. No one is going to convince me my papers are wrong by showing me some mathematical formula. They would need to EXPLAIN LOGICALLY why they are wrong. If they think I am too dumb to understand, then that's their problem. As Einstein once said, “You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.” In other words, if you cannot explain things in simple terms, then you probably do not understand it yourself. All you can do is MINDLESSLY RECITE what you read in some book or think you heard in school.

My paper on Einstein's Second Postulate shows a CLEAR difference between what Einstein said and what mathematician-physicists CLAIM he said. The EVIDENCE says that Einstein was right and the mathematician-physicists are WRONG. I think that is an important matter to resolve. That's why I wrote the paper. And I've just started the process of trying to get it published.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Tom, you really need to carefully explain what you mean by "signals." And you need to explain it in simple terms. If you cannot do that, then YOU have a problem. As Einstein said, “You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

To me, it is undeniably clear from the NIST experiments, the Hafele-Keaton experiments and MANY other experiments, that gravity and motion affect time. And I think I fully understand how and why. Your convoluted arguments about "signals" mean nothing to me. You may think that makes me too dumb to understand your brilliant explanations, but you're not going to change my mind by explaining things in terms that make no sense to me.

I'm going to have to focus on getting my paper onto arXiv.org and on getting it published. So, I'm not going to be able to spend much time here arguing EVIDENCE AGAINST MEANINGLESS TERMINOLOGY.

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Lake Scribbled......

Tom, you really need to carefully explain what you mean by "signals." And you need to explain it in simple terms. If you cannot do that, then YOU have a problem.

As Einstein said, “You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

You are trying to prove Tom & Einstein WRONG.

What is the point of using ( a quote from Einstein about explaining Physics ) when you are trying to prove Einstein to be INCOMPETENT?????

https://singaporecraft.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/p1090144-crop.jpg
Could you teach & explain to your grandmother how to perform this Origami Structure in less than a page ????

[Ed Lake]

If you read my paper, I show what Einstein wrote and what mathematicians CLAIM he wrote. So, in no way am I disagreeing with Einstein. I'm just trying to resolve the difference in what Einstein said versus what mathematicians CLAIM he said.

My paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Lake Scribbled

If you read my paper, I show what Einstein wrote and what mathematicians CLAIM he wrote. So, in no way am I disagreeing with Einstein. I'm just trying to resolve the difference in what Einstein said versus what mathematicians CLAIM he said.

My paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

Ed

Please explain in 500 words or less the concept of a "HETERODYNE"

[Ed Lake]

Why don't you just look it up? Here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodyne

Playing games accomplishes nothing.

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

> Please explain in 500 words or less the concept of a "HETERODYNE"

Why don't you just look it up? Here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodyne

Playing games accomplishes nothing.

Ed

No, Stupid Ed, Put it into "YOUR OWN WORDS"

I believe you are too stupid to even understand simple things.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/IdealMixer.svg/640px-IdealMixer.svg.png

Modulo 200 / 51
Modulo 200 / 99

https://goo.gl/photos/vH7kJ8augJvpumCz8

https://goo.gl/photos/1BJm3DhuFA8y5Cim9

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 8:49:22 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> If you read my paper, I show what Einstein wrote and
> what mathematicians CLAIM he wrote. So, in no way am
> I disagreeing with Einstein.

If you read a bit further in Einstein's 1905 EMB paper you will find that he deduces from a combination of his two postulates that the speed of light has the fixed value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, not just the rest frame of the emitter.

He gives the formal statement of his two postulates at the beginning of section 2. The first postulate is the relativity postulate, and the second postulate says the speed of light is c in terms of what he called the "stationary" inertial system. Then if you read Section 3 you find

"We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system..."

and the conclusion is that

"...light (as required by the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in combination with the principle of relativity) is also propagated with velocity c when measured in the moving system."

Thus, although his second postulate asserts that light speed is c in terms of only one inertial system, he deduces that it is c in ALL inertial systems... which is one of the main points of the paper. When you deny this, you are directly contradicting Einstein's paper.

Many later authors just apply the relativity postulate to the light speed postulate, and use a simplified set of postulates that state light speed is c in all inertial systems, but this is just simplifying the exposition, it is not changing the theory. So, you are wrong to claim that other expositions of the subject contradict Einstein's treatment. They are entirely consistent.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

(45 us) - (45 us * ((299 792 458 / 1.49833385e10)^0.5)) = 38.6347045 microseconds

[Kevin Aylward]

>"Tom Roberts" wrote in message

>news:Je2dnam4Rq_wLmHF...@giganews.com...

On 4/23/17 4/23/17 2:24 AM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
> news:zKKdnd70Bsl-g2HF...@giganews.com...
>> As I keep saying and Lake keeps ignoring, it is the
>> MEASUREMENTS OF SIGNALS that are affected by relative motion and by
>> gravity.
>>> No, it has been demonstrated MANY times that velocity and gravity slow
>>> down
>>> time.
>> You got your facts WRONG. This has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. What actually has
>> been
>> observed MANY times is that relative motion and gravity can and do affect
>> THE
>> WAY SIGNALS ARE MEASURED.
>
> Again, this is very misleading language Tom. It implies that effects due
> to
> gravity and motion are not physical, but merely "a measurement effect".
> i.e.
> effectively, measurement errors.

>Hmmmm. I make no such implication, and your inference that I did is WRONG.

Not at all. An implication, is what it says. It is something that may
suggest something. Clearly, the words may be taken to mean what I suggest.
Whether or not they do to a specific person, is a matter of fact for that
person.

So, I infer from this, that you infer that my stating that there was an
inference, that there was an inference that I considered such inference as
true personally, is incorrect.

>These are indeed not "physical" (in the usual sense of "changing" the
>clock), they are GEOMETRICAL. Anyone who thinks I mean they are "merely a
>measurement effect" has not been reading what I write around here.

I thing you are a tad too stuck in your own interpretation as to what
"physical" means.

>Note I was responding to Lake's mistakes, and was not writing a general
>text on SR/GR. That _IS_ how newsgroups like this work.

> As previously noted, many times, taking initially synchronised clocks on a
> round
> trip results in a loss of synchronisation. This is direct proof that there
> is a
> real, physical effect associated with time, due to gravity and motion, and
> not
> just a measuring effect.

>No.

What exact part of:

"there is a real, physical effect associated with time, due to gravity and
motion"

did you have problems with?

>YOU also got your facts wrong, and make an invalid inference (just like
>Lake does). Yes, this proves it is not a "measuring effect", but then again
>I never said or implied that it is. But this does NOT "prove it is
>physical", because a GEOMETRICAL effect can also explain this. And indeed,
>in modern physics this is explained as a GEOMETRICAL effect.

