Gedanken proves that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates

[kenseto]

The Gedanken:
1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
6. What do you think? Is SR correct?
7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 06-apr-2018 om 18:37 schreef kenseto:

> http://www.idiotmechanics.org/2015dirt.pdf
>

That link does not work.

Dirk Vdm

[Libor Striz]

kenseto <set...@att.net> Wrote in message:

> 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
>

According to IRT the validity of any equation depends on what side
is on the left.


--
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 06-apr-2018 om 19:40 schreef Libor Striz:

> kenseto <set...@att.net> Wrote in message:
>
>> 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
>>
> According to IRT the validity of any equation depends on what side
> is on the left.

And on Verticality Isotropy In All Directions.

Dirk Vdm

[Volney]

On 4/6/2018 12:37 PM, kenseto wrote:
> The Gedanken:
> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.

They turn around. Acceleration. SR no longer applies in this problem.

> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.

More like symmetry. SR doesn't apply here because of acceleration.

> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?

So far, SR has been shown to be correct whenever it applies. (not here
however)

> 7. According to IRT

Nobody cares about IRT.

[Ovské Bezvýjimeènì]

Libor Striz wrote:

> kenseto <set...@att.net> Wrote in message:
>
>> 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than
>> the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
>>
> According to IRT the validity of any equation depends on what side
> is on the left.

How would you say "equation" in polish?

[kenseto]

That’s because you are a moron....you changed the link.

[kenseto]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 4/6/2018 12:37 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > The Gedanken:
> > 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> > 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> > 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
>
> They turn around. Acceleration. SR no longer applies in this problem.
>
> > 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> > 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
>
> More like symmetry. SR doesn’t apply here because of acceleration.

Every location on earth is in a state of acceleration....so are you saying that SR doesn’t apply on earth? I don’t think so. I think you don’t know what you are talking about.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 06-apr-2018 om 20:43 schreef Volney:

> On 4/6/2018 12:37 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> The Gedanken:
>> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
>> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
>> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are
>> moving in the opposite direction again.
>
> They turn around. Acceleration. SR no longer applies in this problem.

https://imgflip.com/memetemplate/Facepalm-Bear

>
>> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds
>> accumulated on each clock.
>> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same
>> number of clock seconds when they meet again.
>
> More like symmetry. SR doesn't apply here because of acceleration.

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Facepalm.html

Dirk Vdm

[rotchm]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Op 06-apr-2018 om 18:37 schreef kenseto:

> > 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock
> > seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the
> > following link:
> > http://www.idiotmechanics.org/2015dirt.pdf
> >
> That link does not work.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Its TRUE!! The above link doesnt work.

Ken, that link doesnt work. can you fix it so that we may take a look at your file?

[rotchm]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> The Gedanken:
> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?

yes, (assuming id accelerations), the values on the clocks will e that same.
And this has been confirmed by exps. yes, THAT exp has been performed numerous times.

> 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds
> than the other. A paper on IRT is

Then your dIRT is no good, since its contrary to actual observations.
Why do you support a theory that deosnt even predict correctly known exp's ?

> available in the following link:

> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015dirt.pdf

The link doesnt work.

[kenseto]

The link is designed to exclude moron like you from viewing it.

[kenseto]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > The Gedanken:
> > 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> > 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> > 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
> > 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> > 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
> > 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?
>
> yes, (assuming id accelerations), the values on the clocks will e that same.

> And this has been confirmed by exes. yes, THAT exp has been performed numerous times.

Liar, no such experiment ever been performed.

>
> > 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds
> > than the other. A paper on IRT is
>
> Then your dIRT is no good, since its contrary to actual observations.

> Why do you support a theory that doesn’t even predict correctly known exp's ?

No moron, then SR is no good. The concept of mutual time dilation is refuted.

[kenseto]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Sorry, the link is designed to exclude moron like you from reading it.

[Ovské Bezvýjimeènì]

You wouldnt understand it anyway. IRT is much deeper than that. Valid for
both of you. The best you can do is to scratch the surface.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:19:57 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:

> > And this has been confirmed by exes. yes, THAT exp has
> > been performed numerous times.
>
> Liar, no such experiment ever been performed.

LIAR, and ignorant idiot! it is well know that that exact exp HAS been performed. In fact, you can do it yourself now since accurate clocks are available.

> No moron, then SR is no good.

Then your dIRT is no good since it implies the same things as SR, as you claim.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:19:57 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > And this has been confirmed by exes. yes, THAT exp has
> > > been performed numerous times.
> >
> > Liar, no such experiment ever been performed.
>
> LIAR, and ignorant idiot! it is well know that that exact exp HAS been performed. In fact, you can do it yourself now since accurate clocks are available.

Moron no such experiment ever been performed.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:38:28 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:

> Moron no such experiment ever been performed.

yes tehre have idiot ken, and you know it. You need to resort to direct lies now to support your dIRT? Thats unscientific.

[kenseto]

Hey moron, give us the link for such experiment.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Scientific is only resorting to direct lies to suport
the magnificient Shit of magnificient Great Guru.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 7:12:43 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> Hey moron, give us the link for such experiment.

I did, many times, but you kept saying that the link doesn't work and that the mic wasnt working.

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:19:57 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>
>> > > And this has been confirmed by exes. yes, THAT exp has
>> > > been performed numerous times.
>> >
>> > Liar, no such experiment ever been performed.
>>
>> LIAR, and ignorant idiot! it is well know that that exact exp HAS been
>> performed. In fact, you can do it yourself now since accurate clocks
>> are available.

>Moron no such experiment ever been performed.

Assertion is not a valid argument, Ken. Besides, you have been given links
to several such experiments many, many times. All you do is either ignore
them or assert (without any evidence) that they have been faked. You then
later assert the experiments have never been performed all over again.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Sunday, 8 April 2018 18:42:28 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>
> >On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:24:51 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 10:19:57 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 6:01:33 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>
> >> > > And this has been confirmed by exes. yes, THAT exp has
> >> > > been performed numerous times.
> >> >
> >> > Liar, no such experiment ever been performed.
> >>
> >> LIAR, and ignorant idiot! it is well know that that exact exp HAS been
> >> performed. In fact, you can do it yourself now since accurate clocks
> >> are available.
>
> >Moron no such experiment ever been performed.
>
> Assertion is not a valid argument, Ken. Besides, you have been given links
> to several such experiments many, many times.

And some fanatic idiots said these experiments confirm!
It just must be true.

[Edward Prochak]

Sorry 'www.idiotmechanics.org 2015dirt.pdf' does not exist or is not available.

Looks like your server is offline or not a valid DNS.
Ping times out, so maybe offline.

Ed

[kenseto]

You are a fucking liar. If you did why don’t you show it here again?

[kenseto]

The morons here changed the link. Go to my original post that started this thread and click on the link in that post.

[rotchm]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 9:26:28 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 9:50:57 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:

> You are a fucking liar.

Watch your mouth else I will have to slap it off of you!

> If you did why don’t you show it here again?

You want me to post the link/document for you again??

[Edward Prochak]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> The Gedanken:
> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?

> 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:

> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link)

Read a good deal of it.
Two problems:
1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects,
but no test to prove or even hint at its existence.

2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations
to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know the
clocks relative to each other with no way to access the absolute clock.

Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR,
yet assumes existence of "strings" and inaccessible absolute time.

I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach.

When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock,
let me know.

Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of
Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose.

Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this
looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague.

Ed

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 9:50:57 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:

>> I did, many times, but you kept saying that the link doesn't
>> work and that the mic wasnt working.

>You are a fucking liar. If you did why don't you show it here again?

So that you can either ignore it, or assert (without looking at the link)
that the experiment is invalid (without evidence of that, of course)?

And then you will assert yet again "no such experiment ever been performed"?

And someone else will tell you it has, and give you a pointer to it?

And then you ignore it or assert it is invalid again?

And round and round we go!!!

[Michael Moroney]

Edward Prochak <edpr...@gmail.com> writes:

>Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of
>Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose.

>Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this
>looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague.

Good luck with that! Seto can't even do third grade math, much less
calculate the precession of Mercury!

[jgreen...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:10:53 AM UTC+9:30, Libor Striz wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> Wrote in message:
>

> > 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> >

> According to IRT the validity of any equation depends on what side
> is on the left.
>

> Which is where Lorentz/Fitz stuffed up.
Run the train in the opposite direction, or measure (observe) from the guard's perspective, and Einie's train grows with velocity.
JG


> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
>
>
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[kenseto]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > The Gedanken:
> > 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> > 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> > 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
> > 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> > 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
> > 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?
> > 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>
> Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link)
>
> Read a good deal of it.
> Two problems:
> 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects,
> but no test to prove or even hint at its existence.

Read Chapter 5 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
in this Chapter, three past famous experiments detected absolute motion and thus the existence of the E-Matrix.

>
> 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations

> to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know thigh...

The point about absolute time is that it is the only time exists. But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame. That’s why we have the LT. The LT transform an interval of absolute time in the observer’s clock (such as a clock second) to a moving clock and the result is 1/gamma seconds.

> Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR,
> yet assumes existence of “strings" and inaccessible absolute time.

You made this faulty assertion without reading by book.

>
> I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach.

The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR?

>
> When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock,
> let me know.

Read Chapter 5 of my book.

> Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of
> Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose.

ROTFLOL....so you want math proof when you said that math proof is not real?

>
> Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this
> looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague.

It is not Lorentz’s theory. it includes Lorentz’s theory and SR as subsets.

