Proof That Rods and Clocks are NOT Affected by a Speed Change

[HG Wilson]

For the benefit of some newcomers here, I will prove this point again.

The simplest proof is that neither a clock or rod can possibly be affected in any way no matter how many differently moving observers buzz around it. It is the same physical object in all frames.

A more obvious proof is this:
Consider two observers and a rod.

O1 ---R--- O2 ->v

The rod is initially at rest with O1. O2 is moving to the right at v.
In O2's frame, the rod is moving to the left at v.

Let the rod accelerate to the right until it is at rest with O2.

O1 ---R--- >v O2 ->v

The rod's speed has increased in the O1 frame but decreased in that of O2.

If such a speed change affected the rod's length physically, that change would have to be in the form of a simultaneous increase and decrease...which is logically impossible. The same argument applies to clock rates.

Note, according to aether theories, rod lengths ARE physically dependent on absolute movement.

[kenseto]

On May 14, 7:56 am, HG Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the benefit of some newcomers here, I will prove this point again.
>
> The simplest proof is that neither a clock or rod can possibly be affected in any way no matter how many differently moving observers buzz around it. It is the same physical object in all frames.
>
> A more obvious proof is this:
> Consider two observers and a rod.
>
> O1     ---R---            O2 ->v
>
> The rod is initially at rest with O1. O2 is moving to the right at v.
> In O2's frame, the rod is moving to the left at v.
>
> Let the rod accelerate to the right until it is at rest with O2.
>
> O1             ---R--- >v      O2 ->v
>
> The rod's speed has increased in the O1 frame but decreased in that of O2.
>
> If such a speed change affected the rod's length physically, that change would have to be in the form of a simultaneous increase and decrease...which is logically impossible. The same argument applies to clock rates.

In this case IRT says that o1 predicts that the light path length of
the rod is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma and o2 predicts that the
light path length of the rod is increased to its material length.
Note that the clock rate does change after acceleration. O1 predicts
that the clock will accumulate clock seconds according to the
following equation:
Dleta(t')=gamma*delta(t)
This equation says that the accumulation of 1 second on the observed
clock is corresponded to the accumulation of gamma-seconds on the
observer's clock. That means that the observed clcok is physically
running slow by a factor 1/gamma.

>
> Note, according to aether theories, rod lengths ARE physically dependent on absolute movement.

That's the old aether theory. The physical aether theory of IRT says
that the rate of relatively moving clocks do accumulate clock seconds
at different rates and the light-path length of a moving rod is
different according to different observers moving wrt it.
A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[rotchm]

"Proof That Rods and Clocks are NOT Affected by a Speed Change"

That is an old, naive, loose way of describing it the effect. Get with
it man! This is 2013...

A better wording is:

-if one measures the length of a moving object, you will obtain lesser
value.
-if one measures the "rate" of a moving clock, you will obtain lesser
value.


The objects do not have a "length" or "rate". They AND US together
have a "length" and "rate".
Length an rate is a relation between object and observer. The object
is not changed, only its relation with our observations.

Consider a cute girl. She has beauty. But her beauty is observer
dependent. I find her pretty, some find her gorgeous and you being a
fag finds her ugly. She has not changed in any way; only her relation
to the observer. Get it?

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 06:56:12 UTC-5, HG Wilson escribió:
> For the benefit of some newcomers here, I will prove this point again.
>
>
>
> The simplest proof is that neither a clock or rod can possibly be affected in any way no matter how many differently moving observers buzz around it. It is the same physical object in all frames.
>
>
>
> A more obvious proof is this:
>
> Consider two observers and a rod.
>
>
>
> O1 ---R--- O2 ->v
>
>
>
> The rod is initially at rest with O1. O2 is moving to the right at v.
>
> In O2's frame, the rod is moving to the left at v.
>
>
>
> Let the rod accelerate to the right until it is at rest with O2.
>
>
>
> O1 ---R--- >v O2 ->v
>
>
>
> The rod's speed has increased in the O1 frame but decreased in that of O2.
>
>
>
> If such a speed change affected the rod's length physically, that change would have to be in the form of a simultaneous increase and decrease...which is logically impossible. The same argument applies to clock rates.
>

You are implicitly assuming here that if an entity A moves at speed v w.r.t. an entity B, then B moves at speed v w.r.t. A. You are totally wrong in this point. A simple particular example is more than sufficient to understand this very well. The Earth-Moon system (EM) is moving at about 30 Km/s in the Solar System (SS), but the SS is NOT moving at about 30 Km/s in the EM.