You are just getting tonged tied in semantics.

I consider going to New York from Los Angels via Denver or via Dallas a true
physical fact. Any one that drives those routes can tell by the amount of
fuel the use. This is as physical as you can get. Indeed, if someone where
to run both routes, I am quite sure they would declare that there are aware
of the physical differences.

So, it is argued the same for time.

So, depending on say, the gravitational field, clocks will experience
different paths in space-time, hence, experience different real times, hence
experience different amounts of time, hence time itself, depends on gravity.

Or, just as one inserts more distance into a travel trip, one inserts more
time.

So, why not just say, gravity effects the passage of time, instead of "no,
no, no, clocks don't tick fast or slow and whatever....its.... a change in
path length in space-time....etc..."

>> Even if the experiment had never been done, SR/GR
>> predicts that such a physical result would indeed occur.

>NOPE! SR and GR predict that such a GEOMETRICAL effect does occur. And that
>prediction has been verified many times.

First you say "Nope", then you say "Yes" in the same sentence. What is it?
Is there a final physical result, or not?

You are way on the way to 1984 with this newspeak. Goldstein would be
proud.

Do you actual understand what "physical result" actually means? does it say
why?

My statement is 100% accurate. It can not imply anything but what I said, to
wit: " SR/GR predicts a physical result". Period. Whether or not, as I
stated, any experiment had been done, won't effect what is predicted. You
agreed with this, despite your denial, but inserted the "geometric" for some
extraneous reason not quite fathomable to me. My statement don't care squat
how the change occurred.

You should pay more attention to exactly what I wrote, not what you, assume
I wrote. Now...

I disagree That SR and GR are "geometric" theories. This is just a
historical assumption that isn't a requirement of the mathematics. They are
simply mathematical theories that describe relations between mathematical
variables, and these mathematical variables may be associated with physical
concepts. People are then free to interpret what these variables mean to
suit they particular fancy. This is much the same as in QM. The mathematics
stands quite on its one, irrespective of whether one subscribes to the many
worlds fantasy, the Copenhagen meanderings, the ensemble interpretation or
Bohemian Mechanics.

The proof that GR can not be proven to be a "geometric" theory, is the
existence of a particle exchange theory, that gives the EFEs. To wit: it is
only a claim that GR is a geometric theory.

I don't agree that SR was derived as a "geometric" theory. Einstein just
said, light does this, and laws does this, so this is the mathematical
result. The geometric waffle came later, imo. For GR, it may well be that
there was a "geometric" impetuous, but this is irrelevant. All that matters
is that there are equations, that predict results. All interpretations, at
that level are er...ahmmm.. superfluous.


Time is ageing, aging is things that change. This is truly obvious. Go and
look at your wife's/girlfriends/ lines around their eyes. If nothing
changed, nothing would age, and time would be stopped. That IS what time is.
Aging, is objects moving. Aging requires a physical basis, i.e. time
requires a physical basis. Its not just "geometry". There is no escape from
this. The physical motion of objects is what creates time.

I would say the question Ed really wants answered, isn't whether clocks
cover more time or clocks tick slower, but how does gravity physically
effect the passage of time. That is, how does gravity, make things age,
differently, i.e. makes things change differently. How does gravity,
physically, effect the motion of objects that create the process that create
time.

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 1:03:20 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 8:49:22 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > If you read my paper, I show what Einstein wrote and
> > what mathematicians CLAIM he wrote. So, in no way am
> > I disagreeing with Einstein.
>
> If you read a bit further in Einstein's 1905 EMB paper you will find that he deduces from a combination of his two postulates that the speed of light has the fixed value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, not just the rest frame of the emitter.
>

Yes, in every frame of reference they will measure the speed of light to be c. HOWEVER, due to time dilation, c will actually be DIFFERENT in every frame of reference. That is what RELATIVITY and SIMULTANEITY are all about. To see and measure the difference, you need to COMPARE the speed of TIME in the different frames of reference.

> He gives the formal statement of his two postulates at the beginning of section 2. The first postulate is the relativity postulate, and the second postulate says the speed of light is c in terms of what he called the "stationary" inertial system. Then if you read Section 3 you find
>
> "We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system..."
>
> and the conclusion is that
>
> "...light (as required by the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in combination with the principle of relativity) is also propagated with velocity c when measured in the moving system."
>
> Thus, although his second postulate asserts that light speed is c in terms of only one inertial system, he deduces that it is c in ALL inertial systems... which is one of the main points of the paper. When you deny this, you are directly contradicting Einstein's paper.
>

No, that is how mathematicians interpret Einstein's paper. It is NOT what Einstein wrote. He makes it VERY clear that in order for TIME to be the same in two different frames of reference (say A & B), they have to measure the speed of light traveling from A to B to be the same as the speed of light traveling from B to A. They will NOT be the same unless both A & B are actually in the same inertial frame moving at the same speed BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE LENGTH OF A SECOND WILL BE DIFFERENT.

> Many later authors just apply the relativity postulate to the light speed postulate, and use a simplified set of postulates that state light speed is c in all inertial systems, but this is just simplifying the exposition, it is not changing the theory. So, you are wrong to claim that other expositions of the subject contradict Einstein's treatment. They are entirely consistent.

Have you read my paper? I've got DOZENS of references (in addition to those cited in the paper) which say that the speed of light will be c for the emitter AND for any observer regardless of his speed or direction of movement. That is just plain NUTS. It is DISPROVED every day with police lidar systems.

Instead of arguing about wording in Einstein's paper, why don't we discuss how police measure the speed of an oncoming car via lidar? Here's my paper which also discusses how lidar works: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Are you incapable of understanding that I am not going to play your silly games? If you refuse to explain your BELIEFS in layman's terms, why should I explain anything to you?

Ed

[rotchm]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 3:24:19 AM UTC-4, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
>

> >You got your facts WRONG. This has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. What actually has
> >been observed MANY times is that relative motion and gravity can and do
> >affect THE WAY SIGNALS ARE MEASURED.
>
> Again, this is very misleading language Tom. It implies that
> effects due to gravity and motion are not physical, but merely
> "a measurement effect".

These are all semantic issues. The models (GR/SR) make predictions; their formula's, variables... give out "values". All extra words are unnecessary.
No need of "physical" or "geometrical"...

> As previously noted, many times, taking initially synchronised clocks on a
> round trip results in a loss of synchronisation.

Semantics gibberish again. The equations say " t' < t ", and that is all.
You can word it as " t' is less than t" or that "time is slower in S'", but these words are meaningless and wont change the fact that t' < t.

> This is direct proof that
> there is a real, physical effect associated with time,

No. There are no "real" nor "physical" words in "t' < t". Keep the language simple and clear.