[Edward Prochak]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > The Gedanken:
> > > 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> > > 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> > > 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
> > > 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> > > 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
> > > 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?
> > > 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> >
> > Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link)
> >
> > Read a good deal of it.
> > Two problems:
> > 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects,
> > but no test to prove or even hint at its existence.
>
> Read Chapter 5 of my book in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> in this Chapter, three past famous experiments detected absolute
> motion and thus the existence of the E-Matrix.

You could not even mention the names of these three experiments here.
I don't usually follow folks links because if you post in Usenet
then you should discuss in usenet.

>
> >
> > 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations
> > to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know thigh...
>
> The point about absolute time is that it is the only time exists.

Okay there's your claim.

> But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that
> represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame.
> That’s why we have the LT. The LT transform an interval of absolute
> time in the observer’s clock (such as a clock second) to a moving
> clock and the result is 1/gamma seconds.

TO get that absolut clock value I would have to know my
absolute velocity. But your theory only allows me to measure
velocity relative to other objects, not to that Ematrix.
So it is useless.

As the saying goes:
all theories are wrong, some are useful.
Yours does not appear to be useful.

>
>
> > Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR,
> > yet assumes existence of “strings" and inaccessible absolute time.
>
> You made this faulty assertion without reading by book.
>
> >
> > I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach.
>
> The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR?

Where did I argue against?? You obviously have me
confused with someone else. I am Ed Prochak.

>
> >
> > When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock,
> > let me know.
>
> Read Chapter 5 of my book.
>
> > Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of
> > Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose.
>
> ROTFLOL....so you want math proof when you said that math proof is not real?

you are really confused.

>
> >
> > Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this
> > looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague.
>
> It is not Lorentz’s theory. it includes Lorentz’s theory and SR as subsets.

As I said "like Lorentz's theory". And by that I mean it attempts
to put something in place to preserve the assumed existence of
aether (Ematrix) which cannot be measured or detected in order
to save an absolute reference frame.

Sorry, but you need some evidence. I don't see it in this thread.
and I'm sorry but I already read your paper, I've not got the time
to wade through your book.

I'll go back to lurking on this thread. If you mention something useful
I may pop in again.

have a good day.
Ed

(That's Ed Prochak. Not whoever you thought you were replying to.)
8^)
Glasses and big nose smiley

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> > The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR?
>
> Where did I argue against?? You obviously have me
> confused with someone else. I am Ed Prochak.

You will get that a lot from idiot ken. He confuses everything and everyone.
He even writes letters to government officials to complain how he is treated in this NG...

[jgreen...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 2:07:53 AM UTC+9:30, kenseto wrote:
> The Gedanken:
> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?
> 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

If time did vary with separation (velocity), a space traveller would be in trouble coming home!
The earth would not be where he predicted (from his clock and pre-launch knowledge of the earth's orbit), so he would miss the rendevue.
He would be lost in space along with all the AE accolytes.
jG

[kenseto]

No, that’s where the LT comes in. The traveler would offset his clock by increasing the number of Cs 133 radiation for the second this will make his clock in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. The GPS is operating this way. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This makes the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a ground clock second and thus makes the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

[kenseto]

OK: The Photoelectric experiment; the Compton Shift experiment; The Double slit experiment.
How do you discuss them if you refuse to read them?

>
> >
> > >
> > > 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations
> > > to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know thigh...
> >
> > The point about absolute time is that it is the only time exists.
>
> Okay there's your claim.
>
> > But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that
> > represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame.
> > That’s why we have the LT. The LT transform an interval of absolute
> > time in the observer’s clock (such as a clock second) to a moving
> > clock and the result is 1/gamma seconds.
>
> TO get that absolut clock value I would have to know my
> absolute velocity. But your theory only allows me to measure
> velocity relative to other objects, not to that Ematrix.
> So it is useless.

No you don’t have to know your absolute velocity to get absolute time. Your clock second represents a specific interval of absolute time. Using the LT, the value of this interval of absolute time is represented as 1/gamma or gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt you.

>
> As the saying goes:
> all theories are wrong, some are useful.
> Yours does not appear to be useful.

You are clues....all you do is making assertions.

> >
> >
> > > Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR,
> > > yet assumes existence of “strings" and inaccessible absolute time.
> >
> > You made this faulty assertion without reading by book.
> >
> > >
> > > I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach.
> >
> > The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR?
>
> Where did I argue against?? You obviously have me
> confused with someone else. I am Ed Prochak.

You argue with Tom Roberts about the incoming speed of light is c+/- v is wrong.Now you are saying that you prefer SR/GR

>
> >
> > >
> > > When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock,
> > > let me know.
> >
> > Read Chapter 5 of my book.
> >
> > > Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of
> > > Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose.
> >
> > ROTFLOL....so you want math proof when you said that math proof is not real?
>
> you are really confused.
> >
> > >
> > > Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this
> > > looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague.
> >
> > It is not Lorentz’s theory. it includes Lorentz’s theory and SR as subsets.
>
> As I said "like Lorentz's theory". And by that I mean it attempts
> to put something in place to preserve the assumed existence of
> aether (Ematrix) which cannot be measured or detected in order
> to save an absolute reference frame.

There is no point talking to you. You made assertion without reading my theory.

>
> Sorry, but you need some evidence. I don't see it in this thread.
> and I'm sorry but I already read your paper, I've not got the time
> to wade through your book.

So good bye....sorry we wasted each other’s time.

[JanPB]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 9:37:53 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> The Gedanken:
> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?
> 7. According to IRT one clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the other. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

Worth a listen (a bit long-winded but interesting comments coming from
professional experience), applies to many people here, including Ken:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEkEtZvctKc

--
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

There’s a 489nm light source shining on a metal with a work function of
1.9eV. What’s the maximum Keith energy of the photoelectrons? If your
theory can’t calculate the answer it isn’t a viable theory.

A 535nm laser is shining on a double slit with spacing 3.9 microns. What’s
the distance between maxima on a screen 2 m away from the slit? If your
theory can’t calculate the answer it isn’t a viable theory.

Note no calculation of these experiments is in your paper. None. I’ve read
it.

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

[kenseto]

This video fit you mathematicians exactly. eg. 11 or 26 dimensions, virtual particles, length-contraction, constant light speed, time dilation.....etc.

[Edward Prochak]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:

[]

> > > >
> > > > Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link)
> > > >
> > > > Read a good deal of it.
> > > > Two problems:
> > > > 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects,
> > > > but no test to prove or even hint at its existence.
> > >
> > > Read Chapter 5 of my book in the following link:
> > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> > > in this Chapter, three past famous experiments detected absolute
> > > motion and thus the existence of the E-Matrix.
> >
> > You could not even mention the names of these three experiments here.
> > I don't usually follow folks links because if you post in Usenet
> > then you should discuss in usenet.
>
> OK: The Photoelectric experiment;
> the Compton Shift experiment; The Double slit experiment.
> How do you discuss them if you refuse to read them?

I'll read anything you post here. I don't have time to read a long book

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. You propose an absolute time, but I see no way from your equations
> > > > to access that absolute time. IOW, by you theory I only know thigh...
> > >
> > > The point about absolute time is that it is the only time exists.
> >
> > Okay there's your claim.
> >
> > > But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that
> > > represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame.
> > > That’s why we have the LT. The LT transform an interval of absolute
> > > time in the observer’s clock (such as a clock second) to a moving
> > > clock and the result is 1/gamma seconds.
> >
> > TO get that absolut clock value I would have to know my
> > absolute velocity. But your theory only allows me to measure
> > velocity relative to other objects, not to that Ematrix.
> > So it is useless.
>
> No you don’t have to know your absolute velocity to get
> absolute time. Your clock second represents a specific
> interval of absolute time. Using the LT, the value of
> this interval of absolute time is represented as 1/gamma
> or gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt you.

You say it right there I can only calculate gamma
for "a clock moving wrt you". So that absolute time is inaccessable to me.

>
> >
> > As the saying goes:
> > all theories are wrong, some are useful.
> > Yours does not appear to be useful.
>
> You are clues....all you do is making assertions.

I am only trying to draw out a few more details of
your theory

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Your theory proposes nothing that is not explained by SR & GR,
> > > > yet assumes existence of “strings" and inaccessible absolute time.
> > >
> > > You made this faulty assertion without reading by book.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I prefer the simpler SR/GR approach.
> > >
> > > The why you keep on arguing against SR/GR?
> >
> > Where did I argue against?? You obviously have me
> > confused with someone else. I am Ed Prochak.
>
> You argue with Tom Roberts about the incoming speed of
> light is c+/- v is wrong.Now you are saying that you prefer SR/GR

That is ED LAKE Pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My name, as my email shows is Ed Prochak.

How can you propose a complex post-SR/GR theory when you
don't even pay attention to who you are replying to?

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > When you have a test for those strings, or that absolute clock,
> > > > let me know.
> > >
> > > Read Chapter 5 of my book.
> > >
> > > > Maybe it would help if you actually did calculate the precession of
> > > > Mercury instead of outlining the the calculation in prose.
> > >
> > > ROTFLOL....so you want math proof when you said that math proof is not real?
> >
> > you are really confused.

I, Ed Prochak, expect someone proposing this theory
to at least try to solve some of the related problems.
You were obviously thinking of someone else that said
math proof is not real. That wasn't me.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > Some other real calculations would be useful. Otherwise this
> > > > looks like Lorentz's theory but more vague.
> > >
> > > It is not Lorentz’s theory. it includes Lorentz’s theory and SR as subsets.
> >
> > As I said "like Lorentz's theory". And by that I mean it attempts
> > to put something in place to preserve the assumed existence of
> > aether (Ematrix) which cannot be measured or detected in order
> > to save an absolute reference frame.
>
> There is no point talking to you.
> You made assertion without reading my theory.

