info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Esynchro uses the SR denied absolute SOL and absolute speed of the SR frame
41 views
Skip to first unread message
beda pietanza
Mar 10, 2021, 5:43:12 PM3/10/21
to
there is nothing so easy to understand than how light speed is made invariant: is the Esynchronization of the clocks SR frames,
using the absolute speed of light and the absolute speed of the frame, makes the Esynchronized clock precisely tuned on each single different speed of SR frames,
the information about of the absolute speed of the frame doesn't disappear: it is transferred in the prefect and precise absolute asinchrony of the SR frame clocks
if you deny this, the only think I can do is have pity of your lost rationality.
all the rest follow, and can be discussed later, but since you and your SR pals
deny this triviality, there is not any possibility of mutual understanding.
using the absolute speed of light and the absolute speed of the frame, makes the Esynchronized clock precisely tuned on each single different speed of SR frames,
the information about of the absolute speed of the frame doesn't disappear: it is transferred in the prefect and precise absolute asinchrony of the SR frame clocks
if you deny this, the only think I can do is have pity of your lost rationality.
all the rest follow, and can be discussed later, but since you and your SR pals
deny this triviality, there is not any possibility of mutual understanding.
Cliff Hallston
Mar 10, 2021, 6:36:46 PM3/10/21
to
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 2:43:12 PM UTC-8, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> There is nothing so easy to understand than how light speed is made invariant:
> is the Esynchronization [sic] of the clocks SR frames,
It's trivial that the invariance of the speed c in terms of inertial coordinate systems implies that inertial coordinate systems are related to each other by Lorentz transformations, which entail the skewed simultaneity that results from the inertia of energy. No one ever said the speed c is invariant in terms of every possible system of coordinates.
I think one of your problems is that you think it was some kind of insight that other people don't understand related to the fact that the invariance of c is due to the relationship between the coordinate systems. You need to grow up and get past that misconception: You do not have any special insight. Every school boy knows that the invariance of c is due to the relationship between inertial coordinate systems, including (but not limited to) the skew of simultaneity.
Remember, the synchronization of inertia-based coordinate systems is established by throwing stones with equal force from rest at the midpoint of a ruler, or shooting identical bullets from identical guns, or using sound waves from the midpoint of the ruler, or by very slowly transporting clocks, or any of countless other methods based on the isotropy that characterizes those coordinates (in which all the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form). At no point in this process do we invoke the CMBR frame. Never. Not once. And this synchronization applies in exactly the same way for every frame, regardless of its state of motion relative to the CMBR frame.
At some point, you need to stop lying to yourself. You've already admitted that, in terms of the inertial coordinates K of a kitchen, the cooking time for an egg moving with speed v in terms of K is 5g, regardless of how fast K is moving relative to the CMBR frame. The synchronization of inertial coordinate systems is simply not made using absolute speed. Please stop lying. Okay? [Also, it would be better to stay with a thread, rather than opening more and more threads based on the same misconceptions.]
> There is nothing so easy to understand than how light speed is made invariant:
> is the Esynchronization [sic] of the clocks SR frames,
It's trivial that the invariance of the speed c in terms of inertial coordinate systems implies that inertial coordinate systems are related to each other by Lorentz transformations, which entail the skewed simultaneity that results from the inertia of energy. No one ever said the speed c is invariant in terms of every possible system of coordinates.
I think one of your problems is that you think it was some kind of insight that other people don't understand related to the fact that the invariance of c is due to the relationship between the coordinate systems. You need to grow up and get past that misconception: You do not have any special insight. Every school boy knows that the invariance of c is due to the relationship between inertial coordinate systems, including (but not limited to) the skew of simultaneity.
Remember, the synchronization of inertia-based coordinate systems is established by throwing stones with equal force from rest at the midpoint of a ruler, or shooting identical bullets from identical guns, or using sound waves from the midpoint of the ruler, or by very slowly transporting clocks, or any of countless other methods based on the isotropy that characterizes those coordinates (in which all the equations of physics take the same homogeneous and isotropic form). At no point in this process do we invoke the CMBR frame. Never. Not once. And this synchronization applies in exactly the same way for every frame, regardless of its state of motion relative to the CMBR frame.
