Slow clock transport and the measurement of one way light speed.

[Larry Harson]

This is a new thread to a reply from "rotchm" to the topic "Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics":

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w%5B526-550%5D>

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 5:08:16 PM UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 11:49:41 AM UTC-4, Larry Harson wrote:
>
> > I would have thought slow clock transport should get around this:
>
> Nope, it doesnt.
>
> > 1. Synchronize three clocks at a common origin, recording their relative drifts.
>
> ok
>
>
> > 2. leave one at the origin, slowly transport one to +L, the other to -L.

> Ok. Say, at the same speed wrt the middle clock.

I'm using slow clock transport to keep time dilation negligible so the clocks remains synchronized with one another within experimental error.

> > 3. The one at the origin transmits a light pulse to the other two and records its local time, the other two record their local time when they receive a pulse.
>
> Ok. The two traveling clocks will receive the pulses at the exact same same rate.
>
>
> > 4. The two clocks are transported back to the origin and the relative
> > drifts of all the clocks are rechecked to make sure they haven't
> > changed within experimental error.
>
> ok...
>
>
> > 5. calculate the OWLS speed of light from the local recorded
> > times and confirm/rule-out OWLS anisotropy.
>
> What do *you* mean by 'calculate the OWLS' ?
> Upon return, both traveling clocks will indicate the same value.

> Note that your exp is essentially a TWLS exp.

That's not my intention. The clock at the origin transmits a pulse at its local time t1 to the clock at +L. The clock at +L records a local time t2 when it receives it. Remembering the clocks are synchronized via slow clock transport, the one-way light speed here is therefore L/(t2-t1).

[snipped rest]

LH

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 2:07:18 PM UTC-4, Larry Harson wrote:

> I'm using slow clock transport to keep time dilation negligible so the
> clocks remains synchronized with one another within experimental error.

Ok. Notice however, this will maintain e-synch. The distant clocks will not be "absolutely" synched.

> > Note that your exp is essentially a TWLS exp.
>
> That's not my intention.

I said that in the sense that since you had the moving clocks coming back to the origin (as I understood it) then ...it came back. That made your setup a TWLS; you went both ways. But irrelevant now, since in your explanation below, it doesnt come back. Ok...

> The clock at the origin transmits a pulse at its local time t1
> to the clock at +L. The clock at +L records a local time t2 when
> it receives it. Remembering the clocks are synchronized via slow
> clock transport, the one-way light speed here is therefore L/(t2-t1).

Yes, you can define OWLS that way (there are two common & different meanings for OWLS).

But how is L measured (in SR)? By sending a lightpulse from 0 to L and back to 0. That makes it a TWLS. All OWLS, as interpreted by SR, used somewhere a returning signal. In that sense, its not an OWLS but a TWLS.

Also, from the pov of LET, as I stated above, the distant clocks will not be 'absolutely' synched, but rather e-synched: In all cases (Tangherlini theory) you will get L/(t2-t1).

[dlzc]

Dear rotchm:

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 11:22:54 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
...

> But how is L measured (in SR)? By sending a
> lightpulse from 0 to L and back to 0. That
> makes it a TWLS. All OWLS, as interpreted by
> SR, used somewhere a returning signal. In
> that sense, its not an OWLS but a TWLS.
>
> Also, from the pov of LET, as I stated above,
> the distant clocks will not be 'absolutely'
> synched, but rather e-synched: In all cases
> (Tangherlini theory) you will get L/(t2-t1).

Unless quantum teleportation can allow FTL syncing (how much faster?), this is absolutely correct.

David A. Smith

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/3/16 8/3/16 - 2:21 PM, dlzc wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 11:22:54 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:

>> [...] the distant clocks will not
>> be 'absolutely' synched[...]

>
> Unless quantum teleportation can allow FTL syncing (how much faster?), this
> is absolutely correct.

"FTL syncing" cannot possibly change the fact that the world we inhabit does not
have "absolute clock synchronization". That is, clocks at rest in different
inertial frames to not remain in sync with each other, no matter how you set them.


Tom Roberts

[larry harson]

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 7:22:54 PM UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 2:07:18 PM UTC-4, Larry Harson wrote:
>
> > I'm using slow clock transport to keep time dilation negligible so the
> > clocks remains synchronized with one another within experimental error.
>
>
> Ok. Notice however, this will maintain e-synch. The distant clocks will not be "absolutely" synched.
>
> > > Note that your exp is essentially a TWLS exp.
> >
> > That's not my intention.
>
> I said that in the sense that since you had the moving clocks coming back to the origin (as I understood it) then ...it came back. That made your setup a TWLS; you went both ways. But irrelevant now, since in your explanation below, it doesnt come back. Ok...
>
>
> > The clock at the origin transmits a pulse at its local time t1
> > to the clock at +L. The clock at +L records a local time t2 when
> > it receives it. Remembering the clocks are synchronized via slow
> > clock transport, the one-way light speed here is therefore L/(t2-t1).
>
> Yes, you can define OWLS that way (there are two common & different meanings for OWLS).

> But how is L measured (in SR)?

Using a tape measure or "measuring rod" as Einstein called it.

>By sending a lightpulse from 0 to L and back to 0. That makes it a TWLS. All OWLS, as interpreted by SR, used somewhere a returning signal. In that sense, its not an OWLS but a TWLS.

I don't recall Einstein emphasizing the measurement of distance this way; his emphasis was on clocks and measuring rods measuring time and distance AFAIR.

LH

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 4:12:39 PM UTC-4, larry harson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 7:22:54 PM UTC+1, rotchm wrote:

> > But how is L measured (in SR)?
>
> Using a tape measure or "measuring rod" as Einstein called it.

Well, E did say it that way for simplicity, but that was not what he meant, nor what was detailed. The length of a rod is done via clocks (as E said & as Poincare specified a few years earlier); take the two ends of the rod *simultaneously* (or send light to & fro, take total time of flight T and the length is thus defined as c*T/2.). So, the length measurement of a rod uses a TWLS process.

> I don't recall Einstein emphasizing the measurement of distance this way;
> his emphasis was on clocks and measuring rods measuring time and
> distance AFAIR.

True. But you reading further and not only him, you get to find out what is the operational definition of length.

[larry harson]

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:01:00 PM UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 4:12:39 PM UTC-4, larry harson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 7:22:54 PM UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > But how is L measured (in SR)?
> >
> > Using a tape measure or "measuring rod" as Einstein called it.
>
> Well, E did say it that way for simplicity, but that was not what he meant, nor what was detailed.

I've found a copy of his original paper:
http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154

A search for "measuring rod" gives 6 hits in the paper, such as on page 144:

"Let there be given a rigid rod at rest, its length measured by a *measuring rod" that is also at rest, shall be L".

I can't see the bit where he measures distance using the propagation of light.

>The length of a rod is done via clocks (as E said & as Poincare specified a few years earlier); take the two ends of the rod *simultaneously* (or send light to & fro, take total time of flight T and the length is thus defined as c*T/2.). So, the length measurement of a rod uses a TWLS process.

Yes, but I'm not doing it that way. I'm using a tape measure.