I said what it looks like.

>
> >
> > Sorry, but you need some evidence. I don't see it in this thread.
> > and I'm sorry but I already read your paper, I've not got the time
> > to wade through your book.
>
> So good bye....sorry we wasted each other’s time.
>

Okay, if you choose not to support your theory here
is your choice. Like I said, I'll keep watching.

Good day,
ed

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:55:54 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 10:49:56 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:44:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> []
> > > > >
> > > > > Found your paper. (Sorry I fell for the bad link)
> > > > >
> > > > > Read a good deal of it.
> > > > > Two problems:
> > > > > 1. You propose a medium called "strings" for gravity and light effects,
> > > > > but no test to prove or even hint at its existence.
> > > >
> > > > Read Chapter 5 of my book in the following link:
> > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> > > > in this Chapter, three past famous experiments detected absolute
> > > > motion and thus the existence of the E-Matrix.
> > >
> > > You could not even mention the names of these three experiments here.
> > > I don't usually follow folks links because if you post in Usenet
> > > then you should discuss in usenet.
> >
> > OK: The Photoelectric experiment;
> > the Compton Shift experiment; The Double slit experiment.
> > How do you discuss them if you refuse to read them?
>
> I'll read anything you post here. I don’t have time to read a long book

OK read the paper in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf

[Edward Prochak]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:31:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:55:54 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

[]

> > > OK: The Photoelectric experiment;
> > > the Compton Shift experiment; The Double slit experiment.
> > > How do you discuss them if you refuse to read them?
> >
> > I'll read anything you post here. I don’t have time to read a long book
>
> OK read the paper in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
>

When I said here I meant this newsgroup. is that so hard to understand?

But Okay, let's look.
In trying to explain corpuscular nature of light (p 76):
"The reason light comes in this
peculiar form instead of continuous waves has its origin from the
fact that all light sources are moving absolutely in the E-Matrix.
In a short specific increment of time, a light source will emit light
continuously to a group of neighboring E-Strings. However after
this incremental time, the light source will have moved to a new
location due to its absolute motion. This cuts off the continuity of
waves to these neighboring E-Strings and gives rise to a wavepacket
of light. What this new interpretation says is: A photon is
consisted of short blocks of light waves in neighboring E-Strings.
These blocks of light waves travel coherently towards a common
target and this has the effect of a particle hitting the target. With
this new interpretation, we have a way to explain why light
appears to have duality properties."

(See, was that so hard? ALl I did was copy from your document.)

So let's see if I understand this. the source (I won't go into
the atomic level yet) emits light continuously, but the E-Strings
are discrete, so the light comes off in "short blocks of light waves".

Are you saying the quantum effects are due to discrete E-Strings?

Then you conclude:
"This Model Mechanics explanation of photon generation can be
interpreted as the detection of absolute motion."

Can you please show HOW? What is the method that goes from
measuring aspects of photons to computing the absolute speed
of the source?
Consider the simple case of source and detector traveling together.
And let's try the simplest case I can think of: the source and
detector by great luck happen to be at absolute rest. (Heck,
it has to happen sometime, somewhere in the universe.) Then,
we would know because suddenly light would no longer be quantized!
Right?

So the source/detector are moving relative to this E-Matrix.
How does that affect the properties of the light. You need way more
details. (Yes you want me to read the book, but can't you post a HINT?)

Continuing on.
"The Compton Effect Experiment
The experimental set up for the Compton Effect Experiment is
simple. It consists of an incident x-ray source that aims at a
graphite target. The wavelength of the scattered x-rays are
measured at the various deflection angles. The results of this
experiment showed that the scattered x-rays have intensities
peaked at two wavelengths."

Well you don't even describe the Compton Effect correctly, unless you have a specific experiment in mind. (In which case, give a reference, please)
There are not 2 peaks. Compton's formula computes the wavelength change
fro any angle (0-360) and the curve is smooth with no peaks.

Your interpretation though does make it clear, you are looking at
atomic scattering, which is NOT the compton effect. And your interpretation
says nothing about how this ties into the E-MATRIX. so, no go here.

No the two slit experiment, where you miss describe the current
understanding of the experiment. The wave function is NOT the photon
or electron.

Then your new interpretation goes off the rails. Simple question:
which direction is the experiment moving in the matrix?

To be honest, this two slit description of yours is very unclear,
yet claims:
"This interpretation of the double-slit
experiment eliminates the abstractive and counterintuitive
processes of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Also this
interpretation will give physicists a simpler way of doing
physics."

I cannot see anywhere that you explained yourself. other that a
vague comment that it is "due to the
absolute motion of the partition and the screen with respect to
the light wave carrying E-Strings." in the caption of fig. 5.2

That's where I stopped. If the new interpretations for these three
experiments were worth 10 points each on an exam, I would score it
4
0
0
4 out of 30 points.

I'm open to new ideas, but your work so far lacks evidence.

Time to go.
Enjoy,
Ed

[kenseto]

I got a new model of the universe which provides explanation for the past experiments: the Photoelectric experiment, the double-Slit experiment and the Compton shift experiment.
You have a different model of the universe and you used the provisions of this model to refute my explanations. And based on that you give my model a rating of 4 out of 30.

I am not going to waste time presenting new ideas to you. Sorry.

[jgreen...@gmail.com]

I love "absolute time"!
This is absolutely tantamount to admitting that 'offsets' and 'accumulations of clock seconds' are necessary unreal productions to get around the FACT that
c'=c+v

[Edward Prochak]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 8:27:31 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 5:13:55 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:31:55 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:55:54 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:20:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > []

> > OK read the paper in the following link:
> > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
> > >
> >
> > When I said here I meant this newsgroup. is that so hard to understand?
> >
> > But Okay, let's look.
> > In trying to explain corpuscular nature of light (p 76):
> > "The reason light comes in this
> > peculiar form instead of continuous waves has its origin from the
> > fact that all light sources are moving absolutely in the E-Matrix.
> > In a short specific increment of time, a light source will emit light
> > continuously to a group of neighboring E-Strings. However after
> > this incremental time, the light source will have moved to a new
> > location due to its absolute motion. This cuts off the continuity of
> > waves to these neighboring E-Strings and gives rise to a wavepacket
> > of light. What this new interpretation says is: A photon is
> > consisted of short blocks of light waves in neighboring E-Strings.
> > These blocks of light waves travel coherently towards a common
> > target and this has the effect of a particle hitting the target. With
> > this new interpretation, we have a way to explain why light
> > appears to have duality properties."
> >
> > (See, was that so hard? ALl I did was copy from your document.)
> >
> > So let's see if I understand this. the source (I won't go into
> > the atomic level yet) emits light continuously, but the E-Strings
> > are discrete, so the light comes off in "short blocks of light waves".
> >
> > Are you saying the quantum effects are due to discrete E-Strings?

Actually I should have asked:
Are you saying the corpuscular property of photons is due to
discrete E-Strings?
All it needs is Yes or No.

> >
> > Then you conclude:
> > "This Model Mechanics explanation of photon generation can be
> > interpreted as the detection of absolute motion."
> >
> > Can you please show HOW? What is the method that goes from
> > measuring aspects of photons to computing the absolute speed
> > of the source?

> > Consider the simple case of source and detector traveling together.
> > And let's try the simplest case I can think of: the source and
> > detector by great luck happen to be at absolute rest. (Heck,
> > it has to happen sometime, somewhere in the universe.) Then,
> > we would know because suddenly light would no longer be quantized!
> > Right?
> >
> > So the source/detector are moving relative to this E-Matrix.
> > How does that affect the properties of the light. You need way more
> > details. (Yes you want me to read the book, but can't you post a HINT?)

Not even a hint?

> >
> > Continuing on.
> > "The Compton Effect Experiment
> > The experimental set up for the Compton Effect Experiment is
> > simple. It consists of an incident x-ray source that aims at a
> > graphite target. The wavelength of the scattered x-rays are
> > measured at the various deflection angles. The results of this
> > experiment showed that the scattered x-rays have intensities
> > peaked at two wavelengths."
> >
> > Well you don't even describe the Compton Effect correctly,
> > unless you have a specific experiment in mind. (In which case,
> > give a reference, please)
> > There are not 2 peaks. Compton's formula computes the wavelength change
> > fro any angle (0-360) and the curve is smooth with no peaks.
> >
> > Your interpretation though does make it clear, you are looking at
> > atomic scattering, which is NOT the compton effect. And your interpretation
> > says nothing about how this ties into the E-MATRIX. so, no go here.

Did you understand the difference between compton scattering and
nuclear scattering?

> >
> > No the two slit experiment, where you miss describe the current

[typo: miss describe --> misdescribe ]

> > understanding of the experiment. The wave function is NOT the photon
> > or electron.
> >
> > Then your new interpretation goes off the rails. Simple question:
> > which direction is the experiment moving in the matrix?
> >
> > To be honest, this two slit description of yours is very unclear,
> > yet claims:
> > "This interpretation of the double-slit
> > experiment eliminates the abstractive and counterintuitive
> > processes of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Also this
> > interpretation will give physicists a simpler way of doing
> > physics."
> >
> > I cannot see anywhere that you explained yourself. other that a
> > vague comment that it is "due to the
> > absolute motion of the partition and the screen with respect to
> > the light wave carrying E-Strings." in the caption of fig. 5.2
> >
> > That's where I stopped. If the new interpretations for these three
> > experiments were worth 10 points each on an exam, I would score it
> > 4
> > 0
> > 0
> > 4 out of 30 points.
> >
> > I’m open to new ideas, but your work so far lacks evidence.
>
> I got a new model of the universe which provides explanation

Claiming to provide an explanation and actually delivering that
explanation are very different.