I side with Tom, but beware of his verbose; his choice of words are for those who have brains, something that 99% of the participants here lack.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 12:28:45 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> In every frame of reference they will measure the

> speed of light to be c.

To be more precise, as Einstein's 1905 paper says, the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system of coordinates.

> HOWEVER, due to time dilation, c will actually be
> DIFFERENT in every frame of reference.

Well, the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system of coordinates. Of course, you can define other systems of coordinates, in which the speed of light has other values, but that's irrelevant.

> No, that is how mathematicians interpret Einstein's
> paper. It is NOT what Einstein wrote.

Those quotes were from Einstein's paper.

> They will NOT be the same unless both A & B are
> actually in the same inertial frame moving at the

> same speed...

That's not true, and the whole point of Einstein's paper is to explain why what you said is not true. You are assuming that inertial coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations, but they are actually related by Lorentz transformations.

> I've got DOZENS of references (in addition to those cited
> in the paper) which say that the speed of light will be c
> for the emitter AND for any observer regardless of his speed
> or direction of movement. That is just plain NUTS.

No, it isn't nuts. This is what Einstein's paper explains. Everything you are saying is what someone would believe if inertial coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations, but they are actually related by Lorentz transformations. That's why all your beliefs are wrong.

> It is DISPROVED every day with police lidar systems.
> Instead of arguing about wording in Einstein's paper,
> why don't we discuss how police measure the speed of
> an oncoming car via lidar?

The Doppler effect is perfectly consistent with Lorentz invariance. In fact, the Doppler effect in the Ives-Stilwell experiment is sensitive enough to distinguish between the Galilean and Lorentzian relations, and the result was that the Lorentz invariant relations are correct, and conclusively ruled out the Galilean relations.

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 3:54:53 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 12:28:45 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > In every frame of reference they will measure the
> > speed of light to be c.
>
> To be more precise, as Einstein's 1905 paper says, the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system of coordinates.
>
> > HOWEVER, due to time dilation, c will actually be
> > DIFFERENT in every frame of reference.
>
> Well, the speed of light is c in terms of every inertial system of coordinates. Of course, you can define other systems of coordinates, in which the speed of light has other values, but that's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant if it is the WHOLE POINT OF RELATIVITY. Due to time moving at different rates in different frames of reference, everything measured using time will be DIFFERENT in the different frames of reference. They will appear "normal" until you COMPARE measurements OF TIME in one frame versus another.

c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for A.
c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for B.
BUT THE LENGTH OF A SECOND WILL BE DIFFERENT FOR A VERSUS B.

>
> > No, that is how mathematicians interpret Einstein's
> > paper. It is NOT what Einstein wrote.
>
> Those quotes were from Einstein's paper.
>
> > They will NOT be the same unless both A & B are
> > actually in the same inertial frame moving at the
> > same speed...
>
> That's not true, and the whole point of Einstein's paper is to explain why what you said is not true. You are assuming that inertial coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations, but they are actually related by Lorentz transformations.

The whole point of Einstein's paper is to explain why what you say is not true.

>
> > I've got DOZENS of references (in addition to those cited
> > in the paper) which say that the speed of light will be c
> > for the emitter AND for any observer regardless of his speed
> > or direction of movement. That is just plain NUTS.
>
> No, it isn't nuts. This is what Einstein's paper explains. Everything you are saying is what someone would believe if inertial coordinate systems are related by Galilean transformations, but they are actually related by Lorentz transformations. That's why all your beliefs are wrong.

You need to forget about what other theories said and just pay attention to what EINSTEIN said. That is why his theory was revolutionary!

>
> > It is DISPROVED every day with police lidar systems.
> > Instead of arguing about wording in Einstein's paper,
> > why don't we discuss how police measure the speed of
> > an oncoming car via lidar?
>
> The Doppler effect is perfectly consistent with Lorentz invariance. In fact, the Doppler effect in the Ives-Stilwell experiment is sensitive enough to distinguish between the Galilean and Lorentzian relations, and the result was that the Lorentz invariant relations are correct, and conclusively ruled out the Galilean relations.

Lidar does NOT USE the Doppler effect. It sends out multiple PULSES OF LIGHT at a fixed rate and at the speed of light, and then it measures the time between pulses when they bounce back. READ MY PAPER!

The lidar gun emits light at c. The speeder encounters the light at c + v, where v is his velocity. The speeder then becomes the emitter and bounces back the pulses at c BUT at the rate received, which is faster rate than originally transmitted.

YOUR BELIEFS ARE DISPROVED EVERY DAY VIA LIDAR. You just need to understand how lidar works.

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:28:45 PM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 1:03:20 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 8:49:22 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > If you read my paper, I show what Einstein wrote and
> > > what mathematicians CLAIM he wrote. So, in no way am
> > > I disagreeing with Einstein.
> >
> > If you read a bit further in Einstein's 1905 EMB paper you will find that he deduces from a combination of his two postulates that the speed of light has the fixed value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, not just the rest frame of the emitter.
> >
>
> Yes, in every frame of reference they will measure the speed of light to be c. HOWEVER, due to time dilation, c will actually be DIFFERENT in every frame of reference. That is what RELATIVITY and SIMULTANEITY are all about. To see and measure the difference, you need to COMPARE the speed of TIME in the different frames of reference.

COMPARE the speed of TIME ?

That is the WHOLE DAMN POINT, There is No way to Verify the Current state of Time Dilation in the Occupied Frame. c is always going to be measured to be c.

Compared to some Distant parts of the Universe, Our Frame is Already Above the speed of light, but we are jut fine and feel no tidal forces or random detectable deviations in the Homogeneity of the CMBR

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

"explain your BELIEFS in layman's terms" ??

The Explanation is we are inside a Black Hole

It is a very "UN-Simple Concept"

You have to have at least a Rudimentary Understanding of All of Physics.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro203puVhQsmCj9qhlFQ-As8e

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

LIDAR? you are a Moron...

The Only Usable part of LIDAR is the Laser Ranging, Which was Done by MMX in 1887.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBUCGxZq_xg

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:14:08 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> Due to time moving at different rates in different
> frames of reference, everything measured using time
> will be DIFFERENT in the different frames of reference.
> They will appear "normal" until you COMPARE measurements
> OF TIME in one frame versus another.

Both the time and the space coordinates of one system of inertial coordinates are skewed relative to those of a relatively moving system of inertial coordinates. This is expressed quantitatively by the Lorentz transformations, which accurately account for both length contraction and time dilation.

> The whole point of Einstein's paper is to explain
> why what you say is not true.

But we've seen that the verbatim quotes from Einstein's paper contradict what you say.

> You need to forget about what other theories said and

> just pay attention to hat EINSTEIN said.