> > I don't recall Einstein emphasizing the measurement of distance this way;
> > his emphasis was on clocks and measuring rods measuring time and
> > distance AFAIR.

> True. But you reading further and not only him, you get to find out what is the operational definition of length.

I don't see how this invalidates measuring distances using a measuring tape.

LH

[dlzc]

Dear larry harson:

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 3:01:54 PM UTC-7, larry harson wrote:
...

> "Let there be given a rigid rod at rest, its
> length measured by a *measuring rod" that is
> also at rest, shall be L".
>
> I can't see the bit where he measures distance
> using the propagation of light.

It's just metrology. Time-of-flight from end to end,and produce a calibration certificate. Or move a mirror from end to end, and count maxima and minima from a monochromatic source.

> Yes, but I'm not doing it that way. I'm using
> a tape measure.

The tape measure is calibrated (finally) by using TWLS measurement.

David A. Smith

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 6:01:54 PM UTC-4, larry harson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 10:01:00 PM UTC+1, rotchm wrote:

> I can't see the bit where he measures distance using the propagation of light.

It takes a little more reading; not just that source of his.

> Yes, but I'm not doing it that way. I'm using a tape measure.

If you define lengths via a tape measure, then OWLS *in that sense*, is an "owls". But then you need to specify how that behaves when moved, whenever you move it; you will need a model. The only viable one will be one where you postulate a length contraction, which will lead you back to square one...

And note, that in modern physics "tape measures" or even "gratings" are calibrated/constructed via light signals, via the TWLS procedure.

> I don't see how this invalidates measuring distances using a measuring tape.

In SR, it doesnt, since 1) the tape measure is constructed via a TWLS procedure and 2) SR implies that such a rod will be "length contracted" by the same value given by the simultaneity definition. Thats why we can use "tape measures" in principle. And thats why your setup, is considered a TWLS measurement rather than a OWLS measurement.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

HahhahhahhahahhHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHA!

Tom's world: If one makes OWLS always equal to c by definition, then any
pair of clocks that does not measure it be c must be out of synch...!!!

Tom is too accustomed to his life in fairyland to understand that the
world most of us inhabit does not operate according to the laws of
circular logic.

> Tom Roberts

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:55:45 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 04/08/16 05:46, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 8/3/16 8/3/16 - 2:21 PM, dlzc wrote:
>
> >> Unless quantum teleportation can allow FTL syncing (how much faster?),
> >> this
> >> is absolutely correct.
> >
> > "FTL syncing" cannot possibly change the fact that the world we inhabit
> > does not have "absolute clock synchronization". That is, clocks at rest
> > in different inertial frames to not remain in sync with each other, no
> > matter how you set them.
>
> HahhahhahhahahhHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHA!
>
> Tom's world: If one makes OWLS always equal to c by definition, then any
> pair of clocks that does not measure it be c must be out of synch...!!!

No, that's not how it works. Relativity is NOT about mere redefining
of synchronisation through some other assumptions (like the constancy of c or
whatever).

It's about accounting for _experimental results_ from all domains of
current experimental physics. It turns out the constancy of c implies
a model that's consistent with all these experimental results.

Clock synchronisation is actually not needed for setting up the relativity
model, it's just convenience (using coordinates is convenient in general).
What really makes relativity go is the way elapsed times of different
clocks are related. The concept of synchronism is not needed.

For some reason textbooks rarely mention this and use the standard
coordinate-based derivation which stresses the sync and the usual
related rates like time dilation, etc. IIRC MTW has a derivation of
special relativity which uses only rulers and clocks which are identical
in construction but never synchronised in any way.

> Tom is too accustomed to his life in fairyland to understand that the
> world most of us inhabit does not operate according to the laws of
> circular logic.

It's not circular.

--
Jan

[HGW.]

On 11/08/16 09:18, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:55:45 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>>
>>> "FTL syncing" cannot possibly change the fact that the world we inhabit
>>> does not have "absolute clock synchronization". That is, clocks at rest
>>> in different inertial frames to not remain in sync with each other, no
>>> matter how you set them.
>>
>> HahhahhahhahahhHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHA!
>>
>> Tom's world: If one makes OWLS always equal to c by definition, then any
>> pair of clocks that does not measure it be c must be out of synch...!!!
>
> No, that's not how it works. Relativity is NOT about mere redefining
> of synchronisation through some other assumptions (like the constancy of c or
> whatever).
>
> It's about accounting for _experimental results_ from all domains of
> current experimental physics. It turns out the constancy of c implies
> a model that's consistent with all these experimental results.

hahahhhahhahhahHAHAHHAHAHH! What an idiot! There are no such experiments.

> Clock synchronisation is actually not needed for setting up the relativity
> model, it's just convenience (using coordinates is convenient in general).
> What really makes relativity go is the way elapsed times of different
> clocks are related. The concept of synchronism is not needed.

Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way
you like and they remain in absolute synch. There is no aether.
Einstein's plagiarized LET collapses.



> Jan
>


--

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:52:55 PM UTC-7, HGW. wrote:
> On 11/08/16 09:18, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 1:55:45 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> "FTL syncing" cannot possibly change the fact that the world we inhabit
> >>> does not have "absolute clock synchronization". That is, clocks at rest
> >>> in different inertial frames to not remain in sync with each other, no
> >>> matter how you set them.
> >>
> >> HahhahhahhahahhHAHAHHHAHAHHHAHA!
> >>
> >> Tom's world: If one makes OWLS always equal to c by definition, then any
> >> pair of clocks that does not measure it be c must be out of synch...!!!
> >
> > No, that's not how it works. Relativity is NOT about mere redefining
> > of synchronisation through some other assumptions (like the constancy of c or
> > whatever).
> >
> > It's about accounting for _experimental results_ from all domains of
> > current experimental physics. It turns out the constancy of c implies
> > a model that's consistent with all these experimental results.
>
> hahahhhahhahhahHAHAHHAHAHH! What an idiot! There are no such experiments.

Tell it to the bankers who funded the particle accelerators.

> > Clock synchronisation is actually not needed for setting up the relativity
> > model, it's just convenience (using coordinates is convenient in general).
> > What really makes relativity go is the way elapsed times of different
> > clocks are related. The concept of synchronism is not needed.
>
> Clocks synched together are absolutely synched.

Clock sync is not needed to define relativity. Only certain relationships between
elapsed proper times are needed. And these come from experiments.

> Move them apart any way
> you like and they remain in absolute synch.

Irrelevant.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> and they remain in absolute synch.

This is just plain not true.

There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1
m/s over a few seconds.

It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.

You keep living in a FANTASY world, and refuse to learn much about the world we
actually inhabit. How sad.


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:ev6dnYPhUbPzKzHK...@giganews.com...

|It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize
them
|together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
|altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.

And it has even longer been possible to do it with commercial pendulum
clocks. Users of pendulum clocks, however, usually were not idiots, so
the discovery of your moronic time dilation was delayed until your
Great Guru came.

[The Starmaker]

Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> > and they remain in absolute synch.
>
> This is just plain not true.
>
> There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1
> m/s over a few seconds.
>
> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.

and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:52:55 PM UTC-4, HGW. wrote:

> Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way
> you like and they remain in absolute synch.