At some point, you need to stop lying to yourself. You've already admitted that, in terms of the inertial coordinates K of a kitchen, the cooking time for an egg moving with speed v in terms of K is 5g, regardless of how fast K is moving relative to the CMBR frame. The synchronization of inertial coordinate systems is simply not made using absolute speed. Please stop lying. Okay? [Also, it would be better to stay with a thread, rather than opening more and more threads based on the same misconceptions.]
rotchm
Mar 10, 2021, 7:51:50 PM3/10/21
to
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:43:12 PM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> there is nothing so easy to understand than how light speed is made invariant:
> is the Esynchronization of the clocks SR frames,
We all know that. But, we can take any inertial frame to do that and we still get the same result.
> there is nothing so easy to understand than how light speed is made invariant:
> is the Esynchronization of the clocks SR frames,
We don't need the absolute frame to perform or deduce that.
> the information about of the absolute speed of the frame doesn't disappear: it is transferred
> in the prefect and precise absolute asinchrony of the SR frame clocks
in the final expression, but only the relative speed between the two frames (or clocks).
What you are saying or doing, it's just screaming "this is my preferred frame" And I will use it as a frame to do all relativistic calculations. Well, you are free to do so. But it will entail more steps, more calculations because you have to jump from frame K to the absolute frame then back to frame K'. We're rise in relativity, we immediately jump from K to K'.
* _Edwin B Schuler - DSc_ *
Mar 11, 2021, 6:05:39 AM3/11/21
to
* _rotchm_ * wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:43:12 PM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it
> wrote:
>> there is nothing so easy to understand than how light speed is made
>> invariant:
>> is the Esynchronization of the clocks SR frames,
>
> We all know that. But, we can take any inertial frame to do that and we
You are not among the "we" around here, idiot. You just have to shut up
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:43:12 PM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it
> wrote:
>> there is nothing so easy to understand than how light speed is made
>> invariant:
>> is the Esynchronization of the clocks SR frames,
>
> We all know that. But, we can take any inertial frame to do that and we
and piss off.
beda pietanza
Mar 11, 2021, 6:20:08 AM3/11/21
to
it is made using the absolute speeds, absolute speed of light, if it is used light, absolute speed of whatever if other method is used, plus the absolute speed of the SR frame, after the Esynvhro procedure the absolute speed of the frame is incorporated in the absolute asynchrony of the frame clocks.
made clear the above, if you agree on that,
you can enjoy your empirical SR method against which I retain my objections: SR math construction is unfit to cope with the physical behavior of material made bodies, cannot cope with all range of inertial speeds, all laws of physics cannot be extended as such to all range of speeds and to all kind of material objects
you approach is a Math scheme imposed to reality in the ingenuous pretense that reality adhere to a perfect math model, it is not so simple:
real behavior of matter has discontinuities, asymmetries and non uniformity all over, in this SR is just misleading with apparent and approximate good results.
cheers
beda
beda pietanza
Mar 11, 2021, 6:40:14 AM3/11/21
to
Il giorno giovedì 11 marzo 2021 alle 01:51:50 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:43:12 PM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > there is nothing so easy to understand than how light speed is made invariant:
> > is the Esynchronization of the clocks SR frames,
> We all know that. But, we can take any inertial frame to do that and we still get the same result.
> We don't need the absolute frame to perform or deduce that.
> > the information about of the absolute speed of the frame doesn't disappear: it is transferred
> > in the prefect and precise absolute asinchrony of the SR frame clocks
> In disappears in the sense that, when all computations done, the absolute speed no longer appears
> in the final expression, but only the relative speed between the two frames (or clocks).
beda
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:43:12 PM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > there is nothing so easy to understand than how light speed is made invariant:
> > is the Esynchronization of the clocks SR frames,
> We all know that. But, we can take any inertial frame to do that and we still get the same result.
> We don't need the absolute frame to perform or deduce that.
> > the information about of the absolute speed of the frame doesn't disappear: it is transferred
> > in the prefect and precise absolute asinchrony of the SR frame clocks
> In disappears in the sense that, when all computations done, the absolute speed no longer appears
> in the final expression, but only the relative speed between the two frames (or clocks).
in the final results the absolute remains: five minutes of local clocks may correspond to
an unlimited values of different absolute time related to the same relative speed,
that you have lost, which is instead very important
anyways. seems that we (you and I) agree that SR is based on the hidden but essential role of absolute speed in a procedure
that rends the absolute speed not necessary in the final calculus,
this is clearly shown in the math scheme of SR and LT, perfect up to this point,
now, are you sure that the behavior of material reality follow this scheme all through all range of speeds,
all laws of physics, all different materials??? that is a very hazardous bet, I wouldn't take it.
the differences due the above possible discrepancy maybe rather small or negligible in the feasible experimental
conditions, so the faith in SR could be an illusion very misleading, if I were you I would be a little more careful
cheers
beda
Unknown
Mar 11, 2021, 6:58:55 AM3/11/21
to
* _beda pietanza_ * wrote:
>> In disappears in the sense that, when all computations done, the
>> absolute speed no longer appears in the final expression, but only the
>> relative speed between the two frames (or clocks).