Einstein explicitly gave the relationship between relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates at the end of Section 3 of his paper. They contradict your claims.

> Lidar does NOT USE the Doppler effect. It sends out
> multiple PULSES OF LIGHT at a fixed rate and at the
> speed of light, and then it measures the time between
> pulses when they bounce back.

The difference in the time between arrivals of the reflected pulses is due to the Doppler effect.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:14:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:

> Due to time moving at different rates in different frames of reference,

Gibbered semantics. Times does NOT move at different rates.
The fact that the eqs imply t' < t, does NOt mean that "time goes slow" or whatever other words you use. SR/GR imply that t' < t and that is all.

> c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for A.
> c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for B.
> BUT THE LENGTH OF A SECOND WILL BE DIFFERENT FOR A VERSUS B.

So what!? (even if that were true...)

[Ed Lake]

All you need to do to compare the speed of time in two frames of reference is put one atomic clock atop a mountain (or atop a building) and put another atomic clock at the bottom of the mountain (or at the bottom of a building). The two clocks will tick at different rates, the lower clock will tick slower.

This is ALREADY BEING DEMONSTRATED with GPS satellites. Hafele-Keating demonstrated it, since they were in airplanes for the trips, and then measured the time differences when they got back on the ground.

Ignoring the evidence doesn't make the evidence go away.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Police officers use lidar every day to catch speeders. LIDAR stands for LIght Detection And Ranging. In order for LIDAR to work, they need to be able to measure c + v, where v is the speed of the speeding car.

You need to read my paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 6:17:17 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:14:08 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Due to time moving at different rates in different
> > frames of reference, everything measured using time
> > will be DIFFERENT in the different frames of reference.
> > They will appear "normal" until you COMPARE measurements
> > OF TIME in one frame versus another.
>
> Both the time and the space coordinates of one system of inertial coordinates are skewed relative to those of a relatively moving system of inertial coordinates. This is expressed quantitatively by the Lorentz transformations, which accurately account for both length contraction and time dilation.
>
> > The whole point of Einstein's paper is to explain
> > why what you say is not true.
>
> But we've seen that the verbatim quotes from Einstein's paper contradict what you say.
>
> > You need to forget about what other theories said and
> > just pay attention to hat EINSTEIN said.
>
> Einstein explicitly gave the relationship between relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates at the end of Section 3 of his paper. They contradict your claims.

Only according to your MISinterpretation.

>
> > Lidar does NOT USE the Doppler effect. It sends out
> > multiple PULSES OF LIGHT at a fixed rate and at the
> > speed of light, and then it measures the time between
> > pulses when they bounce back.
>
> The difference in the time between arrivals of the reflected pulses is due to the Doppler effect.

Radar uses the Doppler effect (the difference in wave length). Lidar measures the difference between emitted and received pulses of light.

Why don't you describe the steps? I described them in a previous post. Here are the steps:

1. The lidar gun emits light at c.
2. The speeder encounters the light at c + v, where v is his velocity.
3. The speeder then becomes the emitter and bounces back the pulses at c BUT at the rate received, which is faster rate than originally transmitted.
4. The lidar gun compares the emitted pulse rate to the received pulse rate and calculates the speed of the speeding car.

If the speeder does not encounter the light at c + v, then how does lidar work in your opinion?

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 6:18:54 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:14:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > Due to time moving at different rates in different frames of reference,
>
> Gibbered semantics. Times does NOT move at different rates.
> The fact that the eqs imply t' < t, does NOt mean that "time goes slow" or whatever other words you use. SR/GR imply that t' < t and that is all.

No, it means that time slows down for the object affected AND ONLY FOR THAT OBJECT. When time slows down for an object, its chemical processes slow down (it ages slower, it decays slower), its physical processes slow down (if it has a heart, its heart beats slower, its cycles move slower, etc.)

>
> > c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for A.
> > c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for B.
> > BUT THE LENGTH OF A SECOND WILL BE DIFFERENT FOR A VERSUS B.
>
> So what!? (even if that were true...)

If the length of a second is different, then any measured process involving seconds will be different. So,

c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for A.
c will measure to be 299,792,458 meters per second for B.

BUT C WILL NOT BE THE SAME IF THEY COMPARE THE LENGTH OF THEIR SECONDS. LIGHT MOVED AT A DIFFERENT RATE FOR A THAN FOR B.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

This morning I received back the second reviewer's comments about my paper on Time Dilation. I need to study them and respond with a revised version of my paper.

So, I'm not going to have the time to post here for awhile.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/22/2017 3:44 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Einstein showed that gravity is the same as acceleration.

No, he did not. He showed that UNIFORM gravitational field is
indistinguishable from acceleration. Since most gravitational fields are
not uniform, then this is where differences emerge.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/23/2017 10:06 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> As Einstein said, “You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

You are unable to understand Einstein's explanation of relativity in his
book. So are you saying that Einstein did not understand it because he
was not able to explain it to you?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/23/2017 2:28 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Yes, in every frame of reference they will measure the speed of light to be c. HOWEVER, due to time dilation,
> c will actually be DIFFERENT in every frame of reference.

Here's a basic of science, Ed. If you are going to claim that light
speed is really NOT c when it is MEASURED to be c, then how are you
going to verify SCIENTIFICALLY that it is really NOT c?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/24/2017 9:15 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 6:17:17 PM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:14:08 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:

>>> The whole point of Einstein's paper is to explain
>>> why what you say is not true.
>>
>> But we've seen that the verbatim quotes from Einstein's paper contradict what you say.
>>
>>> You need to forget about what other theories said and
>>> just pay attention to hat EINSTEIN said.
>>
>> Einstein explicitly gave the relationship between relatively moving systems of inertial
>> coordinates at the end of Section 3 of his paper. They contradict your claims.
>
> Only according to your MISinterpretation.

Here are the quotes from section 3:

"We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving
system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this

is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished
the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light
is compatible with the principle of relativity....
....The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave
with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This
shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible."

How would you suggest these should be correctly interpreted, Ed?

[Poutnik]

On 04/24/2017 04:07 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> [...] In order for LIDAR to work, they need to be able to measure c + v, where v is the speed of the speeding car.

In fact not.

They need to be able to measure
response delays or wavelength shifts.


--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Lake Diarrhea-ed

Police officers use lidar every day to catch speeders. LIDAR stands for LIght Detection And Ranging. In order for LIDAR to work, they need to be able to measure c + v, where v is the speed of the speeding car.