Why do you lie so? You know darn well that there are *direct* experimental verification that show that when you bring a clock to "over there" and bring it back, it will NOT show the same value on the clock that remained.

You're not just stupid, you are a LIAR since you know what you say is untrue.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

The difference they display is 0.
Check at GPS, it wouldn't work otherwise.
The numbers are here:
http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm
Tom inhabits the world of his imaginaion, as
expected from a fanatic moron.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 12:33:14 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 02:02:20 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> >
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any
> > > > way you like and they remain in absolute synch.
> > >
> > > This is just plain not true.
> > >
> > > There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to
> > > motion ~ 1 m/s over a few seconds.
> > >
> > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks,
> > > synchronize them together, put one in a car and drive around for a
> > > few hours (at constant altitude), bring it back to the other, and
> > > SEE the difference they display.
> >
> > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
>
> The difference they display is 0.

And, Wozzie-boy, you are a liar too, just like Ralphie-boy.

> Check at GPS, it wouldn't work otherwise.
> The numbers are here:
> http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm
> Tom inhabits the world of his imaginaion, as
> expected from a fanatic moron.

Take your lying sophistry and tell it to your psychiatrist. He will be
very interested in attempting to cure you ... up to a point. He will
soon find out, though, that you are incurable.

[JanPB]

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 11:33:14 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 02:02:20 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > > > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> > > > and they remain in absolute synch.
> > >
> > > This is just plain not true.
> > >
> > > There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1
> > > m/s over a few seconds.
> > >
> > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> > > together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> > > altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
> >
> >
> >
> > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
>
> The difference they display is 0.

No, Tom is correct.

--
Jan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:f3d0d1c8-2857-4a81...@googlegroups.com...

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed numbers.
You showed nothing.

[The Starmaker]

rotchm wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:52:55 PM UTC-4, HGW. wrote:
>
> > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way
> > you like and they remain in absolute synch.
>
> Why do you lie so? You know darn well that there are *direct* experimental
> verification that show that when you bring a clock to "over there" and bring it back,
> it will NOT show the same value on the clock that remained.
>

Okay, I understand it does not show the same values...


but what are the values, what are the numbers...


if the values are not the same, ...


when did the change occur?

[Virgil]

In article <57AE29...@ix.netcom.com>,

Unless there is a universal time, which there isn't,
"when" has no single answer.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[The Starmaker]

I don't get it..
what is the point of
having an
atomic clock if
you don't know what time it is?

Did anybody check the clock to see when it happen???

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Virgil" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:VIRGIL-E38C31....@news.giganews.com...

|Unless there is a universal time, which there isn't,
|"when" has no single answer.

Unless morons get wiser, no question has any answer.

[rotchm]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 3:52:37 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:

> Okay, I understand it does not show the same values...
>
> but what are the values, what are the numbers...

Found by correctly applying t'=(t-xv/c^2)g

> if the values are not the same, ...when did the change occur?

They had different values when you noticed the difference (as soon as you compared them).

[JanPB]

Tom is correct. You are incorrect.

Nobody is going to "show" you anything, it's a waste of time.

--
Jan

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 13/08/16 07:11, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 3:52:37 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> Okay, I understand it does not show the same values...
>>
>> but what are the values, what are the numbers...
>
> Found by correctly applying t'=(t-xv/c^2)g

...so which one is ahead?
It looks as though they are both ahead of each other!!!
HAHAHHHAHAHHAHHHAHAA!

[rotchm]

If course idiot wilson thinks that t & t' are exactly the same symbol; he cant notice the difference. This shows that idiot wilson does not have ahead.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

HAHAHHHAHHA! THE IDIOT Rotchm cannot see that his equation applies
equally to both! HAHAHHHAHHAHHA!

[rotchm]

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:58:12 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> HAHAHHHAHHA! THE IDIOT Rotchm cannot see that his equation applies
> equally to both! HAHAHHHAHHAHHA!

Didnt you understand when I said

"Found by correctly applying t'=(t-xv/c^2)g "

So you are admitting that you dont know how to CORRECTLY apply the LT's ?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:1fdcb2c4-8bad-4b72...@googlegroups.com...

> > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> >
> > The difference they display is 0.
>
> |No, Tom is correct.
>
> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed numbers.
> You showed nothing.

|Tom is correct. You are incorrect.
|Nobody is going to "show" you anything, it's a waste of time.

Tom is an idiot living in his dreams, samely as you.

[paparios]

Living by dreams is much better than being a vacuum headed idiot like yourself.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> > and they remain in absolute synch.
>
> This is just plain not true.
>
> There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1
> m/s over a few seconds.
>
> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.

Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second. In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal interval of time.
For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a ground clock second.

[Michael Moroney]

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

>On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>
>> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
>> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
>> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.

>Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling
>clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second.
>In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal
>interval of time.

No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem. The clock in the
car is the traveling twin. It will see less elapsed time than the
stationary clock.

>For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of
>Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make
>the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a
>ground clock second.

You have been told many times that this is wrong. Why do you keep
repeating this mistake?

[JanPB]

As I said, it's a waste of time.

--
Jan

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>
> >On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>
> >> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> >> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> >> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
>
> >Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling
> >clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second.
> >In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal
> >interval of time.
>
> No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem. The clock in the
> car is the traveling twin. It will see less elapsed time than the
> stationary clock.

Again.....this is not due to time dilation. It is due to that the traveling clock second contains more TIME (duration) than the stationary clock second.

>
> >For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of
> >Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make
> >the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a
> >ground clock second.
>
> You have been told many times that this is wrong. Why do you keep
> repeating this mistake?

I told you many time that this is not wrong.....a clock second is not a universal interval of time in different frames and that's why clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:28:49 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
> >
> > > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks,
> > > > synchronize them together, put one in a car and drive around for
> > > > a few hours (at constant altitude), bring it back to the other,
> > > > and SEE the difference they display.
> > >
> > > Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the
> > > traveling clock second have a longer duration than the stay at
> > > home clock second. In other word, a clock second in different
> > > frame is not a universal interval of time.
> >
> > No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem. The clock in the
> > car is the traveling twin. It will see less elapsed time than the
> > stationary clock.
>
> Again.....this is not due to time dilation.

Of course it is, baloney-head. At least, it's what is commonly called time

dilation.

> It is due to that the traveling clock second contains more TIME (duration)
> than the stationary clock second.

"Traveling" means nothing at all since we all are always "traveling."
Consequently, the only time that really exists is what is called "proper
time," i.e., that time that progresses due to quantum processes in matter
that is at rest is an inertial frame. It doesn't make any difference
whatever that said frame is moving because movement of inertial frames is
completely relative.

> > > For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of
> > > Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make
> > > the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a
> > > ground clock second.
> >
> > You have been told many times that this is wrong. Why do you keep
> > repeating this mistake?
>
> I told you many time that this is not wrong.....a clock second is not a
> universal interval of time in different frames

Apparently it is universal, i.e., every good clock (i.e., atomic clock)
runs at a rate determined by quantum processes. Claiming that such
processes vary with relative velocity, or more ridiculously by "absolute"
velocity (which cannot be detected), is nuts IMHO.