> beda in the final results the absolute remains: five minutes of local
> clocks may correspond to an unlimited values of different absolute time
> related to the same relative speed,
> that you have lost, which is instead very important
incorrect. The time is not the clock. You guys are succinctly confuse the
>> In disappears in the sense that, when all computations done, the
>> absolute speed no longer appears in the final expression, but only the
>> relative speed between the two frames (or clocks).
> beda in the final results the absolute remains: five minutes of local
> clocks may correspond to an unlimited values of different absolute time
> related to the same relative speed,
> that you have lost, which is instead very important
medium with the information. Which is unfortunately the standard level of
education around here as I can read.
rotchm
Mar 11, 2021, 9:26:25 AM3/11/21
to
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 6:40:14 AM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> anyways. seems that we (you and I) agree that SR is based on the hidden but essential role of absolute speed
No it is not based on the abs speed, nor is it essential. Relativistic effects (kinematical/optical) can be modeled that way (LET), and SR is a different (much simpler, and generally applicable) way to *model* the observed effects.
> anyways. seems that we (you and I) agree that SR is based on the hidden but essential role of absolute speed
> now, are you sure that the behavior of material reality follow this scheme all through all range of speeds,
> all laws of physics,
That's the definition of 'law of physics', so its necessarily true.
> the differences due the above possible discrepancy maybe rather small or negligible in the feasible experimental
> conditions, so the faith in SR could be an illusion very misleading,
Unknown
Mar 11, 2021, 10:13:49 AM3/11/21
to
* _beda pietanza_ * wrote:
> Il giorno giovedì 11 marzo 2021 alle 01:51:50 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
>> In disappears in the sense that, when all computations done, the
>> absolute speed no longer appears in the final expression, but only the
>> relative speed between the two frames (or clocks).
> beda in the final results the absolute remains: five minutes of local
> clocks may correspond to an unlimited values of different absolute time
> related to the same relative speed,
> that you have lost, which is instead very important
You don't undrestand because you keep talking to that crank uneducated
>> In disappears in the sense that, when all computations done, the
>> absolute speed no longer appears in the final expression, but only the
>> relative speed between the two frames (or clocks).
> beda in the final results the absolute remains: five minutes of local
> clocks may correspond to an unlimited values of different absolute time
> related to the same relative speed,
> that you have lost, which is instead very important
imbecile, said "rotchm" aka stephan baune, an well known impertinent
crackpot pos.
Talk with competent people in areas, you can learn something from, as Odd
bodkin, PB Anderson, Tom Roberts, me, Mitchel Raemsch and certainly a few
others. Stop talking to impertinent crackpots wasting bandwidth. The
least you can do, for you and for us, when applicable.
Keith Stein
Mar 11, 2021, 10:41:22 AM3/11/21
to
On 11/03/2021 14:26, rotchm wrote:
> ... We all know that we may be living in a simulation (an illusion)
So you even doubt the "reality" of "reality" Rotchm.
Don't worry about that Rotchm, "reality" is REAL enough,
but for sure you and the rest of you relativists are
living in an "illusion" - of a constant speed of light,
time dilations, space contractions, and all the rest
of Einstein's Silly Ridiculous Illusions eh!
keith stein
> ... We all know that we may be living in a simulation (an illusion)
So you even doubt the "reality" of "reality" Rotchm.
Don't worry about that Rotchm, "reality" is REAL enough,
but for sure you and the rest of you relativists are
living in an "illusion" - of a constant speed of light,
time dilations, space contractions, and all the rest
of Einstein's Silly Ridiculous Illusions eh!
keith stein
Cliff Hallston
Mar 11, 2021, 11:22:15 AM3/11/21
to
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 3:20:08 AM UTC-8, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > In terms of the inertial coordinates K of a kitchen, the cooking time for an egg moving with speed v in terms of K is 5g, regardless of how fast K is moving relative to the CMBR frame. The synchronization of inertial coordinate systems is simply not made using absolute speed.