The standard meter at Paris (when put in the direction of the Earth surface velocity) is a little shorter than when put at rest in a pole (different internal velocity dependent magnetic forces is the cause).

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[altergnostic]

A girl is so ugly that the mirror starts to break. Will it break in the
frames where she is cute?

The girl accelerates so much that she breaks in two. Will she break in the
frames where she's jerking?

(Does this sound funny to you as well?)

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/14/13 5/14/13 - 6:56 AM, HG Wilson wrote:
> For the benefit of some newcomers here, I will prove this point again. The
> simplest proof is that neither a clock or rod can possibly be affected in any
> way no matter how many differently moving observers buzz around it. It is the
> same physical object in all frames.

Right. That is correct in both SR and GR.

This is just about the only correct statement that "HG Wilson" has ever made in
this newsgroup.

Note that "length contraction" is related to geometrical
projection, and does NOT involve any sort of "physical
change" in the "moving object". Ditto for "time dilation".


Tom Roberts

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" <rval...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a8aaae37-dd6d-4611...@googlegroups.com...

The standard meter at Paris (when put in the direction of the Earth surface velocity) is a little shorter than when put at rest in a pole (different internal velocity dependent magnetic forces is the cause).

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

===========================================

 

Another idiot that can’t work out 2 = 1/0.5

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 14.05.2013 13:56, HG Wilson wrote:
> For the benefit of some newcomers here, I will prove this point again.
>
> The simplest proof is that neither a clock or rod can possibly
> be affected in any way no matter how many differently moving
> observers buzz around it. It is the same physical object in all frames.

Correct.

The state of motion of the observer can't affect the observed object.

The state of motion of the observer can affect the observer's
observations (measurements) of the object.

Ralph's problem is that he is unable to discriminate between
the two statements, he seems to think that the former imply that
the latter is false.

Both statements are true in SR, GR and even in Galilean relativity.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Absolutely Vertical]

ralph is a bit more dishonest than that. he simply wants to make an
arbitrary declaration, by royal fiat or by fiat from a 'real scientist',
that such-and-such an observed property is intrinsic and some other one
is not. he invokes all sorts of incantations like 'defines an absolute
value', 'has velocity in its units', and 'abracadabra'.

[kenseto]

It is not ditto for time dilation. Clocks in relative motion
accumulate clock seconds at different rates....SR predicts that. What
this mean is that clocks in relative motion run at different intrisic
rates and the cause of this is due to that a clock second does not
represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. The
GPS illustrate this clearly. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.46
more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is
designed to make the GPS second contain the same amount of absolutew
time as a ground clcok second and thus making the GPS run at the same
rate in terms of absolute time.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 3:23 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 14, 1:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>> Note that "length contraction" is related to geometrical
>> projection, and does NOT involve any sort of "physical
>> change" in the "moving object". Ditto for "time dilation".
>
> It is not ditto for time dilation. Clocks in relative motion
> accumulate clock seconds at different rates....SR predicts that.
> What
> this mean is that clocks in relative motion run at different intrisic
> rates

no, it does not mean that. this is directly opposite of what sr says. sr
explicitly says there is no change in intrinsic clock rate of any clock.
so when you say that what sr says means that there is a change in
intrinsic clock rate, all that you've shown is that you don't know what
sr says. you cannot read, and you end up thinking simple sentences mean
exactly the opposite of what they say. it's a miracle that you can put
your underwear on with the fly in the front.

[Jeff Bennett]

kenseto wrote:

> What this mean is that clocks in relative motion run at different
> intrisic rates

What makes clocks to do that?

[HG Wilson]

On May 15, 2:27 am, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 06:56:12 UTC-5, HG Wilson  escribió:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > For the benefit of some newcomers here, I will prove this point again.
>
> > The simplest proof is that neither a clock or rod can possibly be affected in any way no matter how many differently moving observers buzz around it. It is the same physical object in all frames.
>
> > A more obvious proof is this:
>
> > Consider two observers and a rod.
>
> > O1     ---R---            O2 ->v
>
> > The rod is initially at rest with O1. O2 is moving to the right at v.
>
> > In O2's frame, the rod is moving to the left at v.
>
> > Let the rod accelerate to the right until it is at rest with O2.
>
> > O1             ---R--- >v      O2 ->v
>
> > The rod's speed has increased in the O1 frame but decreased in that of O2.
>
> > If such a speed change affected the rod's length physically, that change would have to be in the form of a simultaneous increase and decrease...which is logically impossible. The same argument applies to clock rates.
>
> You are implicitly assuming here that if an entity A moves at speed v w.r.t. an entity B, then B moves at speed v w.r.t. A. You are totally wrong in this point.