> and that's why clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at
> different rates.

This claim is refuted by three or more observers moving at different
relative velocities. Each of them can claim they are stationary and
measure time in the other frame passing at different rates, but two will
measure the time in a third frame passing at, say, 0.866 and 0.5 times
as fast as his. So which is it, 0.866 or 0.5? How can it be both?
It can't. Those measurements have nothing whatever to do with proper
time. You DO know what proper time is, don't you?

[HGWilson, DSc.]

The equation is the same for both clocks...
You seem to think that direction is absolute. Are you still stupid
enough to believe in the one absolute aether?

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 14/08/16 03:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>
>> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>
>>> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
>>> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
>>> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
>
>> Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling
>> clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second.
>> In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal
>> interval of time.
>
> No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem. The clock in the
> car is the traveling twin. It will see less elapsed time than the
> stationary clock.

Idiot! In the car clock frame, the stationary clock moves...so IT
becomes the 'traveling twin' and IT will see less elapsed time than the
car clock.
Note, acceleration does not appear in your transforms.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:21:30 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> The equation is the same for both clocks...

Yes. But in the enunciation, t & t' are DIFFERENT PARAMETERS; different clocks.

> You seem to think that direction is absolute.

Nope. If you think that, then you are very confused. Then again, what can be expected from an idiot such as you who cant even solve *basic* math & physics problems.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:28:43 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 14/08/16 03:33, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Idiot! In the car clock frame, the stationary clock moves...so IT
> becomes the 'traveling twin'

Nope, it does NOT become the 'traveling twin' . You just dont understand the meaning of the words used. Here, 'traveling twin' is just a *label* that designates *the car*. So, although the ground is moving wrt the car, it is the car that we have *labeled* the 'traveling twin'. Here, t' represents time in the car's frame whereas t is time in the ground frame.

So, if we say that the car goes from x=0 to x = 10 with speed v, then implicitly this means that we *call* the car as the 'traveling twin' . The ground frame, an in particular, the grounded observer located at x=0, is called (labeled) the *home* twin. Does all this compute in your small head?

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Idiot! Reverse your arbitrary 'labels' and see what you get!

You don't seem to understand the principle of relativity at all.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

You poor fool, you don't even understand what relativity means.

[astro...@interia.pl]

W dniu środa, 3 sierpnia 2016 20:07:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Larry Harson napisał:

> I'm using slow clock transport to keep time dilation negligible so the clocks remains synchronized with one another within experimental error.

a clock can't be preserved during the slow transport, because:
t = L/v
this means:
the smaller v, the bigger time t is needed;
the L is fixed - const.


dt/t = 0.5 v^2/c^2 + ...
...

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:13:27 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> On 14/08/16 06:54, rotchm wrote:

> > So, if we say that the car goes from x=0 to x = 10 with speed v, then
> > implicitly this means that we *call* the car as the 'traveling twin'
> > . The ground frame, an in particular, the grounded observer located
> > at x=0, is called (labeled) the *home* twin. Does all this compute in
> > your small head?
>
> Idiot! Reverse your arbitrary 'labels' and see what you get!

I know what one gets. I also know that YOU dont get it. You're very confused.

> You don't seem to understand the principle of relativity at all.

You dont seem to understand it. When we ask you to actually calculate something simple, you fail miserably.

Try it: A car goes from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt ground).
As it arrives there, what is the value of the ground clock there? What is te value on the car's clock?

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:25:38 PM UTC-4, astro...@interia.pl wrote:

> > I'm using slow clock transport to keep time dilation negligible
> > so the clocks remains synchronized with one another within
> > experimental error.
>
> a clock can't be preserved during the slow transport, because:

We know that. That is not in dispute.

> t = L/v
> this means:
> the smaller v, the bigger time t is needed;
> the L is fixed - const.
>
>
> dt/t = 0.5 v^2/c^2 + ...

Time to arrive is L/v. The moved clock will indicate (L/v)√(1-b^2).
The difference is

(L/v)( 1 - √(1-b^2)) = (L/v)( v^2/(2c²) + o(4) ) = L( v/(2c²) + o(3) )
Thus, for v sufficiently small, the difference is Lv/(2c²).
Suffice to chose a v such that Lv/(2c²) is smaller that the exp error(s).

[astro...@interia.pl]

no, there is possibility;
for small speed:
dt(L)/t(L) = 0.5 v^2/c^2 = const;

the correct result includes a number of odrer:
v^4/c^4, thus absolute irrelevant for the condition
of the slow transport: v/c -> 0.

You can measure something in the opposite case: v ~ c, only;
what is quite contradictory to the presumed conditions already.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:30:00 PM UTC-4, astro...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 00:01:29 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał:

> > Time to arrive is L/v. The moved clock will indicate (L/v)√(1-b^2).
> > The difference is
> >
> > (L/v)( 1 - √(1-b^2)) = (L/v)( v^2/(2c²) + o(4) ) = L( v/(2c²) + o(3) )
> > Thus, for v sufficiently small, the difference is Lv/(2c²).
> > Suffice to chose a v such that Lv/(2c²) is smaller that the exp error(s).
>
> no,

How so? Shw me where I erred in the math. Its all there in the 3 lines.


> there is possibility;

In english plz?

> for small speed:
> dt(L)/t(L) = 0.5 v^2/c^2 = const;

Wrong.

t(L) = L/v --> dt(L) = d(L)/v.
Thus dt(L)/t(L) = (d(L)/v)/(L/v) = d(L)/L.
So you are wrong. And why would you want to evaluate dt(L)/t(L) anyways ??

> the correct result includes a number of odrer:
> v^4/c^4, thus absolute irrelevant for the condition
> of the slow transport: v/c -> 0.

In english plz...

> You can measure something in the opposite case: v ~ c, only;

In english plz...

> what is quite contradictory to the presumed conditions already.

What you write makes no sense. So either you are an idiot/troll, or just very bad at explaining in english. Work on that before posting so that you may be understood.

[Michael Moroney]

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, this is the traveling twin problem, Ralph. Ralph
Rabbidge, in the real world the two clocks are synchronized together,
Ralph, then one is driven off in a car, Ralph Rabbidge, but then the car
has to turn around and come back (or drive a circuitous route, same thing,
Ralph) and then return to the stationary clock where they are compared,
Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, it is true that the moving clock would see the
stationary clock as running slow as long as it is moving in a straight
line, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, the turn(s) change all that, Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge. Ralph, upon return, Ralph Rabbidge, both clocks agree that the
moving clock ran slow, Ralph Rabbidge.

>Note, acceleration does not appear in your transforms.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, the accelerations of the turnaround makes all the
difference in the world, Ralph Rabbidge. Without any turns (acceleration)
the clocks can be synchronized at the beginning of the trip, Ralph, or
compared at the end, Ralph, but not both, Ralph, since the two clocks can
meet exactly once at the most, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

>

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 14/08/16 07:50, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 5:13:27 PM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc.