> for the past experiments: the Photoelectric experiment,

You gave a partial explanation for corpuscular property of light.
It is not a full explanation of the photoelectric effect.

> the double-Slit experiment

Was a vague description in the caption of the figure

> and the Compton shift experiment.

in which you confuse Compton effect with atomic scattering.

> You have a different model of the universe and you used the
> provisions of this model to refute my explanations. And based
> on that you give my model a rating of 4 out of 30.

I "graded" your answers on completeness.
I asked for more detailed explanation and you failed to deliver.
If I had asked for 16 ounces of water, and you delivered 5 ounces,
whose fault is it?

>
> I am not going to waste time presenting new ideas to you. Sorry.

Too bad. I honestly like hearing new ideas.
What I don't like is being told an idea is complete
and wonderful, when its presentation lacks information,
includes contradictions, and makes exaggerated claims.

I suggest you take one aspect and fully develop it rather than
trying to explain the universe.

Enjoy,
Ed

[Keith Stein]

On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote:

> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>> The Gedanken:
>> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
>> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
>> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
>> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
>> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.

That is of course exactly what Newton would predict too eh!

>> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?

NO!
But i don't doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh!

If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try
Ed's experiment:-

On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein:
>> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is
>>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day.

>> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS.
>> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS.
>> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER.
>> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS.

keith stein

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:52:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote:
> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >> The Gedanken:
> >> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> >> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> >> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
> >> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> >> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
>
> That is of course exactly what Newton would predict too eh!

Newton didn’t predict that at all. He didn’t know about clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. The reason is that a clock second in different frames contains a different amount of absolute time. Perhaps you are thinking that the rate of passage of Newton’s absolute time is the same in all frames of reference. This is true but you failed to realize that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.

To correct this deficiency, physicists invented the LT. The function of the LT is to predict an interval of absolute time (such as a clock second) in the observer’s frame to have a value of 1/gamma seconds on a moving clock. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. The GPS second was redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock. This makes the GPS runs at the same rate as the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

> to realize that

> >> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?
>
> NO!
> But i don’t doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh!

No this SR prediction is not correct. See above explanation.

>
> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try
> Ed's experiment:-
>
> On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein:
> >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is
> >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day.
>
> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS.
> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS.
> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER.
> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS.
>
> keith stein

Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. But they are actually accumulating absolute time at the same rate. Why? Because a clock second in the ISS contains less amount of absolute time than the ground clock second.

[Keith Stein]

On 18/04/2018 13:41, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:52:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>> The Gedanken:
>>>> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
>>>> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
>>>> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
>>>> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
>>>> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
>>
>> That is of course exactly what Newton would predict too eh!
>
> Newton didn’t predict that at all. He didn’t know about clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. The reason is that a clock second in different frames contains a different amount of absolute time.

On what do you base that extraordinary claim Mr.Seto ?

Perhaps you are thinking that the rate of passage of Newton’s absolute
time is the same in all frames of reference.

Yes indeed Mr.Seto, that is exactly what i am thinking.

> This is true

Hallelujah !

> but

but you had to go and spoil it eh!

> you failed to realize that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.

The clock i use Mr.Seto measures absolute time in all frames of refer.

> To correct this deficiency, physicists invented the LT.

There is no deficiency in my Newtonian clock Mr.Seto. LT are BS

> The function of the LT is to predict an interval of absolute time (such as a clock second) in the observer’s frame to have a value of 1/gamma seconds on a moving clock. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. The GPS second was redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock. This makes the GPS runs at the same rate as the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

More BS Mr.Seto

>>>> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?
>>
>> NO!
>> But i don’t doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh!

> No this SR prediction is not correct. See above explanation.

This is an extraordinary belief Mr.Seto. Do you think the clock which
moved initially to the right will register more time than the one which
moved initially to the left, or is it the other way round in your
strange and mysterious world Mr.Seto?

>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try
>> Ed's experiment:-
>>
>> On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein:
>> >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is
>> >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day.
>>
>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS.
>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS.
>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER.
>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS.
>>
>> keith stein
>
> Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates.

And can we take it Mr.Seto that you agree with Mr.Andersen's prediction
that ".........the clock in the ISS will loose 24.7 us per day."

But they are actually accumulating absolute time at the same rate.
Why? Because a clock second in the ISS contains less amount of absolute
time than the ground clock second.

You are wrong about this too Mr.Seto, when eventually someone with
enough nous does Ed's experiment they will surely find the too clocks
agree, JUST AS NEWTON 'PREDICTED' eh!

keith stein

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 1:37:08 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 18/04/2018 13:41, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:52:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>>> The Gedanken:
> >>>> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
> >>>> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
> >>>> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
> >>>> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
> >>>> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.
> >>
> >> That is of course exactly what Newton would predict too eh!
> >
> > Newton didn’t predict that at all. He didn’t know about clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. The reason is that a clock second in different frames contains a different amount of absolute time.
>
> On what do you base that extraordinary claim Mr.Seto ?

The LT shows and had been confirmed experimentally that a clock second in the observer’s frame is worth 1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt the observer.
This means that 1/gamma second on a moving clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 1 second on the observer’s clock.

> Perhaps you are thinking that the rate of passage of Newton’s absolute
> time is the same in all frames of reference.
>
> Yes indeed Mr.Seto, that is exactly what i am thinking.

So what is your problem with what I wrote? Please remember that there is no clock time unit that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.

>
> > This is true
>
> Hallelujah !
>
> > but
>
> but you had to go and spoil it eh!

I didn’t spoil anything. The problem is that you didn’t understand what I wrote.

>
> > you failed to realize that there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.
>
> The clock i use Mr.Seto measures absolute time in all frames of refer.

But a clock second in different frame contains a different amount of absolute time and that’s why clocks in different frame will accumulate clock seconds at different rates. Your problem is that you think that a clock second represent the same amount of absolute time in different frame.

>
> > To correct this deficiency, physicists invented the LT.
>
> There is no deficiency in my Newtonian clock Mr.Seto. LT are BS

There is no physical Newtonian clock exists in our universe--that is if you meant a Newtonian clock second represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames.

>
>
> > The function of the LT is to predict an interval of absolute time (such as a clock second) in the observer’s frame to have a value of 1/gamma seconds on a moving clock. The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. The GPS second was redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock. This makes the GPS runs at the same rate as the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
>
> More BS Mr.Seto

Why are you claiming that the actual GPS operation more BS? You have no valid argument so you are just saying that what I said is BS? <sad>

>
> >>>> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?
> >>
> >> NO!
> >> But i don’t doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh!
>
> > No this SR prediction is not correct. See above explanation.
>
> This is an extraordinary belief Mr.Seto. Do you think the clock which
> moved initially to the right will register more time than the one which
> moved initially to the left, or is it the other way round in your
> strange and mysterious world Mr.Seto?

I didn’t made such claim. I said according to the LT, the observer’s clock second is worth 1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt him.

>
> >> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try
> >> Ed's experiment:-
> >>
> >> On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein:
> >> >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is
> >> >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day.
> >>
> >> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS.
> >> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS.
> >> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER.
> >> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS.
> >>
> >> keith stein
> >
> > Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates.
>
> And can we take it Mr.Seto that you agree with Mr.Andersen's prediction
> that “.........the clock in the ISS will loose 24.7 us per day."

I think that the ISS will gain 24.7 us per day.

>> But they are actually accumulating absolute time at the same rate.
>> Why? Because a clock second in the ISS contains less amount of absolute
>> time than the ground clock second.

> You are wrong about this too Mr.Seto, when eventually someone with
> enough nous does Ed's experiment they will surely find the too clocks
> agree, JUST AS NEWTON 'PREDICTED' eh!
>

No it is you who is wrong. The ISS clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the 2nd clock brought up to the ISS.

[Edward Prochak]

REALLY?
Please show us this wonderful clock!

>
> > To correct this deficiency, physicists invented the LT.
>
> There is no deficiency in my Newtonian clock Mr.Seto. LT are BS
>

The world of physics is waiting for this clock.
Please show us.

>
> > The function of the LT is to predict an interval of absolute time
> > (such as a clock second) in the observer’s frame to have a value
> > of 1/gamma seconds on a moving clock. The GPS uses absolute time
> > to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock. The GPS second was
> > redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than
> > the ground clock. This makes the GPS runs at the same rate as
> > the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
>
> More BS Mr.Seto

Weird that Seto mentions an absolute time and you call it BS.
But you claim to have and absolute time clock.

Keith,
You fail to keep up on the science news. First some "old" news:

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown
on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world
twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory
of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight
paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks,
compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory,
should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip
and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ...

Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory,
the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip
and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where
the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These
results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous
clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html

And I pointed out to you previously the gravity effects can now
be tested easily. And this is also "old" news, published
September 23, 2010

NIST Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity
at a Personal Scale

"BOULDER, Colo. – Scientists have known for decades that time passes
faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories
of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks
on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket.

Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of
33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that
you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase."
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

But if you have that Absolute time clock of yours,
we can finally find out the answer to the question
in the song - "does anybody really know what time it is?"


A Nobel prize is waiting if you can dust off that clock.
What are you waiting for?


Patiently waiting
Ed P.

[Erálnì Histickému]

kenseto wrote:

>> Worth a listen (a bit long-winded but interesting comments coming from
>> professional experience), applies to many people here, including Ken:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEkEtZvctKc
>
> This video fit you mathematicians exactly. eg. 11 or 26 dimensions,
> virtual particles, length-contraction, constant light speed, time
> dilation.....etc.

Nice catch. The math without causality, in Physics, is worthless.

[Erálnì Histickému]

kenseto wrote:

> I got a new model of the universe which provides explanation for the
> past experiments: the Photoelectric experiment, the double-Slit
> experiment and the Compton shift experiment.
> You have a different model of the universe and you used the provisions
> of this model to refute my explanations. And based on that you give my
> model a rating of 4 out of 30.
>
> I am not going to waste time presenting new ideas to you. Sorry.

Is it a model, or a new idea?

[kenseto]

Both I guess. It is a new model that is capable of explaining all the processes of nature. It is a new idea that give rise to a new theory of gravity and uniting all the forces of nature that current physics is unable to do. I invite you to read my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Erálnì Histickému]

Interesting approach. But I suspect you are just importing some libraries
and shared objects from my
*_Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies Model_*, of which Relativity is
just a Special Case. And as a consequence, inherently the allocated
mathematics coincides along the domain of interest.

[Keith Stein]

On 19/04/2018 15:55, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 1:37:08 PM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 18/04/2018 13:41, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 5:52:07 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 06/04/2018 23:01, rotchm wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>> The Gedanken:
>>>>>> 1. Two clocks are in relative motion in the opposite directions.
>>>>>> 2. When they meet, they set their clocks at zero.
>>>>>> 3. After two days on their clocks they turn around and now they are moving in the opposite direction again.
>>>>>> 4. When they meet again, they compare the number of clock seconds accumulated on each clock.
>>>>>> 5. According to SR postulates each clock will accumulate the same number of clock seconds when they meet again.

>>>>>> 6. What do you think? Is SR correct?

>>>> NO!
>>>> But i don’t doubt that this particular prediction of SR is correct eh!

>>> No this SR prediction is not correct.

>> This is an extraordinary belief Mr.Seto. Do you think the clock which
>> moved initially to the right will register more time than the one which
>> moved initially to the left, or is it the other way round in your
>> strange and mysterious world Mr.Seto?

> I didn’t made such claim. I said according to the LT, the observer’s clock second is worth 1/gamma seconds on a clock moving wrt him.

Your Gedanken does not mention 'the observer' anywhere, but if i
understand you correctly you are claiming that, when the clocks meet for
the second time, the observer with the clock which moved initially to
the right will state that his clock registerd less time than the one
which moved initially to the left, whereas the observer with the clock
which moved initially to the left will claim that his clock registered
less time that the one which moved initially to the right.

CLEARLY BOTH OBSERVERS CAN NOT BE RIGHT,
and if you doubt that Mr.Seto, try repeating your Gedanken with twins.

>>>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try
>>>> Ed's experiment:-
>>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>> >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is
>>>> >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day.
>>>>
>>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS.
>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS.
>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER.
>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS.
>>>>
>>>> keith stein
>>>
>>> Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates.
>>
>> And can we take it Mr.Seto that you agree with Mr.Andersen's prediction
>> that “.........the clock in the ISS will loose 24.7 us per day."
>
> I think that the ISS will gain 24.7 us per day.

and i think that if we take the average of your prediction with
Mr.Andersen's prediction that will give exactly what will be found in
practice eh!

> No it is you who is wrong. The ISS clock will accumulate more clock seconds than the 2nd clock brought up to the ISS.

According to SR moving clocks run SLOW Mr.Seto, so i don't doubt
Mr.Andersen is making the correct SR prediction, but either way,
it all BS eh!


keith stein

[Keith Stein]

On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote:

>>>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try
>>>> Ed's experiment:-

>>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS.
>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS.
>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER.
>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS.

> Patiently waiting
> Ed P.

I too Mr.Prochak am patiently waiting for someone to actually perform
this very simple experiment.

We have had R.Andersen's, and Mr.Seto's contradictory predictions, do
please join the fun and give us your prediction Mr.Prochak.

keith stein

[kenseto]

I said no such thing. I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.

In my theory each observer will predict that the other clock will accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and will accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. But only of his predictions is correct. Direction does not matter.

> CLEARLY BOTH OBSERVERS CAN NOT BE RIGHT,
> and if you doubt that Mr.Seto, try repeating your Gedanken with twins.

Sigh....that’s why each observer has two predictions and only one of his prediction is correct.

> >>>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try
> >>>> Ed's experiment:-
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08/03/2018 20:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> > Den 08.03.2018 10.53, skrev Keith Stein:
> >>>> >> On 07/03/2018 10:08, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >>> A more precise prediction for the clock in the ISS is
> >>>> >>> that it will loose 24.7 us per day.
> >>>>
> >>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS.
> >>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS.
> >>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER.
> >>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS.
> >>>>
> >>>> keith stein
> >>>
> >>> Yes this proposed experiment will show that the two clocks are accumulating clock seconds at different rates.
> >>
> >> And can we take it Mr.Seto that you agree with Mr.Andersen's prediction
> >> that “.........the clock in the ISS will loose 24.7 us per day."
> >
> > I think that the ISS will gain 24.7 us per day.
>
> and i think that if we take the average of your prediction with
> Mr.Andersen's prediction that will give exactly what will be found in
> practice eh!

You are just making unfounded assertions. What are found are: the GPS gain 38us/day and the ISS gains 24.7 us/day.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock
> accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise
> to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.

It's not bogus since it's based upon the experimental evidence that the
speed of light is independent of the motion or source and receiver.

> In my theory each observer will predict that the other clock will accumulate
> clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and will accumulate
> clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma.

Which proves that your "theory" is useless crap.

> But only of his predictions is correct.

Your "theory" has no useful predictions.

[kenseto]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:27:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock
> > accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise
> > to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.
>

> It's not bogus since it's predictsbased upon the experimental evidence that the

> speed of light is independent of the motion or source and receiver.

Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma.
3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A) clock.

The possibility that:
A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe.

>
> > In my theory each observer will predict that the other clock will accumulate
> > clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma and will accumulate
> > clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma.
>
> Which proves that your "theory" is useless crap.
>
> > But only of his predictions is correct.
>
> Your “theory" has no useful predictions.

You are full of shit.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:59:48 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:27:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock
> > > accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise
> > > to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.
> >
> > It's not bogus since it's predictsbased upon the experimental evidence

YOU put "predicts" in MY sentence, dishonest one.

> > that the
> > speed of light is independent of the motion or source and receiver.
>
> Moron

Imbecile.

> here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative
> motion:
> 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a
> factor of 1/gamma.

If by "predicts" you mean "will measure" then yes.

> 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a
> factor of gamma.

Imbecile, the LT NEVER "predicts" that. You are a clueless ignoramus.

> 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A)
> clock.

Only if gamma = unity, triviality-bleater.

> The possibility that:
> A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor
> of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A accumulating clock seconds
> at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.

Never happens, disgustingly incompetent non compos mentis.

> This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe.

So why does your stupid assertions "predict" it, bozo-brain?

> You are full of shit.

Pot, kettle, black :-))

[Volney]

On 4/20/2018 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
> 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
> 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma.
> 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A) clock.

Dear Mr. Seto;

Please help with this problem with IRT:

Three rockets leave a planet at the origin O in the XY plane at the same
time. They all move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.
Rocket A moves along the +x direction. Rocket B moves at a 120 degree
angle to Rocket A/the x axis, in the XY plane. Rocket C moves at a 120
degree angle to B which is a 240 degree angle to A, also in the XY plane.


B
\
\
O------A --> +x
/
/
C

Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C. A measures B's clock as
ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock. A measures C's clock as
ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock. In other words,
gamma=2 in both cases.

Tell us. What does B measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?
What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?

And now: What does B measure when measuring the rate of C's clock?
What does C measure when measuring the rate of B's clock?

Thank you in advance.

[Edward Prochak]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks
> A and B in relative motion:
> 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower
> rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
> 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster
> rate by a factor of gamma.
> 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same
> rate as his (A) clock.
>

All experimental evidence finds case 1. to be true.

> The possibility that:
> A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate
> by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A
> accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
> This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe.

Sorry but the universe we live in does yield that result.
As long as they both keep traveling that way, they both
get the same result that the other guy is slower.

Do you have experimental data otherwise?

To bring the clocks back together requires an acceleration
of at least one observer, which introduces asymmetry.

Acceleration is covered in GR and effects measurable.
see:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

Bottom line is that you can argue thought experiments all day,
but mother nature (experimental data) is the final word.
So if you can show where SR/GR fails, that may provide the clue
for a better theory.

Enjoy.

[Edward Prochak]

I have posted links to the equivalent experiments.
The measurements of time dilation are measured by atomic clocks
and for example NIST has done it for difference in gravity
effects as small as one foot

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

This is the third time I have point this out to you.
yet you still seem to think relativity is bogus.

Ed

[kenseto]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 10:11:46 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:59:48 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:27:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock
> > > > accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise
> > > > to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.
> > >
> > > It's not bogus since it's predictsbased upon the experimental evidence
>
> YOU put “predicts" in MY sentence, dishonest one.