Gawd you put up some funny arguments!
It makes no difference to my proof whether it is right or wrong.
The rod increases speed in one frame as decreases speed in hte other.

[HG Wilson]

Readers note, Roberts believes statements are automatically wrong if
they conflict with his fairyland fysics.

[HG Wilson]

On May 15, 4:46 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...@.. somewhere.no>
wrote:

> On 14.05.2013 13:56, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> > For the benefit of some newcomers here, I will prove this point again.
>
> > The simplest proof is that neither a clock or rod can possibly
> > be affected in any way no matter how many differently moving
> > observers buzz around it. It is the same physical object in all frames.
>
> Correct.

Good. After twenty years, we finally agree.

>   The state of motion of the observer can't affect the observed object.
>
>   The state of motion of the observer can affect the observer's
>   observations (measurements) of the object.

...thus proving that his method of measurement is flawed...

> Henry's problem is that he is unable to discriminate between

> the two statements, he seems to think that the former imply that
> the latter is false.

Paul, what name would you give to the invariant spatial interval that
lies between the two ends of a rod and which does not change no matter
how many differently moving observers look at it?

Now I know you will make up some fancy term like 'proper
length'...which merely avoids the issue.
I would merely accept the logical view that any rod can be used to
define an ABSOLUTE spatial interval. Take it anywhere, anyhow and,
since even you agree that it doesn't physically change in any way, it
will still define the same interval.

> Both statements are true in SR, GR and even in Galilean relativity.

Not really true in Galilean.

> --
> Paul
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Elmer Wright]

HG Wilson wrote:

>> Tom Roberts
>
> Readers note, Roberts believes statements are automatically wrong if
> they conflict with his fairyland fysics.

Soon he will realize you were right all the time from the beginning, since
now is self-evident.

[HG Wilson]

On May 15, 5:22 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/14/2013 1:46 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> > On 14.05.2013 13:56, HG Wilson wrote:
> > Correct.
>
> >   The state of motion of the observer can't affect the observed object.
>
> >   The state of motion of the observer can affect the observer's
> >   observations (measurements) of the object.
>
> > Ralph's problem is that he is unable to discriminate between
> > the two statements, he seems to think that the former imply that
> > the latter is false.
>
> > Both statements are true in SR, GR and even in Galilean relativity.
>

> Henry is a bit more dishonest than that. he simply wants to make an

> arbitrary declaration, by royal fiat or by fiat from a 'real scientist',
> that such-and-such an observed property is intrinsic and some other one
> is not. he invokes all sorts of incantations like 'defines an absolute
> value', 'has velocity in its units', and 'abracadabra'.

Hey moron, both Paul and Tom agreed that the rod doesn't change with
movement.
Therefore it is obvious that the space defined as 'that between its
two ends' is invariant...and therefore ABSOLUTE. Any rod defines an
absolute spatial interval

[HG Wilson]

Ken, even in your funny version of aether theory, both rods and clocks
PHYSICALLY change during speed changes.

[Elmer Wright]

HG Wilson wrote:

> Any rod defines an absolute spatial interval

As compared to what?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 4:20 PM, HG Wilson wrote:

>
> Paul, what name would you give to the invariant spatial interval that
> lies between the two ends of a rod and which does not change no matter
> how many differently moving observers look at it?

a nonexistent thing, as far as we can tell. likewise, you can discuss
nine-legged elephants, which are perfectly definable, or atomic-scale
gravitationally bound systems of particles, which are also perfectly
definable. just because you can put words together does not mean that
such a thing exists.

there _is no_ invariant spatial interval of any kind, as far as
observation indicates.

there is a spacetime interval which is invariant, and this is confirmed
by measurement.

>
> Now I know you will make up some fancy term like 'proper
> length'...which merely avoids the issue.
> I would merely accept the logical view that any rod can be used to
> define an ABSOLUTE spatial interval.

which is equivalent to taking the logical view that because you can
describe a fairy and _define_ a fairy to be what you've described, then
fairies exist.