>>

>> Idiot! Reverse your arbitrary 'labels' and see what you get!
>
> I know what one gets. I also know that YOU dont get it. You're very
> confused.
>
>> You don't seem to understand the principle of relativity at all.
>
> You dont seem to understand it. When we ask you to actually calculate
> something simple, you fail miserably.
>
> Try it: A car goes from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt
> ground). As it arrives there, what is the value of the ground clock

> there? What is the value on the car's clock?

idiot! the ground is going from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt
car).
As it arrives there, what is the value of the car clock there? What is
the value on the ground clock?

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 14/08/16 10:23, Michael Moron-y wrote:
...a lot of garbage that only serves to support the view that Einstein's
theory is a load of bullshit from start to finish.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 6:08:09 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 14/08/16 07:50, rotchm wrote:

> > Try it: A car goes from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt
> > ground). As it arrives there, what is the value of the ground clock
> > there? What is the value on the car's clock?
>
> idiot! the ground is going from x=0 to x = 1 at constant speed 0.5c (wrt
> car).

Nope! See, you cant even do a *very simple* physics problem. You have three MAJOR errors in your sentence.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:28:49 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks,
> > > > > synchronize them together, put one in a car and drive around for
> > > > > a few hours (at constant altitude), bring it back to the other,
> > > > > and SEE the difference they display.
> > > >
> > > > Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the
> > > > traveling clock second have a longer duration than the stay at
> > > > home clock second. In other word, a clock second in different
> > > > frame is not a universal interval of time.
> > >
> > > No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem. The clock in the
> > > car is the traveling twin. It will see less elapsed time than the
> > > stationary clock.
> >
> > Again.....this is not due to time dilation.
>
> Of course it is, baloney-head. At least, it's what is commonly called time
> dilation.
>
> > It is due to that the traveling clock second contains more TIME (duration)
> > than the stationary clock second.
>
> "Traveling" means nothing at all since we all are always "traveling."

So you admitted that we all are in a state of absolute motion.....right?

> Consequently, the only time that really exists is what is called "proper
> time," i.e., that time that progresses due to quantum processes in matter
> that is at rest is an inertial frame. It doesn't make any difference
> whatever that said frame is moving because movement of inertial frames is
> completely relative.

Between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
1. Clock A accumulates proper time (proper clock seconds) at rate of Ra and Clock B Accumulates proper clock seconds Rb.
2. If Ra>Rb then Rb<Ra is a must consequence.
3. The cause of these rate differences is due to that a B second contains a larger amount of TIME (duration) than an A second.
4. The reason why a B second contains a larger amount of TIME than an A second is due to that B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A....the consequence is that the B cesium 133 atom will take a longer TIME (duration) than the A cesium 133 atoms to complete a transition.

>
> > > > For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of
> > > > Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make
> > > > the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a
> > > > ground clock second.
> > >
> > > You have been told many times that this is wrong. Why do you keep
> > > repeating this mistake?
> >
> > I told you many time that this is not wrong.....a clock second is not a
> > universal interval of time in different frames
>
> Apparently it is universal, i.e., every good clock (i.e., atomic clock)
> runs at a rate determined by quantum processes. Claiming that such
> processes vary with relative velocity, or more ridiculously by "absolute"
> velocity (which cannot be detected), is nuts IMHO.

Observations proved that you are wrong.....the SR math says that an A second is worth 1/gamma of a B second.

>
> > and that's why clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at
> > different rates.
>
> This claim is refuted by three or more observers moving at different
> relative velocities. Each of them can claim they are stationary and
> measure time in the other frame passing at different rates, but two will
> measure the time in a third frame passing at, say, 0.866 and 0.5 times
> as fast as his. So which is it, 0.866 or 0.5? How can it be both?
> It can't. Those measurements have nothing whatever to do with proper
> time. You DO know what proper time is, don't you?

No such measurement.....each observer uses the LT to predict the rate of the third clock. The different prediction results are due to the different states of absolute motion of the different observers.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > "Traveling" means nothing at all since we all are always "traveling."
>
> So you admitted that we all are in a state of absolute motion.....right?

So you admit that you are a dishonest manipulator of language, right?

Since we cannot determine which inertial motion is "absolute," your
clueless claim is pure baloney.

> Between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
> 1. Clock A accumulates proper time (proper clock seconds) at rate of Ra
> and Clock B Accumulates proper clock seconds Rb.

Completely wrong and purposely false claim. ALL clocks "accumulate" proper
time at the same rate. This a DEFINITION, cumquat-head.

> 2. If Ra>Rb then Rb<Ra is a must consequence.

Proving that Seto can't even think straight.

> 3. The cause of these rate differences is due to that a B second contains
> a larger amount of TIME (duration) than an A second.

Seto has left the land of rationality.

> 4. The reason why a B second contains a larger amount of TIME than an A
> second

It doesn't, bonehead.

> is due to that B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A....the
> consequence is that the B cesium 133 atom will take a longer TIME (duration)
> than the A cesium 133 atoms to complete a transition.

Are you really this stupid? What about a C second and a D second, etc.?
Start putting in numbers and you will see that this is impossible.

> Observations proved that you are wrong.....the SR math says that an A
> second is worth 1/gamma of a B second.

You are crazier than a loon.

> > This claim is refuted by three or more observers moving at different
> > relative velocities. Each of them can claim they are stationary and
> > measure time in the other frame passing at different rates, but two will
> > measure the time in a third frame passing at, say, 0.866 and 0.5 times
> > as fast as his. So which is it, 0.866 or 0.5? How can it be both?
> > It can't. Those measurements have nothing whatever to do with proper
> > time. You DO know what proper time is, don't you?
>
> No such measurement

And there's no such measurement of absolute time or absolute motion either,
disingenuous one. Ergo, you have proven that your whole thesis is pure
hokum. OTOH, REAL measurements show that the speed of light is invariant
for all observers and that the principle of relativity has never been
refuted. The only rational conclusion is that what is predicted in my
paragraph must surely happen.

> .....each observer uses the LT to predict the rate of the third clock. The
> different prediction results are due to the different states of absolute
> motion of the different observers.

Nope. They only predict the relative motions. Are you really so stupid
that you don't understand that the "v" in the LT is RELATIVE motion or
that absolute motion has NEVER been measured?

[kenseto]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:34:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > "Traveling" means nothing at all since we all are always "traveling."
> >
> > So you admitted that we all are in a state of absolute motion.....right?
>
> So you admit that you are a dishonest manipulator of language, right?
>
> Since we cannot determine which inertial motion is "absolute," your
> clueless claim is pure baloney.

Idiot.....all objects are in a state of absolute motion wrt the light-waves in the ether. Between two objects A and B the vector difference of their absolute motions is their relative motion.

>
> > Between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
> > 1. Clock A accumulates proper time (proper clock seconds) at rate of Ra
> > and Clock B Accumulates proper clock seconds Rb.
>
> Completely wrong and purposely false claim. ALL clocks "accumulate" proper
> time at the same rate. This a DEFINITION, cumquat-head.

Wrong....according to A, B accumulate clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma. Gee you are stupid.

>
>
> > 2. If Ra>Rb then Rb<Ra is a must consequence.
>
> Proving that Seto can't even think straight.

Pot kettle black.

>
> > 3. The cause of these rate differences is due to that a B second contains
> > a larger amount of TIME (duration) than an A second.
>
> Seto has left the land of rationality.