You need to read my paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

Ed

No Ed.... you have proven you cannot even read or understand what you read.
LiDar uses (How long the pulse takes to return to the detector).... combined with GPG & inertial sensors.
It takes multiple distance measurements and then calculates data based off of GPS & inertial sensor data.
You are unknowingly combining multiple complex systems unnecessarily to make some odd explanation.
Your LIDAR Gedanken is Dumb.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:15:33 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Einstein explicitly gave the relationship between
> > relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates
> > at the end of Section 3 of his paper. They contradict
> > your claims.
>
> Only according to your MISinterpretation.

Do you agree that inertial coordinate systems are related by the equations at the end of Section 3 in Einstein's 1905 EMB paper?

> > The difference in the time between arrivals of the
> > reflected pulses is due to the Doppler effect.
>

> If the speeder does not encounter the light at c + v,
> then how does lidar work in your opinion?

Since light propagates at c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, we can easily analyze the situation in terms of any such system. Take the inertial coordinates in which the emitter is at rest, and an object is approaching directly at speed v. The distance between emitter and object is decreasing, so each successive pulse travels a shorter distance (from emitter to object and back to emitter). This is the Doppler effect. By simple grade school algebra, the time interval between arrivals of reflected pulses back at the emitter equals the interval between emissions multiplied by the squared Doppler factor (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c).

We get the same answer if we work in the inertial coordinates in which the object (car) is at rest. The speed of light is also c in terms of those coordinates, and the emitter is approaching at speed v.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

No-hair theorem ... Half of the Hairs are pointing "IN' with the Other Half Point "OUT". This Cancels any "Gravitational Velocity" While Leaving the (Gravitational Pressure or Time Dilation)

https://goo.gl/photos/ZAf1AgP3YFsKHUf76

https://goo.gl/photos/9Ve59ngYMCsXcgdV7

https://goo.gl/photos/an7Aq629eRYx3oZS6

https://goo.gl/photos/zRBcrygRSW2KLzH78

https://goo.gl/photos/sVVEJAtsAg8BF2mx8

https://goo.gl/photos/92k9erRifn2ibCFT7

https://goo.gl/photos/9vn6f8JrVnsYYf2c9

https://goo.gl/photos/KrzLMBhw6itWdQor9

https://goo.gl/photos/Bk21eqvNWb9DXYJN9

https://goo.gl/photos/5gpzGsh2SwZzmVM49

https://goo.gl/photos/X4YDy8YnfuiJYjr99

https://goo.gl/photos/ctfVZ2FUYq5GGvby8

https://goo.gl/photos/LKnjy9nf1VDeMuTu7

https://goo.gl/photos/73vBukiF2HqigoCX7

https://goo.gl/photos/jf5zqRT56DMjbdEP7

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 10:22:43 AM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:15:33 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > Einstein explicitly gave the relationship between
> > > relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates
> > > at the end of Section 3 of his paper. They contradict
> > > your claims.
> >
> > Only according to your MISinterpretation.
>
> Do you agree that inertial coordinate systems are related by the equations at the end of Section 3 in Einstein's 1905 EMB paper?

I'm an analyst, not a mathematician. I tend to ignore equations unless they are equations that I have to create to make a point.

>
>
> > > The difference in the time between arrivals of the
> > > reflected pulses is due to the Doppler effect.
> >
> > If the speeder does not encounter the light at c + v,
> > then how does lidar work in your opinion?
>
> Since light propagates at c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, we can easily analyze the situation in terms of any such system. Take the inertial coordinates in which the emitter is at rest, and an object is approaching directly at speed v. The distance between emitter and object is decreasing, so each successive pulse travels a shorter distance (from emitter to object and back to emitter). This is the Doppler effect. By simple grade school algebra, the time interval between arrivals of reflected pulses back at the emitter equals the interval between emissions multiplied by the squared Doppler factor (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c).
>
> We get the same answer if we work in the inertial coordinates in which the object (car) is at rest. The speed of light is also c in terms of those coordinates, and the emitter is approaching at speed v.

Why don't we stick with the lidar gun and the speeder, instead of complicating things by adding in memorized formulae and terminology?

1. The lidar gun emits TWO pulses that are x microseconds apart. Of course, the pulses travel at c.

2. The photons in the pulses reach the the surface of the speeding car at c + v, where v is the speed of the car. In other words, the pulses arrive at x - v microseconds apart. They are closer together than at the point of emission.

3. The atoms in the speeder's car EMIT NEW PHOTONS back to the lidar gun. The new photons also travel at c, but the two pulses are closer together.

4. Since the lidar gun is stationary, it receives the pulses and photons at the same rate the speeder emitted them.

5. The lidar gun calculates the difference in time between the two pulses that it emitted and the two pulses that it received back.

6. Since c travels a known distance during one microsecond, the lidar gun calculates the distance the speeder traveled between pulses.

7. The lidar gun calculates that the speeder was going 90 mph.

There is NO DOPPLER EFFECT being measured. The Doppler effect involves wave lengths (red shifting and blue shifting). The lidar gun just measures the time between PULSES.

READ MY PAPER: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256

Ed

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

(2. The photons in the pulses reach the the surface of the speeding car at c + v,) ... WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a MICROPROCESSOR CALCULATION of timing between multiple Pulses & nothing to do with (c+v)

(c+v) IS DOPPLER ... you know, Blue shift or Red shift of the Temperature of Light and DOES NOT REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE PULSE !!!!!!!!!! FOOOOOOOOL!!

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Buffon's needle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon%27s_needle


No-hair theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem



(No-hair theorem * Buffon's needle)= https://goo.gl/photos/9Ve59ngYMCsXcgdV7


Permeability (electromagnetism)
(4pi/10^7) / 4pi = https://goo.gl/photos/ZAf1AgP3YFsKHUf76 = 10^7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)

[Ed Lake]

The microprocessor cannot do anything until it has all the data. I described the steps to get the data to the microprocessor. Step 2 is the arrival of the photons at the speeder's car at c + v. The microprocessor doesn't have all the data until step 7.

>
> (c+v) IS DOPPLER ... you know, Blue shift or Red shift of the Temperature of Light and DOES NOT REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE PULSE !!!!!!!!!! FOOOOOOOOL!!

All you are doing is proving that you do not understand. The LIDAR gun does NOT measure the Doppler shift. RADAR guns do that. RADAR guns will work with one pulse. LIDAR is a different concept. It requires TWO PULSES to work. (In reality, it measures a great number of pulses in a fraction of a second in order to verify its own accuracy.)

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Ed Gibbered

"Step 2 is the arrival of the photons at the speeder's car at (c + v)"


[car at (c + v)] is TRASH, (c+v) Negates all of Relativity....

If [car at (c + v)] then there would be NO REFLECTED PHOTON TO CALCULATE THE VELOCITY

[car at (c - v)] is Much More Workable if the Car was Always considered to be at the event horizon, trying to Accelerate away form the event horizon.