Moron, I didn’t do that.

>
> > > that the
> > > speed of light is independent of the motion or source and receiver.
> >
> > Moron
>
> Imbecile.
>
> > here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative
> > motion:
> > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a
> > factor of 1/gamma.
>
> If by “predicts" you mean "will measure" then yes.

Moron there is no way to MEASURE B’s clock rate. A uses the LT to predict B’s clock rate. Gee you are stupid.

>
> > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a
> > factor of gamma.
>

> Imbecile, the LT NEVER "predicts" that. You are a clueless ignoramus. I didn’t

Moron, That’s is one of the possibility exists when A compares B clock rate with his own. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

>
> > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A)
> > clock.
>
> Only if gamma = unity, triviality-bleater.

>
> > The possibility that:
> > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor
> > of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A accumulating clock seconds
> > at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
>

> Never happens, disgustingly incompetent non combos mentis.

Moron that exactly what SR’s mutual time dilation says: A measures B accumulate clock second at a slower rate of 1/gamma. B measures A accumulates clock second at a sower rate of 1/gamma.

>
> > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe.
>
> So why does your stupid assertions "predict" it, bozo-brain?

Moron that’s not my assertion. That’s SR’s mutual time dilation assertion.

[kenseto]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 4/20/2018 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
> > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
> > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma.
> > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A) clock.
>
> Dear Mr. Seto;
>
> Please help with this problem with IRT:
>
> Three rockets leave a planet at the origin O in the XY plane at the same
> time. They all move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.
> Rocket A moves along the +x direction. Rocket B moves at a 120 degree
> angle to Rocket A/the x axis, in the XY plane. Rocket C moves at a 120
> degree angle to B which is a 240 degree angle to A, also in the XY plane.
>
>
> B
> \
> \
> O------A --> +x
> /
> /
> C
>
> Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C. A measures B's clock as
> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock. A measures C's clock as
> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock. In other words,

> gamma=2 in both casesB and C are ,.

>
> Tell us. What does B measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?
> What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?
>
> And now: What does B measure when measuring the rate of C's clock?
> What does C measure when measuring the rate of B's clock?
>
> Thank you in advance.

There is no way for A or B or C to MEASURE each other’s clock rate. Each observer uses the LT to predict each other’s clock rate.
Your set-up using “O” as a reference point for all motions of A, B and C is not valid. Each observer must use the LT to predict the clock rate of any clock moving wrt him.

[kenseto]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:26:32 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>
> > Moron here are the possibilities exist between two clocks
> > A and B in relative motion:
> > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower
> > rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
> > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster
> > rate by a factor of gamma.
> > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same
> > rate as his (A) clock.
> >
>
> All experimental evidence finds case 1. to be true.

No, when comparing two clocks A and B:
1. If A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B then B must accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than A. That means that from B’s point of view A is accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate than B’s clock.
The gPS illustrate this concept clearly: From the ground clock point of view the GPS accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the ground clock by a factor of +38us/day. From the GPS point of view,the ground clock accumulates clock seconds a slower rate of -38 us/day.

>
> > The possibility that:
> > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate
> > by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A
> > accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
> > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe.
>
> Sorry but the universe we live in does yield that result.
> As long as they both keep traveling that way, they both
> get the same result that the other guy is slower.

No sir, the universe or the clocks don’t work that way. Clocks in relaltive motion will accumulate clock seconds at different rates.

>
> Do you have experimental data otherwise?

No experiment show what you claimed.

>
> To bring the clocks back together requires an acceleration
> of at least one observer, which introduces asymmetry.
>
> Acceleration is covered in GR and effects measurable.
> see:
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
>
> Bottom line is that you can argue thought experiments all day,
> but mother nature (experimental data) is the final word.
> So if you can show where SR/GR fails, that may provide the clue
> for a better theory.

The point is: no experiment supports your claims.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:17:47 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 10:11:46 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:59:48 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 8:27:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:14:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I said according to SR: each observer will claim that the other clock
> > > > > accumulates less clock seconds than his clock. This is what gives rise
> > > > > to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.
> > > >
> > > > It's not bogus since it's predictsbased upon the experimental evidence
> >
> > YOU put “predicts" in MY sentence, dishonest one.
>
> Moron, I didn’t do that.

Imbecile, you did too. Look at my original post and then look at your reply.
Everyone can see what a dishonest fool you are.

> > > > that the
> > > > speed of light is independent of the motion or source and receiver.
> > >
> > > Moron
> >
> > Imbecile.
> >
> > > here are the possibilities exist between two clocks A and B in relative
> > > motion:
> > > 1. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a
> > > factor of 1/gamma.
> >
> > If by “predicts" you mean "will measure" then yes.
>
> Moron there is no way to MEASURE B’s clock rate.

You measure it by receiving signals from it, imbecilic incompetent brainless
fool.

> A uses the LT to predict B’s clock rate. Gee you are stupid.

I'm not the one denying experiments can be performed, ignorant lout.

> > > 2. A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate by a
> > > factor of gamma.
> >
> > Imbecile, the LT NEVER "predicts" that. You are a clueless ignoramus.
> > I didn’t
>
> Moron, That’s is one of the possibility exists when A compares B clock
> rate with his own. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

Imbecile, the ONLY possibility is that A will MEASURE B's clock running
slow. Gee you are stupider than stupid.

> > > 3. A predicts that B accumulating clock second at the same rate as his (A)
> > > clock.
> >
> > Only if gamma = unity, triviality-bleater.
>
> >
> > > The possibility that:
> > > A predicts that B accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate by a
> > > factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B predicts that A accumulating
> > > clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma.
> >
> > Never happens, disgustingly incompetent non combos mentis.
>
> Moron that exactly what SR’s mutual time dilation says: A measures B
> accumulate clock second at a slower rate of 1/gamma. B measures A
> accumulates clock second at a sower rate of 1/gamma.

You're right! I misunderstood what you wrote, thinking that you were bull
plopping the "B reads A's clock running faster" dog poop again.

> > > This possibility doesn’t exist in our universe.
> >
> > So why does your stupid assertions "predict" it, bozo-brain?
>
> Moron that’s not my assertion. That’s SR’s mutual time dilation assertion.

Imbecile, your dog poop asserts two possibilities, and you throw away the
one that's correct. Gee you are such an idiot. Your abysmally-idiotic
mistake is that you believe the LT "prediction" is actually what is
happening at A when B measures it. It's not. It's really, really stupid
to believe that B, just by changing his velocity a bit, can change the rate
and value of A's clock. A person has to be many cards short of a full deck
to believe THAT!

[kenseto]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 3:26:32 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:

This experiment shows:
1. From the lower clock point of view the higher clock accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate.
2. From the higher clock point of view the lower clock accumulate clock seconds at a lower rate. No mutual time dilation is observed.
3. That means that clocks in different gravitational potentials accumulates clock seconds at different rates.
4. The reason is that the arrival speed of energy to affect a transition of the Al atom is slower at higher gravitational potential (closer to the earth’s surface) due to the E-Matrix is transmiting the energy at a slower rate because of the curvature in the E-Matrix is more curved at a higher gravitational potential (closer to earth’s surface).

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

No, it doesn't even show that clocks have any "point
of view". Your moronic cult antropomorphizes.

> 3. That means that clocks in different gravitational potentials accumulates clock seconds at different rates.

As anyone can check at GPS, however, it only applies
to clocks controlled by fanatics of The Shit; clocks
driven by sane people indicate t'=t, as serious clocks
always did.

[kenseto]

A clock is moving at 0.5c wrt you, how do you MEASURE its clock rate? Step by step PROCEDURE please.

Moron if B changes his velocity wrt A, he will predict that A’s clock rate is changed. Also, A will predict that B clock rate is changed. Gee you are stupid.

[Volney]

Why not? Why can't each observer on A B and C use a radar gun to measure
each others' speeds? Or simply observe the Doppler effect on a sodium
light which each spaceship has?

> Your set-up using “O” as a reference point for all motions of A, B and C is not valid.

Why not? Please explain.

> Each observer must use the LT to predict the clock rate of any clock moving wrt him.
>

And if they do that, each observer A B and C will predict the clocks on
the other two run at half speed (gamma=2). That conflicts with your
absolute time concept.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 10:02:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> A clock is moving at 0.5c wrt you, how do you MEASURE its clock rate?
> Step by step PROCEDURE please.

There are several ways. If you do not know them, then this NG is not for you.
Real a few relativity books; they show you step by step the PROCEDURES.
You dont recall seeing any of them in books?

[kenseto]

Just as I thought--your bullshit about MEASURING the clock rate of a moving clock is just a bunch of bullshit. BTW, what wrong with using the LT to predict the clock rate of a moving clock?

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:09:54 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 10:02:20 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>
>> > A clock is moving at 0.5c wrt you, how do you MEASURE its clock rate?
>> > Step by step PROCEDURE please.
>>
>> There are several ways. If you do not know them, then this NG is not for you.
>> Real a few relativity books; they show you step by step the PROCEDURES.
>> You dont recall seeing any of them in books?

>Just as I thought--your bullshit about MEASURING the clock rate of a
>moving clock is just a bunch of bullshit.

Stupid Ken, it is easy to measure the clock rate. Don't you know anything?

> BTW, what wrong with using the
>LT to predict the clock rate of a moving clock?