Your pea brain failed to think outside the box.

>
> > 4. The reason why a B second contains a larger amount of TIME than an A
> > second
>
> It doesn't, bonehead.

Idiot....it happened.

>
> > is due to that B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A....the
> > consequence is that the B cesium 133 atom will take a longer TIME (duration)
> > than the A cesium 133 atoms to complete a transition.
>
> Are you really this stupid? What about a C second and a D second, etc.?
> Start putting in numbers and you will see that this is impossible.

So what about a C or D second?......C and D are in different states of absolute motion wrt A and therefore A predicts different rates of accumulating clock seconds for them.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

It is a direct copy of your own.

[The Starmaker]

When does the moving clock run slow?


What is the duration of the test?


Or, you got two clocks synchronized together

it's March 3rd, 9pm Tuesday, year 2020

and they are off!

When does the race end to look at the results?


When does the moving clock run slow? one minute after, 2 minutes later,
a week, a month? a year??




When does the moving clock run slow?

[astro...@interia.pl]

Indeed. I'm too smart for you. :)

dt/t = 0.5 v^2/c^2

but using a fact: L = vt, thus: v = L/t

dt/t = 0.5 L^2/t^2c^2 =

dt = 0.5 L^2/c^2 / t

... and what is it?

tdt = 0.5 L^2/c^2 = A/2 = const


t^2 = At + C.
C = 0 ->
t = A = const (= inv). :)

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:08:26 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:34:58 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Traveling" means nothing at all since we all are always "traveling."
> > >
> > > So you admitted that we all are in a state of absolute motion.....right?
> >
> > So you admit that you are a dishonest manipulator of language, right?
> >
> > Since we cannot determine which inertial motion is "absolute," your
> > clueless claim is pure baloney.
>
> Idiot

Yes, you certainly STILL are.

> .....all objects are in a state of absolute motion wrt the light-waves in
> the ether.

Since you have no way whatsoever in measuring the ether, YOU are the idiot.

> Between two objects A and B the vector difference of their absolute motions
> is their relative motion.

This is pure baloney since you have no way of detecting the supposed ether.

> > > Between two clocks A and B in relative motion:
> > > 1. Clock A accumulates proper time (proper clock seconds) at rate of Ra
> > > and Clock B Accumulates proper clock seconds Rb.
> >
> > Completely wrong and purposely false claim. ALL clocks "accumulate" proper
> > time at the same rate. This a DEFINITION, cumquat-head.
>
> Wrong....according to A, B accumulate clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma.
> Gee you are stupid.

So you cares what A believes? Gee are you stupid!

> > > 2. If Ra>Rb then Rb<Ra is a must consequence.
> >
> > Proving that Seto can't even think straight.
>
> Pot kettle black.

So you finally admit that you can't think straight. At last a breath
of honesty.

> > > 3. The cause of these rate differences is due to that a B second contains
> > > a larger amount of TIME (duration) than an A second.
> >
> > Seto has left the land of rationality.
>
> Your pea brain failed to think outside the box.

Your brain is in a hermetically sealed box and can't receive any knowledge.

> > > 4. The reason why a B second contains a larger amount of TIME than an A
> > > second
> >
> > It doesn't, bonehead.
>
> Idiot....it happened.

No, idiot, it didn't happen. Gee are you stupid.

> > > is due to that B is in a higher state of absolute motion than A....the
> > > consequence is that the B cesium 133 atom will take a longer TIME
> > > (duration) than the A cesium 133 atoms to complete a transition.
> >
> > Are you really this stupid? What about a C second and a D second, etc.?
> > Start putting in numbers and you will see that this is impossible.
>
> So what about a C or D second?......C and D are in different states of
> absolute motion wrt A and therefore A predicts different rates of
> accumulating clock seconds for them.

And since they all give different "predictions" your claims are crap.

> > > Observations proved that you are wrong.....the SR math says that an A
> > > second is worth 1/gamma of a B second.
> >
> > You are crazier than a loon.

Seto admits that he is crazier than a loon.

> > > > This claim is refuted by three or more observers moving at different
> > > > relative velocities. Each of them can claim they are stationary and
> > > > measure time in the other frame passing at different rates, but two will
> > > > measure the time in a third frame passing at, say, 0.866 and 0.5 times
> > > > as fast as his. So which is it, 0.866 or 0.5? How can it be both?
> > > > It can't. Those measurements have nothing whatever to do with proper
> > > > time. You DO know what proper time is, don't you?
> > >
> > > No such measurement
> >
> > And there's no such measurement of absolute time or absolute motion either,
> > disingenuous one. Ergo, you have proven that your whole thesis is pure
> > hokum. OTOH, REAL measurements show that the speed of light is invariant
> > for all observers and that the principle of relativity has never been
> > refuted. The only rational conclusion is that what is predicted in my
> > paragraph must surely happen.

Seto admits that there is no such thing as absolute time or motion.

> > > .....each observer uses the LT to predict the rate of the third clock. The
> > > different prediction results are due to the different states of absolute
> > > motion of the different observers.
> >
> > Nope. They only predict the relative motions. Are you really so stupid
> > that you don't understand that the "v" in the LT is RELATIVE motion or
> > that absolute motion has NEVER been measured?

Seto admits that he really IS so stupid.

[Michael Moroney]

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I see you have no answer to my reply, Ralph.
Ralph, I guess this means you must agree with my post, Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge. And once again, Ralph, if you don't want me to continue
blabbering your name (which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) all over this
newsgroup, Ralph, you need to learn not to tinker with my posts, Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge.

[rotchm]

No it is not. So you claim that A & B are two identical symbols, or that a car is the same as a person. No wonder you failed your highschool math and you failed in life. You are deeply confused.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:9def29e6-0153-41f6...@googlegroups.com...

El sábado, 13 de agosto de 2016, 9:10:27 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak escribió:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:1fdcb2c4-8bad-4b72...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> > >
> > > The difference they display is 0.
> >
> > |No, Tom is correct.
> >
> > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed numbers.
> > You showed nothing.
>
> |Tom is correct. You are incorrect.
> |Nobody is going to "show" you anything, it's a waste of time.
>
> Tom is an idiot living in his dreams, samely as you.
> I showed numbers.
> You showed nothing.

|Living by dreams is much better than being a vacuum headed idiot like
yourself.

Well, you're a bit right, and I must say, sometimes I'm jealous
about your stupidity and arrogance.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:nonlln$lor$2...@pcls7.std.com...

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

>On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>
>> It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks,
>> synchronize them
>> together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
>> altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they
>> display.

>Right, but this does not mean time dilation. It means that the traveling
>clock second have a longer duration than the stay at home clock second.
>In other word, a clock second in different frame is not a universal
>interval of time.

No, this is a version of the traveling twin problem. The clock in the
car is the traveling twin. It will see less elapsed time than the
stationary clock.

>For example the GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of
>Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make
>the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a
>ground clock second.

|You have been told many times that this is wrong. Why do you keep
|repeating this mistake?