>
> It is made using the absolute speed of light or of whatever objects [stones, bullets, sound
> waves] if other method is used, plus the absolute speed of the SR frame...
The cooking time is 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the kitchen's inertia-based coordinate system, regardless of how fast the kitchen is moving in terms of any other system of coordinates. This is the meaning of the statement "The time dilation of the clock relative to K depends only on the speed of the clock relative to K". Any additional metaphysical assertions you choose to make regarding unobservable ethers or flying pink elephants are irrelevant.
> The absolute speed of the frame is incorporated in the absolute asynchrony of the frame clocks.
That statement is equivalent to "The pink elephants of the frame are incorporated in the pink elephantness of the frame clocks".
> SR math construction is unfit to cope with the physical behavior of material made
> bodies, cannot cope with all range of inertial speeds, all laws of physics cannot be
> extended as such to all range of speeds and to all kind of material objects .
But special relativity (local Lorentz invariance) *does* cope with all materials and bodies and all speeds (whether inertial or not), and all the local laws of physics take the same form in terms of any system of inertial coordinates. These are objective facts of nature than you simply cannot reject because they displease you. Obviously if someone discovers a violation of local Lorentz invariance tomorrow, then local Lorentz invariance would not be viable. The same applies to local conservation of energy and momentum. If someone discovers a violation of these fundamental scientific symmetries, then physics would be overturned, but it is unscientific to reject well-established principles merely based on the hypothesis of future disconfirmation.
It's also worth remembering that your ideas about different material having different equilibrium configurations is based on your denial of the principle of relativity, which underlies basic physics going back to Galileo and Newton. So your objections to science are not really focused on special relativity, you are a denier of *all* scientific thought, and your goal is to replace science with a belief in unobservable flying pink elephants and such. Surely you must realize that you will never find anyone to join you.
> > In terms of the inertial coordinates K of a kitchen, the cooking time for an egg moving with speed v in terms of K is 5g, regardless of how fast K is moving relative to the CMBR frame. The synchronization of inertial coordinate systems is simply not made using absolute speed.
>
> It is made using the absolute speed of light or of whatever objects [stones, bullets, sound
> waves] if other method is used, plus the absolute speed of the SR frame...
The cooking time is 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the kitchen's inertia-based coordinate system, regardless of how fast the kitchen is moving in terms of any other system of coordinates. This is the meaning of the statement "The time dilation of the clock relative to K depends only on the speed of the clock relative to K". Any additional metaphysical assertions you choose to make regarding unobservable ethers or flying pink elephants are irrelevant.
> The absolute speed of the frame is incorporated in the absolute asynchrony of the frame clocks.
That statement is equivalent to "The pink elephants of the frame are incorporated in the pink elephantness of the frame clocks".
> SR math construction is unfit to cope with the physical behavior of material made
> bodies, cannot cope with all range of inertial speeds, all laws of physics cannot be
But special relativity (local Lorentz invariance) *does* cope with all materials and bodies and all speeds (whether inertial or not), and all the local laws of physics take the same form in terms of any system of inertial coordinates. These are objective facts of nature than you simply cannot reject because they displease you. Obviously if someone discovers a violation of local Lorentz invariance tomorrow, then local Lorentz invariance would not be viable. The same applies to local conservation of energy and momentum. If someone discovers a violation of these fundamental scientific symmetries, then physics would be overturned, but it is unscientific to reject well-established principles merely based on the hypothesis of future disconfirmation.
It's also worth remembering that your ideas about different material having different equilibrium configurations is based on your denial of the principle of relativity, which underlies basic physics going back to Galileo and Newton. So your objections to science are not really focused on special relativity, you are a denier of *all* scientific thought, and your goal is to replace science with a belief in unobservable flying pink elephants and such. Surely you must realize that you will never find anyone to join you.
beda pietanza
Mar 11, 2021, 7:35:10 PM3/11/21
to
Il giorno giovedì 11 marzo 2021 alle 17:22:15 UTC+1 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 3:20:08 AM UTC-8, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > In terms of the inertial coordinates K of a kitchen, the cooking time for an egg moving with speed v in terms of K is 5g, regardless of how fast K is moving relative to the CMBR frame. The synchronization of inertial coordinate systems is simply not made using absolute speed.
> >
> > It is made using the absolute speed of light or of whatever objects [stones, bullets, sound
> > waves] if other method is used, plus the absolute speed of the SR frame...