What if you want to know whether a theory may be correct? That's part of
science, you know. If you develop a theory you have to TEST it to see if
reality agrees with it. If you wish to validate SR, you predict the clock
rate, you measure the clock rate and compare. That's what they had to do
in Einstein's time to validate/refute SR.

And what if you want to know the speed of a passing spaceship, and you are
able to measure the tick rate of a clock on it? You measure the tick rate
and compare it to the known tick rate locally, then apply the Lorentz
Transform in reverse to calculate its speed.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:09:54 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:

> Just as I thought--your bullshit about MEASURING the clock rate
> of a moving clock is just a bunch of bullshit.

How so? its in the books!!!! haven you ever read any???
If you admit to not having read any and are clueless about how to measure the "rate", then says so, and I will tell you how its done.

> BTW, what wrong with using the LT to predict the clock rate
> of a moving clock?

Nothing wrong. You can ise the LT's for that. And we verify the prediction of the LT's by performing the exp (by *measuring* the "rate"). As is well know, the LT's & exp match perfectly. But you are going to deny all that because u r a reality denier.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Saturday, 21 April 2018 21:37:09 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:09:54 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>
> > Just as I thought--your bullshit about MEASURING the clock rate
> > of a moving clock is just a bunch of bullshit.
>
> How so? its in the books!!!! haven you ever read any???

And many advantages of communism against rotten
capitalism are also written in books. They have
to be true.

[Keith Stein]

On 20/04/2018 20:26, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 19/04/2018 16:48, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>
>>>>>> If one really wants to test the SR/GR time dilations then try
>>>>>> Ed's experiment:-
>>
>>>>>> >> 1. SYNCRHONISE TWO CLOCKS.
>>>>>> >> 2. FLY ONE TO THE ISS.
>>>>>> >> 3. NEXT FLIGHT UP TAKE UP THE OTHER.
>>>>>> >> 4. COMPARE THE 2 CLOCKS ON THE ISS.
>>
>>> Patiently waiting
>>> Ed P.
>>
>> I too Mr.Prochak am patiently waiting for someone to actually perform
>> this very simple experiment.
>>
>> We have had R.Andersen's, and Mr.Seto's contradictory predictions, do
>> please join the fun and give us your prediction Mr.Prochak.
>>
>> keith stein
>
> I have posted links to the equivalent experiments.
> The measurements of time dilation are measured by atomic clocks

The Hafele and Keating results to which i take it you are referring here
Mr.Prochac are indeed bogus. How do i know this? Because i have seen
the original internal (confidential) report by Hafele for the US' Navy,
in which he concludes, quite correctly, that no one could conclude
anything from the results. Now i don't really expect you to believe me,
and i can't prove it, since i have long since lost the computer on which
that report exists, but what is undeniable is that the time dilations
they were claiming (and which they did not in fact measure) were orders
of magnitude smaller than should be obtained on the ISS.

> and for example NIST has done it for difference in gravity
> effects as small as one foot
>
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

These results must be very many orders of magnitude smaller than should
be obtained on the ISS. They are not obtained by comparing adjacent
clocks, and in no way confirm Special Relativistic time dilations eh!

[kenseto]

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:37:09 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:26:10 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:09:54 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>
> > Just as I thought--your bullshit about MEASURING the clock rate
> > of a moving clock is just a bunch of bullshit.
>
> How so? its in the books!!!! haven you ever read any???
> If you admit to not having read any and are clueless about how to measure the "rate", then says so, and I will tell you how its done.

David, I asked you to provide step by step procedure how to measure the clock rate of a clock moving wrt you and you tell me to go and read a book? I don’t think so. I think you are full of shit.

[kenseto]

> e

> Why not? Why can't each observer on A B and C use a radar gun to measure
> each others' speeds? Or simply observe the Doppler effect on a sodium
> light which each spaceship has?

Sure you can use a radar gun to measure each other’s speeds but how do you measure each other’s clock rate? The answer: you can’t--you use the LT to predict each other’s clock rate. Also each observer must do his own measurement of speeds then use this speed measurement to predict the clock rate. The speeds as you set forth from O’s point of view are closing speeds and they cannot be used in the LT to predict the clock rates.

> eat to predict

> > Your set-up using “O” as a reference point for all motions of A, B and C is not valid.
>
> Why not? Please explain.

Because they are closing speeds between A and B or C. Each observer must measure the speed of the interested clock and then use this speed measurement to predict the rate of such moving clock.

> > Each observer must use the LT to predict the clock rate of any clock moving wrt him.
> >
>
> And if they do that, each observer A B and C will predict the clocks on
> the other two run at half speed (gamma=2). That conflicts with your
> absolute time concept.

NO, NO, NO..... each observer cannot measure the other two to have speeds greater than c and thus no gamma=2 as you asserted.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:

> David, I asked you to provide step by step procedure how to
> measure the clock rate of a clock moving wrt you and you tell
> me to go and read a book?

Yes, because the answers are in the books.
Then I said that *I* will provide you the answers here, but you didnt want to see it!! So make up your mind you stupid idiot. You want to answer or not?? If you do, I just ask of you to admit that you didn't consult any books on the topic.

> I don’t think

We know that.

[Volney]

You moved the goalposts: You claimed the spaceships cannot measure each
others' speeds, and I replied Sure you can, just use a radar gun. Now
you say they can't measure each other's clock rates! But you can, and I
even mentioned it. Use a sodium light. A sodium light has a frequency
(clock rate) of 5.09*10^14 in the frame of the emitter. [589nm
wavelength] If each spaceship has a sodium light on board, the others
can measure its clock rate and use the Lorentz transform to obtain its
speed.

You don't even have to use a sodium light, all that is needed is a radio
transmitter of known frequency, the other spaceships measure the
received frequency and use the Doppler effect to calculate the speed.

>> eat to predict
>>> Your set-up using “O” as a reference point for all motions of A, B and C is not valid.
>>
>> Why not? Please explain.
>
> Because they are closing speeds between A and B or C. Each observer must measure the speed of the interested clock and then use this speed measurement to predict the rate of such moving clock.

I just described how to measure both the moving rate and a clock, using
a radar gun or sodium light.

>
>>> Each observer must use the LT to predict the clock rate of any clock moving wrt him.
>>>
>>
>> And if they do that, each observer A B and C will predict the clocks on
>> the other two run at half speed (gamma=2). That conflicts with your
>> absolute time concept.
>
> NO, NO, NO..... each observer cannot measure the other two to have speeds greater than c and thus no gamma=2 as you asserted.

I never said anything was moving greater than c. I mentioned they move
as a speed such that gamma=2 (to make the math easier). Gamma=2
corresponds to a speed of 0.866c which is obviously less than c.

[kenseto]

You are full of shit. I asked you to solve for v in the doppler equation you said that you will if I ask. I asked and you said the detail steps are available if I ask again. At the mean time Steve provided the detail steps to solve for v....so that means that you don’t know how to solve for v, all you do is bullshit.

[kenseto]

I said each space ship cannot measure each other’s clock rate. You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate or time dilation. Also I have doubt that you can measuring the incoming frequency without assuming that the incoming speed of light is c.
I did say that measuring the speed then use this measurement and the LT to predict the rate of the clock in the spaceship.

>
> You don't even have to use a sodium light, all that is needed is a radio
> transmitter of known frequency, the other spaceships measure the
> received frequency and use the Doppler effect to calculate the speed.

If you use the Doppler effect to calculate speed then you must also use it to calculate the incoming speed of light. When you do that you will find that the speed of incoming light is not c.

>
> >> eat to predict
> >>> Your set-up using “O” as a reference point for all motions of A, B and C is not valid.
> >>
> >> Why not? Please explain.
> >
> > Because they are closing speeds between A and B or C. Each observer must measure the speed of the interested clock and then use this speed measurement to predict the rate of such moving clock.
>
> I just described how to measure both the moving rate and a clock, using
> a radar gun or sodium light.

No you didn’t. You described how to measure speed, not how to measure clock rate. Think about it: if a clock is approaching you your procedure will say its clock rate is R_a and when it speeded past you your procedure says that its clock rate if R_p. At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 10:51:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 9:53:57 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:

> You are full of shit. I asked you to solve for v in the doppler
> equation

And I did. Google kept a record.

> you said that you will if I ask.

Yes, and you asked. You admitted that you were not able to solve it, so I provided you with the explicit answer. Google kept a record.

> I asked and you said the detail steps are available if I ask again.

Nope. You asked again. Thats when I suggested you to look it up in books, because you ignored my answer.

> At the mean time Steve provided the detail steps to solve for v

But I provided my answer before him, an answer you chose to ignore. I had the same answer that he gave.

> ....so that means that you don’t know how to solve for v,

But I did & google kept a record. So you are a dishonest liyin idiot who cant read, who cant do basic physics and who cant even solve a 5 ft grade math problem. Do you realize all that?

[Volney]

Why not? I just told you how, one space ship has a clock with a known
period (say a 100 MHz transmitter or sodium light). The transmission
clock rate is known (10nS for the 100 MHz transmitter) and the other
ship measures the frequency or pulse rate and DIRECTLY measures the
clock rate of the other ship.

> You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate

It is! The tick rate is the reciprocal of the frequency. 1/100MHz = 10nS.

> or time dilation.

The time dilation is just the ratio of tick rates.

> Also I have doubt that you can measuring the incoming frequency without assuming that the incoming speed of light is c.

You only need a frequency counter, which makes no assumption about the
speed of light.

> I did say that measuring the speed then use this measurement and the LT to predict the rate of the clock in the spaceship.

Or you can measure it directly.