Your Brain is Filled with TRASH

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/24/2017 10:42 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 10:22:43 AM UTC-5, danco...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:15:33 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>> Einstein explicitly gave the relationship between
>>>> relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates
>>>> at the end of Section 3 of his paper. They contradict
>>>> your claims.
>>>
>>> Only according to your MISinterpretation.
>>
>> Do you agree that inertial coordinate systems are related by the equations at the
>> end of Section 3 in Einstein's 1905 EMB paper?
>
> I'm an analyst, not a mathematician. I tend to ignore equations unless they are
> equations that I have to create to make a point.

I don't understand what you're saying. You are saying that you
understand what Einstein said in his paper while ignoring all the
equations? That contains at least half of what he says!

>
>>
>>
>>>> The difference in the time between arrivals of the
>>>> reflected pulses is due to the Doppler effect.
>>>
>>> If the speeder does not encounter the light at c + v,
>>> then how does lidar work in your opinion?
>>
>> Since light propagates at c in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, we
>> can easily analyze the situation in terms of any such system. Take the inertial
>> coordinates in which the emitter is at rest, and an object is approaching directly
>> at speed v. The distance between emitter and object is decreasing, so each successive
>> pulse travels a shorter distance (from emitter to object and back to emitter). This
>> is the Doppler effect. By simple grade school algebra, the time interval between arrivals
>> of reflected pulses back at the emitter equals the interval between emissions multiplied
>> by the squared Doppler factor (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c).
>>
>> We get the same answer if we work in the inertial coordinates in which the object (car) is
>> at rest. The speed of light is also c in terms of those coordinates, and the emitter is
>> approaching at speed v.
>
> Why don't we stick with the lidar gun and the speeder, instead of complicating things by adding
> in memorized formulae and terminology?
>
> 1. The lidar gun emits TWO pulses that are x microseconds apart. Of course, the pulses travel at c.
>
> 2. The photons in the pulses reach the the surface of the speeding car at c + v, where v is the
> speed of the car. In other words, the pulses arrive at x - v microseconds apart.
> They are closer together than at the point of emission.

They are closer together in time, yes. They are not x-v microseconds
apart because you cannot subtract a speed from a time interval, because
the units cannot be made to line up. It would help if you did some very
basic corrections to your math before continuing your analysis.

>
> 3. The atoms in the speeder's car EMIT NEW PHOTONS back to the lidar gun. The new photons
> also travel at c, but the two pulses are closer together.
>
> 4. Since the lidar gun is stationary, it receives the pulses and photons at the same rate the speeder emitted them.
>
> 5. The lidar gun calculates the difference in time between the two pulses that it emitted and the two pulses that it received back.

Since the rate at which the pulses are received per second is now
higher, this is a Doppler shift. That's what it means.

>
> 6. Since c travels a known distance during one microsecond, the lidar gun calculates the distance the speeder traveled between pulses.

No, it's not necessary to do this at all. All it has to know is the
difference in the rates of the pulses emitted and of the pulses received.

There is no need to calculate any distance at all. Just the speed from
the difference in the rates of pulses.

>
> 7. The lidar gun calculates that the speeder was going 90 mph.
>
> There is NO DOPPLER EFFECT being measured. The Doppler effect involves wave lengths (red shifting and blue shifting).

That is not true. Doppler shift is the change in observed FREQUENCY,
which means in this case the rate at which pulses arrive. It is true
that in some applications, Doppler shift is ALSO associated with
wavelength; these applications are the ones where wavelength and
frequency are related by something like v = wavelength x frequency.
However, in this case, the frequency of the pulses is NOT related to the
wavelength of the pulsed signal. In this application, the Doppler shift
is still related to the rate of pulses per second but not to the wavelength.

This pertains to your understanding of basic concepts, which is a little
rough in certain areas, like what Doppler shift means.

> The lidar gun just measures the time between PULSES.
>
> READ MY PAPER: http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0256
>
> Ed
>

[Ed Lake]

No, it doesn't. It just negates the "MATHEMATICIANS' ALL OBSERVERS THEORY" of relativity. READ MY PAPER!

> If [car at (c + v)] then there would be NO REFLECTED PHOTON TO CALCULATE THE VELOCITY

There obviously IS a NEW photon to calculate velocity, so you are clearly misunderstanding something.

>
> [car at (c - v)] is Much More Workable if the Car was Always considered to be at the event horizon, trying to Accelerate away form the event horizon.
>
> Your Brain is Filled with TRASH

There is no "event horizon" involved in a police officer catching a speeder. Your brain is evidently filled with memorized TRASH that is irrelevant to this discussion. It is confusing you.

Ed

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/24/17 4/24/17 - 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/22/2017 3:44 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>> Einstein showed that gravity is the same as acceleration.
>
> No, he did not. He showed that UNIFORM gravitational field is indistinguishable
> from acceleration. Since most gravitational fields are not uniform, then this is
> where differences emerge.

Hmmmm. This is usually stated as the equivalence between gravity and
acceleration applies only locally. The size of a "local" region depends on both
the measurement accuracy and the actual variation of the gravitational field in
the region. So if your measurement accuracy is insufficient to measure the
actual variation in the field, you cannot distinguish between a truly uniform
field and the actual field, or between acceleration and gravity. But with
sufficiently good resolution you can distinguish them.

BTW gravity is never "the same" as acceleration. But under the circumstances
described above they are equivalent. As I keep saying: to understand subtle
concepts like modern physics requires precision in thought and word. The mental
and verbal shortcuts Lake insists on using have greatly confused him.

Tom Roberts

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

(There is no "event horizon" involved in a police officer catching a speeder.)

FOOOOOL !!!

There is Always an Event Horizon Between The Future & The Past ....

This EVENT HORIZON is called the "PRESENT"

What a Stupid Donkey you are,

My Mother's Donkey is Smarter than you ...

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/23/17 4/23/17 - 1:54 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
>> [...]
> What exact part of:
> "there is a real, physical effect associated with time, due to gravity and motion"
> did you have problems with?

The whole claim. Because the effects of gravity and motion are GEOMETRICAL, and
do not affect time [#].

[#] Where "time is what clocks measure" [Einstein and others]

That is, "time dilation" does NOT affect any clock, it is rather due to the way
geometrical projections behave (for the NIST experiment, and the GPS, this
applies to the way SIGNALS are measured). The twin paradox, the H&K experiment,
etc. do not demonstrate "changes in clocks", but rather the geometrical fact
that different paths can have different path lengths (which for clocks is
elapsed proper time).

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/23/17 4/23/17 - 10:06 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Tom, you really need to carefully explain what you mean by "signals."