>
> The cooking time is 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the kitchen's inertia-based coordinate system, regardless of how fast the kitchen is moving in terms of any other system of coordinates. This is the meaning of the statement "The time dilation of the clock relative to K depends only on the speed of the clock relative to K"
beda
> On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 3:20:08 AM UTC-8, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > In terms of the inertial coordinates K of a kitchen, the cooking time for an egg moving with speed v in terms of K is 5g, regardless of how fast K is moving relative to the CMBR frame. The synchronization of inertial coordinate systems is simply not made using absolute speed.
> >
> > It is made using the absolute speed of light or of whatever objects [stones, bullets, sound
> > waves] if other method is used, plus the absolute speed of the SR frame...
>
> The cooking time is 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the kitchen's inertia-based coordinate system, regardless of how fast the kitchen is moving in terms of any other system of coordinates. This is the meaning of the statement "The time dilation of the clock relative to K depends only on the speed of the clock relative to K"
fine with the above,
5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in a couple made of u=0c and v=.5c means 5.773.. minutes
whole 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)in a couple made of u=.5c and v=.8c means 8,33333.. minutes
different for each couples of u an v whose relative speed is the same value .5c
. Any additional metaphysical assertions you choose to make regarding unobservable ethers or flying pink elephants are irrelevant.
>
> > The absolute speed of the frame is incorporated in the absolute asynchrony of the frame clocks.
>
> That statement is equivalent to "The pink elephants of the frame are incorporated in the pink elephantness of the frame clocks".
you are wrong the esynchro is absolutely asynchronous of the exact value of the absolute speed of the SR frame, check it if you can
I suggest you to draw the simultaneity line along the x axis and you will see that its sloppiness is exactly v (absolute speed of he frame)
I promise you to show a drawing, but stangely the recent versions of drawing pro. are not as handy as the old ones, but I will make it somehow,
in the mean time try yourself : find the sloppiness of the symultaneity line on the x axis,
see if you can visualize the drawings here
https://digilander.libero.it/bedaalpi/simultaneity%20line.jpg
if you get the image, you will see the simultaneity line of a ruler at absolute speed of .5c show a retarded clock (in the direction of the movement) of .5773 unit of abs. time correspondent to .5 unit of local time.
let me know if you can see it
cheers
beda
Cliff Hallston
Mar 11, 2021, 9:20:51 PM3/11/21
to
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 4:35:10 PM UTC-8, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > The cooking time is 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the kitchen's inertia-based coordinate system, regardless of how fast the kitchen is moving in terms of any other system of coordinates. This is the meaning of the statement "The time dilation of the clock relative to K depends only on the speed of the clock relative to K"
>
> > The cooking time is 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of the kitchen's inertia-based coordinate system, regardless of how fast the kitchen is moving in terms of any other system of coordinates. This is the meaning of the statement "The time dilation of the clock relative to K depends only on the speed of the clock relative to K"
>
> fine with the above,
> 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in a couple made of u=0c and v=.5c means 5.773.. minutes
> whole 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)in a couple made of u=.5c and v=.8c means 8,33333.. minutes
> different for each couples of u an v whose relative speed is the same value .5c
Your brain is failing you. Again (please try to concentrate) for an egg in a hot pan moving at speed v in terms of K the cooking time is 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in terms of K. This expression applies to any value of v, such as 0.5 or 0.8 or 0.9, or 0.3, etc. There is no variable "u" appearing in this expression.
> 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in a couple made of u=0c and v=.5c means 5.773.. minutes
> whole 5/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)in a couple made of u=.5c and v=.8c means 8,33333.. minutes
> different for each couples of u an v whose relative speed is the same value .5c
> The esynchro is absolutely asynchronous...
That is a meaningless statement, because you have not defined "absolutely asynchronous".
> I suggest you to draw the simultaneity line along the x axis and you will see that
> its sloppiness is exactly v
> (absolute speed of he frame)
> I promise you to show a drawing...
You cannot possible imagine that anything in a spacetime diagram is going to contradict special relativity. You are just having fun re-discovering, along with every school boy, all the trivial features of Minkowski diagrams, and pretending no one ever knew these things before. Look, any system of inertial coordinates can be drawn as the x,t coordinates, and all the others can be plotted using the Lorentz transformation, and the relations are all perfectly symmetrical and reciprocal. This is a simple mathematical fact.
> let me know if you can see it
0 new messages