>
>>
>> You don't even have to use a sodium light, all that is needed is a radio
>> transmitter of known frequency, the other spaceships measure the
>> received frequency and use the Doppler effect to calculate the speed.
>
> If you use the Doppler effect to calculate speed then you must also use it to calculate the incoming speed of light. When you do that you will find that the speed of incoming light is not c.

OK just measure the incoming frequency or pulse rate and you know the
time dilation.

>
>>
>>>> eat to predict
>>>>> Your set-up using “O” as a reference point for all motions of A, B and C is not valid.
>>>>
>>>> Why not? Please explain.
>>>
>>> Because they are closing speeds between A and B or C. Each observer must measure the speed of the interested clock and then use this speed measurement to predict the rate of such moving clock.
>>
>> I just described how to measure both the moving rate and a clock, using
>> a radar gun or sodium light.
>
> No you didn’t. You described how to measure speed, not how to measure clock rate.

Yes I did. You simply measure the frequency of the sodium light and that
gets you the clock rate. Easy peasy.

> Think about it: if a clock is approaching you your procedure will say its clock rate is R_a and when it speeded past you your procedure says that its clock rate if R_p.

That's correct, just like a train horn.

> At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you.

Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock
itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train
ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn.


I just asked what IRT would predict about the clock rates and amount of
absolute time the three rockets would have. If you can't answer it or if
IRT can't predict it, let me know.

[Michael Moroney]

No, Ken can't answer that. That's because IRT is a complete, absolute,
total failure of a theory. Besides, Ken can't handle math beyond the
third grade level. He's still struggling with (-6)/(-2).

[kenseto]

Congratulation!! you discovered new physics. You deserve the Nobel Prize.

So why did you asserted that measuring incoming frequency is measuring clock rate? According to you, a moving clock will change its clock rate as it passes you!!!
I see that there is no point of arguing with you. Your argument is based on assertions.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:27:22 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 10:51:01 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 9:53:57 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>
> > You are full of shit. I asked you to solve for v in the doppler
> > equation
>
> And I did. Google kept a record.

Go ahead and dig it up tp show us that you gave step by step procedure how to solve for v as Steve did.

[Volney]

On 4/23/2018 11:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 4/22/2018 11:19 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> I said each space ship cannot measure each other’s clock rate.
>>
>> Why not? I just told you how, one space ship has a clock with a known
>> period (say a 100 MHz transmitter or sodium light). The transmission
>> clock rate is known (10nS for the 100 MHz transmitter) and the other
>> ship measures the frequency or pulse rate and DIRECTLY measures the
>> clock rate of the other ship.
>>
>>> You will find that measuring the incoming frequency is not measuring clock rate
>>
>> It is! The tick rate is the reciprocal of the frequency. 1/100MHz = 10nS.
>
> Congratulation!! you discovered new physics. You deserve the Nobel Prize.

Don't be stupid. That's like saying a person can change the frequency of
a passing train's horn just by standing on the platform as the train passes.

>
>>> At the mean time, the moving clock rate remains constant whether it is approaching you or moving away from you.
>>
>> Yes. The rate as seen by some other observer doesn't affect the clock
>> itself in its own frame. That is well known. Like a passenger on a train
>> ALWAYS hears the same tone for the train horn.
>
> So why did you asserted that measuring incoming frequency is measuring clock rate?

The reciprocal of the incoming frequency IS the clock rate AS THE
OBSERVER measures it. That's what relativistic time dilation is all
about. This is Relativity 101, don't you even know that?

The TRANSMITTED frequency is the reciprocal of the clock rate of the
moving clock as moving observers moving along with the clock measure it.

> According to you, a moving clock will change its clock rate as it passes you!!!

Of course not. THE MEASUREMENT OF a moving clock's rate (by the
stationary observer) will change as it passes. Do you also think the
frequency of a train's horn actually changes because the train passes
you? No, but your measurement of its frequency (and thus its tone) will
change! A passenger on the train will NEVER hear a frequency change of
the horn because the passenger is always stationary relative to the
train horn.

> I see that there is no point of arguing with you.

So you cannot answer my question, what are the clock rates of the other
rockets as seen by each of the rocket observers? Or the amount of
absolute time of each rocket, if you want.

> Your argument is based on assertions.

No, it is your argument that is based on assertions. I just asked a
question how IRT can solve this problem and you claim IRT can't solve
it. Special Relativity can solve that problem, but your IRT can't?

[rotchm]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:35:36 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 11:27:22 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:

> > And I did. Google kept a record.

Now that u admit that I gave you the answer, whats ur point?

I can measure the speed and "tick rate" of an incoming clock. And the values are in accord with the predictions of SR. But your dIRT cant make any such predictions as you admitted to.

[Erálnì Histickému]

You are just wasting my time.

[kenseto]

So you are not talking about clock rate. The rate of a moving clock remains the same before and after it passes you.....agree?

>Do you also think the
> frequency of a train's horn actually changes because the train passes
> you?

That would be you who make such claim. You claimed that the measured inverse frequency change is the measured clock rate of the moving clock. Since there are an invite number of inverse frequency changes which of these is the correct rate of the moving clock?

[Steve BH]

The correct rate f of the moving clock at v is fo/gamma. However, you also see this Doppler shifted by 1/[1-v/c]. The total effect is the total relativistic "Doppler shift," f = fo/(gamma[1-v/c]) = fo * sqrt [1+v/c]/[1-v/c]. You see in relativity the Doppler shift is partly due to speed directly affecting f, and partly due to clock slowing affecting how f starts. The second factor does not appear in the ordinary Doppler shift where frequency is changed by just 1+v/c and the gamma is absent.

[Volney]

Yes I am.

> The rate of a moving clock remains the same before and after it passes you.....agree?

There is the clock rate as it appears to an observer stationary with
respect to the clock (riding along with it), and there is the clock rate
as a moving observer sees it. The clock itself is not affected by the
observer moving relative to it, however the clock AS IT IS MEASURED by
the observer moving relative to it will see a different clock rate,
depending on his own motion relative to it.

So as to "agree?", the clock is never affected by the observer, so yes
to that. It always keeps the same rate local and stationary to it. It's
how moving observers observe it.

>
>
>> Do you also think the
>> frequency of a train's horn actually changes because the train passes
>> you?
>
> That would be you who make such claim.

No, you seem to be making the claim the observer affects the clock and
saying that's absurd. Not the case.

> You claimed that the measured inverse frequency change is the measured clock rate of the moving clock.

Not the inverse frequency change, the inverse frequency itself.

> Since there are an invite number of inverse frequency changes which of these is the correct rate of the moving clock?

Changing that sentence to "an (infinite?) number of inverse
frequencies", the correct measure clock rate/inverse frequency is the
one the relativistic speed formula predicts.

[Volney]

On 4/23/2018 7:59 PM, Steve BH wrote:
> The correct rate f of the moving clock at v is fo/gamma. However, you also see this Doppler shifted by 1/[1-v/c]. The total effect is the total relativistic "Doppler shift," f = fo/(gamma[1-v/c]) = fo * sqrt [1+v/c]/[1-v/c]. You see in relativity the Doppler shift is partly due to speed directly affecting f, and partly due to clock slowing affecting how f starts. The second factor does not appear in the ordinary Doppler shift where frequency is changed by just 1+v/c and the gamma is absent.

I know the difference. I am trying to explain things with a comparison
to the audio Doppler effect of a train since this Ken guy seems to have
trouble understanding it.

[kenseto]

No, you don’t know the difference. You said the rate of a moving clock is simply the inverse of the detected incoming frequency. <sad>

[kenseto]

Do you agree that an observer predicts that a moving clock only have one clock rate......not an infinite number of clock rates as you asserted. Hint: THE MEASURED INVERSE FREQUENCY OF A MOVING CLOCK IS NOT ITS CLOCK RATE.

[Volney]

I said the MEASURED clock rate of the moving clock is simply the inverse
of the measured incoming frequency. Remember, there is time dilation
(plus Doppler) that changes the measured clock rate from the proper
clock rate.

Back to the Doppler train horn: A musician aboard the train notices the
train's horn is exactly Middle C. The electronics nerd next to him with
a frequency counter connected to a microphone measures the train's horn
is exactly 261.63 Hz.

A second musician on the platform notices the train horn of the
approaching train is the D above Middle C. A second electronics nerd
also with a frequency counter connected to a microphone measures the
train horn to be 293.67 Hz. After the train passes, the platform
musician notes the horn is the B below Middle C. The electronics nerd
measures the horn to be at 246.94 Hz.

Do you understand why there are three different answers, and they are
ALL CORRECT??

The same applies to light/radio waves, except there is both SR time
dilation as well as the Doppler Effect. The astronaut notices the clock
rate of an electronic oscillator is 10 nS. It is connected to a
transmitter so it transmits at 100 MHz. A second spacecraft measures the
transmitter at 111.111 MHz. He does the math and notes the clock rate of
the first moving spacecraft is 9 nS. What is its speed and is it
approaching or receding?

[Volney]

The observer measures the clock rate. If he knows the speed of the
spacecraft he can compute the clock rate an astronaut on board would
measure. And yes, there is only one clock rate on board.

If he happens to know what the on board (proper) clock rate is, from
this known clock rate and his measured clock rate, he can compute its speed.

Hint: THE MEASURED INVERSE FREQUENCY OF A MOVING CLOCK IS NOT ITS
CLOCK RATE.

It is the MEASURED clock rate according to the local observer. If he
knows any two of (measured clock rate, proper clock rate, speed) he can
calculate the third of those.