You have been told many times that this is not wrong. Why do you keep
repeating this mistake?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:a7be50b2-a8f1-45a0...@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:10:27 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:1fdcb2c4-8bad-4b72...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> > >
> > > The difference they display is 0.
> >
> > |No, Tom is correct.
> >
> > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. I showed numbers.
> > You showed nothing.
>
> |Tom is correct. You are incorrect.
> |Nobody is going to "show" you anything, it's a waste of time.
>
> Tom is an idiot living in his dreams, samely as you.
> I showed numbers.
> You showed nothing.

|As I said, it's a waste of time.

And, as I said, you showed nothing. You can only scream
and wave arms, as expected from relativistic trash.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:a479e263-65f2-44eb...@googlegroups.com...

|Of course it is, baloney-head. At least, it's what is commonly called time
|dilation.

Wrong, poor idiot. Common name for such things is - "clock error".

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:02:16 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:a479e263-65f2-44eb...@googlegroups.com...
> >

> > Crazy loon Seto wrote:
> > >
> > > > Again.....this is not due to time dilation
> >

> > Of course it is, baloney-head. At least, it's what is commonly called time
> > dilation.
>
> Wrong, poor idiot. Common name for such things is - "clock error".

Wrong, Seto lover, both of you two baloney-heads are rotten peas in a pod.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:06ca94ca-ed4b-43d8...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, poor idiot. Your idiot guru's mumble is not common at all.

[The Starmaker]

JanPB wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 11:33:14 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 12 sierpnia 2016 02:02:20 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 8/10/16 8/10/16 - 7:52 PM, HGW. wrote:
> > > > > Clocks synched together are absolutely synched. Move them apart any way you like
> > > > > and they remain in absolute synch.
> > > >
> > > > This is just plain not true.
> > > >
> > > > There are clocks at NIST that can detect the desynchronization due to motion ~ 1
> > > > m/s over a few seconds.

> > > >
> > > > It has long been possible to take two commercial atomic clocks, synchronize them
> > > > together, put one in a car and drive around for a few hours (at constant
> > > > altitude), bring it back to the other, and SEE the difference they display.
> > >
> > >
> > >

> > > and what is the difference they display? What are the numbers??
> >
> > The difference they display is 0.
>
> No, Tom is correct.
>

> --
> Jan


Tom did not display the difference, so what is correct???

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Gawd! you have been defending what you call 'relativity' for years and
you still don't even understand what it means. You are basically just a
very ordinary, old fashioned aetherist.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 15/08/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote:

> Michael Moroney wrote:

>
>
> When does the moving clock run slow?
>
>
> What is the duration of the test?
>
>
> Or, you got two clocks synchronized together
>
> it's March 3rd, 9pm Tuesday, year 2020
>
> and they are off!
>
> When does the race end to look at the results?
>
>
> When does the moving clock run slow? one minute after, 2 minutes later,
> a week, a month? a year??
>
>
>
>
> When does the moving clock run slow?

Both clocks are moving identically in each other's frames....so they
both go equally slow...according to these mental midgets....

:)

[astro...@interia.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 21:35:22 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc.

>
> Both clocks are moving identically in each other's frames....so they
> both go equally slow...according to these mental midgets....

Oh! Your stupidity is very great...
The Doppler shift is equal, but not the times...

[HGW.]

This has nothing to do with Doppler shift. The rates are both supposed
to be slow in the other's frame...and by the same amounts.....How stupid
it is that?

It would not make the clocks read differently when reunited?


--

[The Starmaker]

and another thing...
when they use twins instead of clocks..
which clock are they using, the biological clock or the universe clock?

What makes the person older is the biological clock, not the universe Time clock, is that correct??

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:48:57 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> and another thing...
> when they use twins instead of clocks..
> which clock are they using, the biological clock or the universe clock?
>
> What makes the person older is the biological clock, not the universe
> Time clock, is that correct??

Nope, both are based on the same underlying quantum process.

[The Starmaker]

i didn't know about quantum time...


are you saying there are biological quantum clocks or quantum time?

[Gary Harnagel]

I suppose one could make a quantum clock out of biological material (i.e.,
complex molecules), but atoms of cesium, rubidium or aluminum are much
simpler and therefore easier to construct.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 11:58:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> I suppose one could make a quantum clock out of biological material (i.e.,
> complex molecules), but atoms of cesium, rubidium or aluminum are much
> simpler and therefore easier to construct.

A moron likes it to be nice and simple.
They also don't work - as we can see at GPS. But
why would a moron care?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 4:10:19 AM UTC-6, an idiot wrote:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 11:58:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
>
> > I suppose one could make a quantum clock out of biological material (i.e.,
> > complex molecules), but atoms of cesium, rubidium or aluminum are much
> > simpler and therefore easier to construct.
>
> A moron likes it to be nice and simple.

Not so. You are simple and you are a moron, but you are NOT nice.

> They also don't work

True, they are on welfare.

> - as we can see at GPS.

I didn't know anyone was on board the GPS birds, not even morons like you.

> But why would a moron care?

Yes, I have wondered why you post your babblings here. You are obviously
a nihilist moron.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 12:54:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 4:10:19 AM UTC-6, an idiot wrote:
> >
> > W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 11:58:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > > I suppose one could make a quantum clock out of biological material (i.e.,
> > > complex molecules), but atoms of cesium, rubidium or aluminum are much
> > > simpler and therefore easier to construct.
> >
> > A moron likes it to be nice and simple.
>
> Not so. You are simple and you are a moron, but you are NOT nice.

And how "I'm not nice" denies "moron likes it
to be nice and simple"?

>
> > They also don't work
>
> True, they are on welfare.

What an idiot. Clocks on welfare?
They simply don't work.
Your bunch of idiots is trying to force
unusable clocks as standard.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:07:41 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 12:54:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 4:10:19 AM UTC-6, an idiot wrote:
> > >
> > > W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 11:58:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > >
> > > A moron likes it to be nice and simple.
> >
> > Not so. You are simple and you are a moron, but you are NOT nice.
>
> And how "I'm not nice" denies "moron likes it
> to be nice and simple"?

Because you're not nice. Duh!

> > > They also don't work
> >
> > True, they are on welfare.
>
> What an idiot. Clocks on welfare?

No, moron: morons are on welfare.

> They simply don't work.
> Your bunch of idiots is trying to force
> unusable clocks as standard.

And morons like you babble about things they don't understand.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 18 sierpnia 2016 14:19:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel

> > They simply don't work.
> > Your bunch of idiots is trying to force
> > unusable clocks as standard.
>
> And morons like you babble about things they don't understand.

And fanatic idiots yell and wave arms.

[The Starmaker]

How about a Master Clock, you know...a master clock based on the whole
universe time, a spacetime clock if you will? What would that be made
of?? Would it be
tiny or big...

[Gary Harnagel]

What is it about nonsimultaneity that you don't understand?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

I will tell you, what you don't understand.
Simultaneity, or lack of it, is the matter
of coordinates. Of these, quoting your
fellow idiot Tom, "human invented arbitrary
construction". Your imagined Essence of
the Universe has no business in it.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 12:33:19 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu piątek, 19 sierpnia 2016 04:43:00 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 11:09:14 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > How about a Master Clock, you know...a master clock based on the whole
> > > universe time, a spacetime clock if you will? What would that be made
> > > of?? Would it be
> > > tiny or big...
> >
> > What is it about nonsimultaneity that you don't understand?
>
> I will tell you, what you don't understand.