[rotchm]

On May 14, 12:59 pm, altergnostic <altergnos...@gmail.com> wrote:

> rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider a cute girl. She has beauty. But her beauty is observer
> > dependent. I find her pretty, some find her gorgeous and you being a
> > fag finds her ugly. She has not changed in any way; only  her relation
> > to the observer. Get it?
>
> A girl is so ugly that the mirror starts to break. Will it break in the
> frames where she is cute?

yes.

> The girl accelerates so much that she breaks in two. Will she break in the
> frames where she's jerking?

yes.

> (Does this sound funny to you as well?)

No.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 4:24 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
> On May 15, 5:22 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 5/14/2013 1:46 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> On 14.05.2013 13:56, HG Wilson wrote:
>>> Correct.
>>
>>> The state of motion of the observer can't affect the observed object.
>>
>>> The state of motion of the observer can affect the observer's
>>> observations (measurements) of the object.
>>
>>> Ralph's problem is that he is unable to discriminate between
>>> the two statements, he seems to think that the former imply that
>>> the latter is false.
>>
>>> Both statements are true in SR, GR and even in Galilean relativity.
>>
>> Henry is a bit more dishonest than that. he simply wants to make an
>> arbitrary declaration, by royal fiat or by fiat from a 'real scientist',
>> that such-and-such an observed property is intrinsic and some other one
>> is not. he invokes all sorts of incantations like 'defines an absolute
>> value', 'has velocity in its units', and 'abracadabra'.
>
> Hey moron, both Paul and Tom agreed that the rod doesn't change with
> movement.

that's right.

the length of the rod does change with movement.

> Therefore it is obvious that the space defined as 'that between its
> two ends' is invariant.

no, that's exactly what is not obvious.
because the length of the rod does change with movement, then that
property that described by the spatial interval between the ends of the
rod is also not invariant.

this goes directly to what i just said above. you want to declare that
length is an intrinsic property of the rod by fiat, declaration,
definition, spell, enchantment, or 'shut up and go away'. this however
will not and never has made length an intrinsic property of the rod.

[kenseto]

Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute
time in different frames. The reason is that the intrinsic rate of a
clcok is dependent on its state of absolute motion. The higher is the
state of absolute motion the longer it is needed for a clock to
complete a cycle.

[Elmer Wright]

Is because a friction?

[kenseto]

> PHYSICALLY change during speed changes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No in my theory there is no physical change to a moving meter stick.
However, the light-path length of a moving meter stick can be shorter
or longer than the light-path length of the observer's meter stick.
The light-path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be
its material length.
Also in my theory clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds
at different rates. The cause is that a clock second represents a
different amount of absolute time in different frames. That means that
the rate of relative clocks are physically different.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 5:22 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> Ken, even in your funny version of aether theory, both rods and clocks
>> >PHYSICALLY change during speed changes.

> No in my theory there is no physical change to a moving meter stick.
> However, the light-path length of a moving meter stick can be shorter
> or longer than the light-path length of the observer's meter stick.
> The light-path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be
> its material length.

in this conversation, kenseto will attempt to read what henrywilson says
but will be completely unable to parse it. henrywilson will not even
bother to read what kenseto says, but will pretend that he did.

it will be like a sequel to waiting for godot.

[kenseto]

On May 14, 4:28 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/14/2013 3:23 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 1:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>          Note that "length contraction" is related to geometrical
> >>          projection, and does NOT involve any sort of "physical
> >>          change" in the "moving object". Ditto for "time dilation".
>
> > It is not ditto for time dilation. Clocks in relative motion
> > accumulate clock seconds at different rates....SR predicts that.
> > What
> > this mean is that clocks in relative motion run at different intrisic
> > rates
>
> no, it does not mean that. this is directly opposite of what sr says. sr
> explicitly says there is no change in intrinsic clock rate of any clock.

What SR says is wrong. The GPS says so.....they had to redefine the
GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to make it
run at the same intrinsic rate as the ground clock.

> so when you say that what sr says means that there is a change in
> intrinsic clock rate,

No idiot....I said that what SR says is wrong.