Nothing special. GPS satellites send SIGNALS to receivers on earth. The NIST
experimenters sent SIGNALS from their two ion clocks to a common instrument that
compared their frequencies. These are all electromagnetic signals, but in
principle other signaling methods would work, as long as they preserved the
pattern of transmission; in practice no other method does so with sufficient
precision to be useful.

BTW for modulated EM signals the effects on the carrier
frequency and on the modulation frequency are identical.

> To me, it is undeniably clear from the NIST experiments, the Hafele-Keaton
> experiments and MANY other experiments, that gravity and motion affect time.

That's because you are not thinking with sufficient clarity and precision, and
do not understand what was ACTUALLY done. You are IGNORING important aspects of
the NIST experiment -- specifically that the clocks are NOT compared directly,
but rather that SIGNALS FROM THE CLOCKS are compared. Had you understood what
was ACTUALLY done, you would know that before claiming that the clocks are
affected you must first understand how the SIGNALS are affected; do that and you
would learn that the effect on the signals accounts for the ENTIRE OBSERVED
EFFECT. You would also learn that clocks are not affected by either gravity or
motion.

As I have said so often, the H&K experiment measured a DIFFERENT GEOMETRICAL
PROPERTY from the NIST experiment. NIST measured "time dilation" (geometrical
projection) while H&K measured elapsed proper times (geometrical path lengths).
Both are modeled accurately by GR, in which clocks are NOT affected by gravity
or motion; signal measurements, projections, and path lengths are.

> And I think I fully understand how and why.

You are wrong. But you think, read, and write with such imprecision and lack of
clarity that you cannot recognize your own confusion. And you are too arrogant
to even consider that you might be wrong, even when told by multiple experts.

Tom Roberts

[Kevin Aylward]

"rotchm" wrote in message
news:70a0d948-53cc-4364...@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 5:14:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:

> Due to time moving at different rates in different frames of reference,

>Gibbered semantics. Times does NOT move at different rates.
>The fact that the eqs imply t' < t, does NOt mean that "time goes slow" or
>whatever other words you use. SR/GR imply that t' < t and that is all.

SR states that if Dr. Who travels very fast, goes away and comes back,
Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart will have gotten greyer hair, and Dr. Who will
still just be finishing his tea. SR states that Dr. Who's own clocks don't
change, and SR states that Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart's own clocks don't
change, and both Dr. Who and the Brigadier indeed concur with SR about their
own clocks. Dr. Who says that he is traveling in time, i.e covering more
time at the rate of say, 2 minutes/20 years. Dr. Who therefore concludes
that SR, physically, means time travel.

At some point one must face the elephant in the room. This is physics, not
maths. Physics, well at least when was at school, was about giving physical
explanations to the world.

So, how come the Ph.D physicists feel its suitable to explain SR by
reference to "integrating a space-time path", to those with possibly, not
even completed high school graduation, when an alternative is clearly
available?

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

[Kevin Aylward]

"Ed Lake" wrote in message
news:75599036-0059-4447...@googlegroups.com...


>
>> Usually, most novice ideas have already been thrashed out by the experts,
>> and rejected for some technical reason. These ideas, for the most part,
>> never even get published, so the novices just don't know that they are
>> going
>> up the garden path.
>
> Einstein, imo, realised that it is so difficult to try and get a provable
>> physical model that he just gave up on trying. He just declared,
>> whatever
>> the reason, light does this, and laws do this, so this is the result. For
>> the most part, that approach works. I personally think it failed with GR
>> predicting time travel to the past. I think this is where one needs to
>> know
>> what the actual physical process that causes aging, i.e. causes time, is,
>> to
>> know where the behavioural modelling bit is going to fail.
>
>> So, somewhat unfortunately, unless you can actually do all the relevant
>> sums
>> on your ideas, they will never be treated seriously. Ideas are 10 a penny
>> sort of thing.
>
>> -- Kevin Aylward

>You could be right. But, I really have no choice. As I stated earlier, I
>have one paper on Time Dilation that is awaiting a second review at a
>scientific journal, and I am now looking to >send my paper on Einstein's
>Second Postulate to another journal. If I can get it published, I probably
>won't be trying to get any other papers published.

I had all but the briefest look at your helical time generator.

e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix

A mental calculation looks like its a factor of d=do.sqrt(1 + (v/c)^2) for
the increased length, although I may be mistaken. The simple ones always
seem to be more confusing for me...

SR would require (1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2))

Because (1 + x) ~ 1/(1-x), they are close, but not close enough. It needs to
be exact.

Its not all lost though, they may be some other model that gets the right
value...

[Kevin Aylward]

"rotchm" wrote in message
news:88804ec8-4139-4865...@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 3:24:19 AM UTC-4, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
>

> >You got your facts WRONG. This has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. What actually has
> >been observed MANY times is that relative motion and gravity can and do
>> >affect THE WAY SIGNALS ARE MEASURED.
>
>> Again, this is very misleading language Tom. It implies that
>> effects due to gravity and motion are not physical, but merely
>> "a measurement effect".

>These are all semantic issues. The models (GR/SR) make predictions; their
>formula's, variables... give out "values". All extra words are unnecessary.
>No need of "physical" or "geometrical"...

I agree with this in the sense of making predictions.

>> As previously noted, many times, taking initially synchronised clocks on
>> a
>> round trip results in a loss of synchronisation.

>Semantics gibberish again. The equations say " t' < t ", and that is all.
>You can word it as " t' is less than t" or that "time is slower in S'", but
>these words are meaningless and wont change the fact that t' < t.

Sure, the words don't matter, but there are physical facts that those words
are describing.

>> This is direct proof that

>> there is a real, physical effect associated with time,

>No.
>There are no "real" nor "physical" words in "t' < t". Keep the language
>simple and clear.

Sure, I have said many times, the maths just have variables.

However there are real physical effects described by the mathematical
variables, otherwise, the math would be completely pointless. If I go on a
very fast journey and return, according to SR, I might well find that my
wife has gained bags under her eyes, put on 20kg, and changed her hair
colour to grey, whilst I have remained my trim, strapping body. Thus, this
is absolutely a "real, physical effect associated with time", and SR math
describes it. No ifs or butts. If this were not so, SR would be, essentially
meaningless. A physical effect is anything where there is an observable,
physical difference when the final comparison is made.

"Time" is the word that is used to describe ageing. i.e. the fact that
things change. i.e. the fact that in some manner, (internal) objects change
position, that define the age of other objects.

>I side with Tom, but beware of his verbose; his choice of words are for
>those who have brains, something that 99% of the participants here lack.

I see a wad of confusion between non physical measuring effects, like as
what might occur from say, transmitting clock signals that experience a
changing delay because the source is moving away or coming closer, from real
physical effects such as someone truly living longer, with reference to
another, after a return.