That's impossible because you are a know-nothing, nihilistic troll.

> Simultaneity, or lack of it, is the matter
> of coordinates. Of these, quoting your
> fellow idiot Tom, "human invented arbitrary
> construction". Your imagined Essence of
> the Universe has no business in it.

Gobble, gobble, gobble.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

That's impossible of course, but as we can see
you understood nothing, as expected.

[paparios]

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:01:51 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 19 sierpnia 2016 13:25:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> >

> > > Simultaneity, or lack of it, is the matter
> > > of coordinates. Of these, quoting your
> > > fellow idiot Tom, "human invented arbitrary
> > > construction". Your imagined Essence of
> > > the Universe has no business in it.
> >
> > Gobble, gobble, gobble.
>
> That's impossible of course, but as we can see
> you understood nothing, as expected.

Obviously, when observing a lightning storm, any person can "measure" the simultaneity or not of different lightning strikes and its location around the observer. No coordinates are needed. The same I can see the Moon at a certain position in the sky and with my hand indicate that position to my wife. Again, no coordinates are necessary.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:ba683e29-077f-441e...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 9:01:51 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 19 sierpnia 2016 13:25:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> >
> > > Simultaneity, or lack of it, is the matter
> > > of coordinates. Of these, quoting your
> > > fellow idiot Tom, "human invented arbitrary
> > > construction". Your imagined Essence of
> > > the Universe has no business in it.
> >
> > Gobble, gobble, gobble.
>
> That's impossible of course, but as we can see
> you understood nothing, as expected.

|Obviously, when observing a lightning storm, any person can "measure" the
simultaneity or not of different lightning strikes and its location around
the observer.

How?

[paparios]

Simple, I see the light of a ligthning strike A at 12:00:00 and then another ligth of a different lightning strike B at 12:00:03. Then at 12:00:10 I see two lights of two different lightning strikes C and D. For sure I can say that events A and B were not simultaneous and that events C and D were simultaneous.
No coordinates are needed (not even the clock is needed).

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:ad0c13f4-7b30-4815...@googlegroups.com... tood

nothing, as expected.
>
> |Obviously, when observing a lightning storm, any person can "measure" the
> simultaneity or not of different lightning strikes and its location around
> the observer.
>
> How?

|Simple, I see the light of a ligthning strike A at 12:00:00

You announced you can do it without coordinates. What do
you think "12.00.00" is, poor idiot?

[paparios]

Is what a poor idiot like you need to understand what it is being explained. You do not need a clock for that.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Don't you need a clock for seeing that strike was
12.00.00? Really?
It's as true, as the whole rest of your moronic
mumble.

BTW - this is simultanity. We label events with
numeric sequences like the above and they're
simultaneous when they have the same label.
No fucken idiot-guru-discovered Essence of the
Universe has business here.

[paparios]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 3:27:45 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 21 sierpnia 2016 20:44:56 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > El domingo, 21 de agosto de 2016, 13:44:11 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió:
> > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:ad0c13f4-7b30-4815...@googlegroups.com... tood
> > > nothing, as expected.
> > > >
> > > > |Obviously, when observing a lightning storm, any person can "measure" the
> > > > simultaneity or not of different lightning strikes and its location around
> > > > the observer.
> > > >
> > > > How?
> > >
> > > |Simple, I see the light of a ligthning strike A at 12:00:00
> > >
> > > You announced you can do it without coordinates. What do
> > > you think "12.00.00" is, poor idiot?
> >
> > Is what a poor idiot like you need to understand what it is being explained. You do not need a clock for that.
>
> Don't you need a clock for seeing that strike was
> 12.00.00? Really?
> It's as true, as the whole rest of your moronic
> mumble.
>

No completely awful troll, you do not need a clock. Even you with your gigantic ignorance should know that human know the concepts of before, after and simultaneous. Event A happened before event B and events C and D were simultaneous (or in your baby language, events C and D happened at the same instant of time). You do not need any coordinates for expressing that.

> BTW - this is simultanity. We label events with
> numeric sequences like the above and they're
> simultaneous when they have the same label.
> No fucken idiot-guru-discovered Essence of the
> Universe has business here.

Wrong again ignorant troll, as all you need is that your senses (hearing, and sight, in this case, all of them really failing on you) do their job.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 22 sierpnia 2016 15:18:26 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 3:27:45 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu niedziela, 21 sierpnia 2016 20:44:56 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > > El domingo, 21 de agosto de 2016, 13:44:11 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió:
> > > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > dyskusyjnych:ad0c13f4-7b30-4815...@googlegroups.com... tood
> > > > nothing, as expected.
> > > > >
> > > > > |Obviously, when observing a lightning storm, any person can "measure" the
> > > > > simultaneity or not of different lightning strikes and its location around
> > > > > the observer.
> > > > >
> > > > > How?
> > > >
> > > > |Simple, I see the light of a ligthning strike A at 12:00:00
> > > >
> > > > You announced you can do it without coordinates. What do
> > > > you think "12.00.00" is, poor idiot?
> > >
> > > Is what a poor idiot like you need to understand what it is being explained. You do not need a clock for that.
> >
> > Don't you need a clock for seeing that strike was
> > 12.00.00? Really?
> > It's as true, as the whole rest of your moronic
> > mumble.
> >
>
> No completely awful troll, you do not need a clock.

So where will you get this numbers you mentioned from?

> > BTW - this is simultanity. We label events with
> > numeric sequences like the above and they're
> > simultaneous when they have the same label.
> > No fucken idiot-guru-discovered Essence of the
> > Universe has business here.
>
> Wrong again ignorant troll, as all you need is that your senses (hearing, and sight, in this case, all of them really failing on you) do their job.

Wrong again ignorant troll. They can be sufficient in
very short ranges, but usually they are not. Generally
it's brain that is needed, but how could you know.

[John Gogo]

The world we exist in now is short range/short range philosophy- and we are able to hone our clocks to 9 digits. This is true- it also sounds like an autistic child's philosophy.

[astro...@interia.pl]

W dniu środa, 17 sierpnia 2016 00:51:24 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW. napisał:
> On 17/08/16 04:24, astro...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 21:35:22 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc.
> >>
> >> Both clocks are moving identically in each other's frames....so they
> >> both go equally slow...according to these mental midgets....
> >
> > Oh! Your stupidity is very great...
> > The Doppler shift is equal, but not the times...
>
> This has nothing to do with Doppler shift. The rates are both supposed
> to be slow in the other's frame...and by the same amounts.....How stupid
> it is that?

Just that is stupid:
the Doppler symmetry doesn't imply a time symmetry.

t = inv, by definition, due to the practical consequences:
you must use the same time standard in the whole world.

> It would not make the clocks read differently when reunited?

The measured time over a loop deppends on the speed:
(x+v)^2 + (x-v)^2 > (x+0)^2 + (x-0)^2,
for v <> 0.

This explains why a moving clock slows down more than a starionary one.