> all that you've shown is that you don't know what
> sr says. you cannot read, and you end up thinking simple sentences mean
> exactly the opposite of what they say. it's a miracle that you can put
> your underwear on with the fly in the front.
>
>
>
> > and the cause of this is due to that a clock second does not
> > represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. The
> > GPS illustrate this clearly. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.46
> > more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is
> > designed to make the GPS second contain the same amount of absolutew
> > time as a ground clcok second and thus making the GPS run at the same

> > rate in terms of absolute time.- Hide quoted text -

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 5:26 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 14, 4:28 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 5/14/2013 3:23 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On May 14, 1:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Note that "length contraction" is related to geometrical
>>>> projection, and does NOT involve any sort of "physical
>>>> change" in the "moving object". Ditto for "time dilation".
>>
>>> It is not ditto for time dilation. Clocks in relative motion
>>> accumulate clock seconds at different rates....SR predicts that.
>>> What
>>> this mean is that clocks in relative motion run at different intrisic
>>> rates
>>
>> no, it does not mean that. this is directly opposite of what sr says. sr
>> explicitly says there is no change in intrinsic clock rate of any clock.
>
> What SR says is wrong.

so you will never claim, then, that sr says that clocks in relative
motion have different intrinsic rates. promise?

> The GPS says so.....they had to redefine the
> GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to make it
> run at the same intrinsic rate as the ground clock.

even the gps clock doesn't run at a different intrinsic rate.

you keep claiming there is an sr correction to the gps clock rate. there
isn't.

>
>> so when you say that what sr says means that there is a change in
>> intrinsic clock rate,
>
> No idiot....I said that what SR says is wrong.

well, no, you didn't say that. you made a statement about what sr claims
and then you said this means something else. you did not say, 'but sr is
wrong, and instead what i'm about to say is right.'

[HG Wilson]

...another rod that defines a different spatial interval.

[HG Wilson]

On May 15, 7:30 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 5/14/2013 4:20 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Paul, what name would you give to the invariant spatial interval that
> > lies between the two ends of a rod and which does not change no matter
> > how many differently moving observers look at it?
>
> a nonexistent thing, as far as we can tell. likewise, you can discuss
> nine-legged elephants, which are perfectly definable, or atomic-scale
> gravitationally bound systems of particles, which are also perfectly
> definable. just because you can put words together does not mean that
> such a thing exists.

Moron. You obviously believe that solid rods don't exist. In fact you
have effectively claimed that NOTHING exists.

[Y]

So your theory has no reference frame. And people have infinitely
large observation capabilities. and everything an observer sees is
orthogonal.

-y

[Absolutely Vertical]

solids do exist. solids do not have invariant length. length varies from
observer to observer.

spluttering that 'this just cannot _be_' isn't going to change any of that.

[Y]

On May 15, 12:06 pm, Absolutely Vertical

<absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> solids do exist. solids do not have invariant length. length varies from
> observer to observer.

That is bullshit. If solids never have invariant lengths, it would be
impossible to construct a staircase that weaves up a very tall
building.

What you're saying is that using a perspective image of a building is
the only way to represent dimensions. You are wrong. There are two
ways to make measurements, orthogonally, or in a view of some kind.
Orthogonal is 'absolute'. The 'view' from an observer non orthogonal
to the measuring plane is relative. Infact, the perspective view is
far less dependable to make measurements of solids.

Individual stairs in a building plan have invariant height, approx.
200mm, and, are 'absolutely vertical'.


-y

[Y]

Even in a relative view, you can use a height line. With recourse to
the vanishing point or other rules, it is possible to coordinate
objects of 'view dependent height variants' to an 'absolute height'
datum.

-y

[Y]

Therefore, you need to get your statements right. Objects of the same
size are INVARIANT in absolute terms, and VARIANT in relative terms.
The same is true of timelines, or projections of clocks, drawn in
these views.

Arguing the validity over one or the other is about as meaningless as
arguing the difference between a cube drawn in perspective versus
isometric. But you have been doing that near on 8 years (at least that
I know of).

In an isometric, distance is preserved, absolute and invariant. In a
perspective the contrary is true. Both methods of measurement can be
deceptive and paradoxical.

-y

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 9:19 PM, Y wrote:
> On May 15, 12:06 pm, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> solids do exist. solids do not have invariant length. length varies from
>> observer to observer.
>
> That is bullshit. If solids never have invariant lengths, it would be
> impossible to construct a staircase that weaves up a very tall
> building.

please. 'invariant' has a special meaning here. it means 'the same value
to all relatively moving observers'. not being invariant does not mean
that solids are squishy and can have any dimension even for one observer.

it will do you good to learn what terms in physics mean before you try
to 'interpret' them with a foolhardy guess. and you will find it very
difficult to discuss anything in physics unless you know what the terms
mean.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 9:25 PM, Y wrote:

> Even in a relative view, you can use a height line. With recourse to
> the vanishing point or other rules, it is possible to coordinate
> objects of 'view dependent height variants' to an 'absolute height'
> datum.
>

you are not using 'relative', 'invariant' and 'absolute' in any way that
is relevant to relativity. you are posting to a relativity group. to do
that and not look like a complete idiot, you should learn what those
words mean in in the context of relativity.