To avoid confusion, I view it as important, that one should be clear that if
one is using terms like "measuring" that it is made clear that sometimes the
measurement is not reflecting a real physical change, and that sometimes it
does.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Gonna Have to Disagree.

The Volume of Space is is a Derivative of Gravity.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html



Gravitational Potential Energy

The general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of gravity and is equal to the work done against gravity to bring a mass to a given point in space. Because of the inverse square nature of the gravity force, the force approaches zero for large distances, and it makes sense to choose the zero of gravitational potential energy at an infinite distance away. The gravitational potential energy near a planet is then negative, since gravity does positive work as the mass approaches. This negative potential is indicative of a "bound state"; once a mass is near a large body, it is trapped until something can provide enough energy to allow it to escape. The general form of the gravitational potential energy of mass m is:

U = (G*M*m)/(distance of r * c^2)

(2*G*M*m)/(distance of r * c^2) which looks surprisingly like the Schwarzschild radius

where G is the gravitation constant, M is the mass of the attracting body, and r is the distance between their centers.

This is the form for the gravitational potential energy which is most useful for calculating the escape velocity from the earth's gravity.

Distance in meters between two gravitating objects is Energy....
As Gravity reduces this Energy, "It is an SR Like Effect"

Gravity is Pulling the (Potential Distance Energy) Directly out of Space time

t' = t / (sqrt(1 - (v²/c²))

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c2


Gravity is an SR-like Direct Foreshortening of the distance of Space between two Gravitating objects

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

(2*G*M*m) .. These are the Entropy Terms

(c^2 * r) ... These are the Energy Terms

[Lintervallen Ruther]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

>>Semantics gibberish again. The equations say " t' < t ", and that is

>>all.You can word it as " t' is less than t" or that "time is slower in
>> S'",but these words are meaningless and wont change the fact that t' <

>> t.
>
> Sure, the words don't matter, but there are physical facts that those
> words are describing.

Why not at all?? That statement is not even correct grammatically. A
t' < t is completely nonsense, you relativists are repeating over and over
again. You may say a "dt' < dt", which makes perfectly sense, but a "t'<t"
is pure, clean stupidity. Repeating it is imbecility, however, so muxh
indeed.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 8:42:17 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Do you agree that inertial coordinate systems are
> > related by the equations at the end of Section 3 in
> > Einstein's 1905 EMB paper?
>
> I'm an analyst, not a mathematician.

As an analyst, can you explain (with or without equations) how inertial coordinate systems are related to each other?

> I tend to ignore equations unless they are equations
> that I have to create to make a point.

Do you expect other people to ignore your equations, as you ignore theirs?

Did you ignore Einstein's equations?

> There is NO DOPPLER EFFECT being measured. The Doppler
> effect involves wave lengths (red shifting and blue shifting).
> The lidar gun just measures the time between PULSES.

Waves need not be purely sinusoidal. Any sequence of pulses is a wave, with frequency inversely proportional to the period (i.e., the time interval between successive wave crests, which are pulses in this case), and with wavelength equal to the velocity divided by the frequency. (For very low frequency waves it can easily happen that the wavelength is longer than the distance traveled.)

The effect you are describing (making allowances for some misconceptions) is nothing but the Doppler effect.

> 7. The lidar gun calculates that the speeder was going 90 mph.

The lidar gun uses the Doppler formula to compute the speed of the car from the ratio of the periods, i.e., the ratio (time between receptions)/(time between emissions). Since you are an expert on how this is done, can you tell me the ratio of periods that would correspond to 90 mph?

[Ed Lake]

People here may tell me I'm wrong, but they NEVER EXPLAIN to me where I'm wrong in plain language. They just spout memorized slogans and formulae.

You say that signals are "nothing special," and then you say that the clocks do not run slow, the "signals" just need to be interpreted the way you interpret them. And you IMPLY that the NIST either doesn't know what it is doing, or they are deliberately LYING to the public. The NIST SAYS "that time passes more slowly when you move faster" and "you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase." That is the SAME as I'm saying. So, when you say I am wrong, you are saying the NIST is wrong.

It seems you think, read, and write with such imprecision and lack of clarity that you cannot recognize your own confusion. And you are too arrogant
to even consider that you might be wrong, even when you disagree with the multiple experts at the NIST. What the NIST says is CLEAR to me, what you say is just INSULTS AND GIBBERISH.

I have to get to work on revisions a scientific journal asked me to make to my paper on Time Dilation. So, this will be one of my last posts until maybe next week.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Your message seems addressed to me, but I've never said anything about any "helical time generator."

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Because it is NOT SIMPLE & "PLAIN LANGUAGE" is not adequate to explain where you are mistaken

[Lintervallen Ruther]

Ed Lake wrote:

> The NIST SAYS "that time passes more slowly when you move faster" and

compared to the other guy, you left home, not moving, or moving slower
than you do.

> "you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase."

same argument, look above. Always compared to the other guy. IFF, and this
is important, you ever return back and compare. Once you never intend to
return, than the question is irrelevant, and you need to compare it to
something else. IFF you again, are considering would be relevant.

> That is the SAME as I'm saying. So, when you say I am wrong, you are
> saying the NIST is wrong.

No. You seemingly must be wrong, just by complaining. I didn't even need
to read what you said. My dear, feel offended, friend.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 2:40:59 PM UTC-5, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:

((1.29609239e+26 meters) * (c^2) * 137.035999) / (2.39177670813e+55 kg) = 6.67407994e-11

((13.7 billion light years) * (c^2) * 137.035999) / (2.39177670813e+55 kg) =
6.67407995e-11

(13.7 billion light years * (c^2) * 137.035999) / G = 2.39177669e+55 kilograms

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/24/2017 3:06 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> And you IMPLY that the NIST either doesn't know what it is doing, or they are deliberately LYING to the public.

This has been explained to you before. It is neither one. It is
deliberately using softer and looser language when addressing a general
reading public. Such language does have the risk of being taken
literally when it is not meant to be taken that way (as you have done),
but it is on the other hand more accessible and generally understandable
to the casual reader.

The VERY SAME SCIENTIST will casually say to a casual reader that "time
passes more slowly at a different elevation" in one context, and then
more carefully say to a more serious reader that "time passes the same
for any local observer, regardless of location in a gravitational field,
but the clock signals passed between observers in different locations
will be at different rate than the local signals." These obviously say
very different things on the surface, but it is NOT LYING.

The problem you are suffering is reading the wrong material for your
intent. You are reading stuff aimed at the casual reader, with the
intent of being a serious reader. That WILL NOT WORK. You are shooting
yourself in the foot.