[Y]

On May 15, 12:44 pm, Absolutely Vertical

I am not only referring to relativity. I am also referring to a non
relativistic absolute form of measurement. You obviously didn't pick
that up.

-y

[rotchm]

> No in my theory there is no physical change to a moving meter stick.

I wonder...

Consider a horizontal standard lightclock. Attached to one of its ends
is another one but vertical.
An "L" shape if you want. Two pulses are sent in the lighclocks, one
pulse in each. Will the pulses reunite back simultaneously? (i.e. will
they remain in phase).

[space...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:56:12 AM UTC-7, HG Wilson wrote:
> For the benefit of some newcomers here, I will prove this point again.

Gamma curve math is not imaginary...

Mitchell Raemsch

>
>
>
> The simplest proof is that neither a clock or rod can possibly be affected in any way no matter how many differently moving observers buzz around it. It is the same physical object in all frames.
>
>
>

> A more obvious proof is this:
>
> Consider two observers and a rod.
>
>
>
> O1 ---R--- O2 ->v
>
>
>
> The rod is initially at rest with O1. O2 is moving to the right at v.
>
> In O2's frame, the rod is moving to the left at v.
>
>
>
> Let the rod accelerate to the right until it is at rest with O2.
>
>
>
> O1 ---R--- >v O2 ->v
>
>
>
> The rod's speed has increased in the O1 frame but decreased in that of O2.
>
>
>
> If such a speed change affected the rod's length physically, that change would have to be in the form of a simultaneous increase and decrease...which is logically impossible. The same argument applies to clock rates.
>
>
>
> Note, according to aether theories, rod lengths ARE physically dependent on absolute movement.

[Y]

On May 15, 12:06 pm, Absolutely Vertical

<absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 6:53 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 7:30 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/14/2013 4:20 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>
> >>> Paul, what name would you give to the invariant spatial interval that
> >>> lies between the two ends of a rod and which does not change no matter
> >>> how many differently moving observers look at it?
>
> >> a nonexistent thing, as far as we can tell. likewise, you can discuss
> >> nine-legged elephants, which are perfectly definable, or atomic-scale
> >> gravitationally bound systems of particles, which are also perfectly
> >> definable. just because you can put words together does not mean that
> >> such a thing exists.
>
> > Moron. You obviously believe that solid rods don't exist. In fact you
> > have effectively claimed that NOTHING exists.
>
> solids do exist. solids do not have invariant length. length varies from
> observer to observer.

No... only relativistically do the lengths of objects vary from
observer to observer. Orthogonally a brick is absolutely the same size
as any other regardless of depth in a view, or position from an
observer. Orthogonally a brick is invariant. Relativistically it is
variant, and depends on the observer.

If a brick was formed according to your logic, it would be impossible
to build brick wall. I would not employ you to make my bricks..put it
that way.

-y

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Nothing happens to the rod because of a speed change.
end of story.

If any movng observer gets an answer different form its known one, then they
had better check their method of measurement..

>this goes directly to what i just said above. you want to declare that
>length is an intrinsic property of the rod by fiat, declaration,
>definition, spell, enchantment, or 'shut up and go away'. this however
>will not and never has made length an intrinsic property of the rod.

The rod has an intrinsic and invariant property defined as the distance
between its two ends. Any sane person would call that its 'length'.

[Absolutely Vertical]

that discussion wouldn't belong in a newsgroup devoted to relativity,
then, would it?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 11:17 PM, Y wrote:
> On May 15, 12:06 pm, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/14/2013 6:53 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 15, 7:30 am, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2013 4:20 PM, HG Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>>> Paul, what name would you give to the invariant spatial interval that
>>>>> lies between the two ends of a rod and which does not change no matter
>>>>> how many differently moving observers look at it?
>>
>>>> a nonexistent thing, as far as we can tell. likewise, you can discuss
>>>> nine-legged elephants, which are perfectly definable, or atomic-scale
>>>> gravitationally bound systems of particles, which are also perfectly
>>>> definable. just because you can put words together does not mean that
>>>> such a thing exists.
>>
>>> Moron. You obviously believe that solid rods don't exist. In fact you
>>> have effectively claimed that NOTHING exists.
>>
>> solids do exist. solids do not have invariant length. length varies from
>> observer to observer.
>
> No... only relativistically do the lengths of objects vary from
> observer to observer.

which is, of course, the subject of this newsgroup -- relativity.

> Orthogonally a brick is absolutely the same size
> as any other regardless of depth in a view, or position from an
> observer. Orthogonally a brick is invariant. Relativistically it is
> variant, and depends on the observer.
>
> If a brick was formed according to your logic, it would be impossible
> to build brick wall.

by my logic? relativity does not say you cannot build a stable wall from
bricks. why do you think it would?

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 15:56:46 UTC-5, HG Wilson escribió:
> On May 15, 2:27 am, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:

>
> > El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 06:56:12 UTC-5, HG Wilson  escribió:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > For the benefit of some newcomers here, I will prove this point again.
>
> >
>

> > > The simplest proof is that neither a clock or rod can possibly be affected in any way no matter how many differently moving observers buzz around it. It is the same physical object in all frames.
>
> >
>
> > > A more obvious proof is this:
>
> >
>
> > > Consider two observers and a rod.
>
> >
>
> > > O1     ---R---            O2 ->v
>
> >
>
> > > The rod is initially at rest with O1. O2 is moving to the right at v.
>
> >
>
> > > In O2's frame, the rod is moving to the left at v.
>
> >
>
> > > Let the rod accelerate to the right until it is at rest with O2.
>
> >
>
> > > O1             ---R--- >v      O2 ->v
>
> >
>
> > > The rod's speed has increased in the O1 frame but decreased in that of O2.
>
> >
>
> > > If such a speed change affected the rod's length physically, that change would have to be in the form of a simultaneous increase and decrease...which is logically impossible. The same argument applies to clock rates.
>
> >
>

> > You are implicitly assuming here that if an entity A moves at speed v w.r.t. an entity B, then B moves at speed v w.r.t. A. You are totally wrong in this point.
>
>
>
> Gawd you put up some funny arguments!
>
> It makes no difference to my proof whether it is right or wrong.
>
It makes a very big difference. Your proof depends completely on your assertion about the rod moving to the left at speed v in the frame O2. You take for granted that if O2 is moving to the right at speed v w.r.t. the road at rest in O1, then the road is moving to the left at speed v w.r.t. O2.

Be prudent and analyze a little more the particular case of the Earth-Moon system moving in the Solar system.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

> The rod increases speed in one frame as decreases speed in hte other.

[kenseto]

Every IRT observer declares that he is the reference frame and
declares that his measuring units for length and time (meter and
second) are the standards. At the same time an IRT observer realize
that he is not a preferred observer and that's why he has two sets of
equations to predict the light-path length of a moving meter
stick(shorter or longer than the light-path length of the IRT
observer's meter stick) and the rate of a moving clock (faster or
slower than the IRT observer's clock).
A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
In this link a new theoory of gravity is included.

[kenseto]

Yes, if you send the pulses simultaneously. Why? Because the speed of
light is isotropic in all frames.

[Y]

On May 15, 10:23 pm, Absolutely Vertical

Of course it does. Stop being silly. SR is a theory about measurement.

-y

[Y]

On May 15, 10:25 pm, Absolutely Vertical

According to you all the bricks would be different sizes, depending on
what depth in the viewing plane they would be. And you would sit down
at your drawing board and concoct a mechanism to produce bricks of
varied size using what you learned in undergrad physics. Hence why I
would sack you from my brick works on the first day.

-y

[kenseto]

On May 14, 6:35 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 5:26 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 4:28 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/14/2013 3:23 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> On May 14, 1:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>           Note that "length contraction" is related to geometrical
> >>>>           projection, and does NOT involve any sort of "physical
> >>>>           change" in the "moving object". Ditto for "time dilation".
>
> >>> It is not ditto for time dilation. Clocks in relative motion
> >>> accumulate clock seconds at different rates....SR predicts that.
> >>> What
> >>> this mean is that clocks in relative motion run at different intrisic
> >>> rates
>
> >> no, it does not mean that. this is directly opposite of what sr says. sr
> >> explicitly says there is no change in intrinsic clock rate of any clock.
>
> > What SR says is wrong.
>
> so you will never claim, then, that sr says that clocks in relative
> motion have different intrinsic rates. promise?

IRT says that clocks in relative motion have different intrinsic
rates.

>

> > The GPS says so.....they had to redefine the
> > GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to make it
> > run at the same intrinsic rate as the ground clock.
>
> even the gps clock doesn't run at a different intrinsic rate.

But it does....that's why they had to redefine the GPS second to have
4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second to
correct the difference in the intrinsic rates.

>
> you keep claiming there is an sr correction to the gps clock rate. there
> isn't.

Sure the SR correction is ~7 us/day.
>

[Absolutely Vertical]

that's right.

> end of story.

yes.

the length of the rod, however, is different for every observer.

>
> If any movng observer gets an answer different form its known one, then they
> had better check their method of measurement..

all observers have different values for the length. there is no basis
for choosing one of those values -- other than capricious arbitrariness
-- and saying, 'this one is the _known_ value.' that would be ... stupid.

it's also the point of relativity. if you have a property that varies
from observer to observer -- such as length, kinetic energy, magnetic
field -- then _none_ of those values is to be taken as the 'true' or
'known' value.

>
>> this goes directly to what i just said above. you want to declare that
>> length is an intrinsic property of the rod by fiat, declaration,
>> definition, spell, enchantment, or 'shut up and go away'. this however
>> will not and never has made length an intrinsic property of the rod.
>
> The rod has an intrinsic and invariant property defined as the distance
> between its two ends. Any sane person would call that its 'length'.

no sir. the distance between its ends is not intrinsic or invariant.
this is confirmed by experiment. insisting that it _is_ intrinsic and
invariant in the face of those experiments is simply denial of reality.
the person who denies reality and then claims this is the only sane way
to think about it, is the one who is bat-shit crazy.

congratulations, rabbidge. you have just confirmed your own psychosis.

all you repeatedly do is to say, 'i don't care what you say. what i say
is _this_ and _this_ is my truth, and you cannot convince me otherwise.
it is true because i say it is true. period, end of story. no evidence
to the contrary is believable, and i will find my own evidence that
supports my own view.' that, rabbidge, is the _hallmark_ symptom of
psychosis and a break from reality.

[Y]

Mark my words here. If you really want to improve relativity, you
should seek for a transform between relativistic and absolute results.

How do you turn something relativistic into something absolute ? In
linear perspective this is quite simple. First you find the horizon
line, which generally intersects with your vanishing points (not
necessarily - but often). Then you find your ground line. Now you have
your frame of reference (picture plane). But you still need to find
where the observer is located. One you have located your observer,
adjacent to this frame of reference (typically above the horizon line)
you can begin to translate relativistic values into absolute ones. I
could for example, have a dilated timeline in my frame of reference,
and work out it's absolute length using this method.

-y

[Y]

On May 15, 10:50 pm, Absolutely Vertical

<absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> all observers have different values for the length. there is no basis
> for choosing one of those values -- other than capricious arbitrariness
> -- and saying, 'this one is the _known_ value.' that would be ... stupid.

Shouldn't you be able to choose any value from any observer to work
out the absolute length ?

-y

[Y]

On May 15, 10:50 pm, Absolutely Vertical
<absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> no sir. the distance between its ends is not intrinsic or invariant.
> this is confirmed by experiment. insisting that it _is_ intrinsic and
> invariant in the face of those experiments is simply denial of reality.

You're wrong. Again.

You should write two manuals. I'm sure you could add to the list.

According to Absolutely Vertical...
1. Why we can't build a staircase to the cosmos. (because the height
of the steps get progressively smaller)
2. Why we have to make a brick wall from variously sized bricks.

-y

[kenseto]

There is no need for such transform and it is impossible to do so. In
SR every observer assumes that he is in a preferred i-frame that's why
SR is an incomplete theory. In real life no observer is in a preferred
i-frame). LET uses the aether frame to derive its math and SR uses the
i-frame to develop its math....that's why LET and SR have the same
math.

>
> How do you turn something relativistic into something absolute ? In
> linear perspective this is quite simple. First you find the horizon
> line, which generally intersects with your vanishing points (not
> necessarily - but often). Then you find your ground line. Now you have
> your frame of reference (picture plane). But you still need to find
> where the observer is located. One you have located your observer,
> adjacent to this frame of reference (typically above the horizon line)
> you can begin to translate relativistic values into absolute ones. I
> could for example, have a dilated timeline in my frame of reference,
> and work out it's absolute length using this method.
>

There is no need to translate relativitvalues into absolute ones....in
fact it is impossible to do so.

[Y]

No it's not impossible.

-y

[Y]

That is like saying that you cannot generate or construct a
perspective view from an orthogonal view. You will find that working
in reverse is quite possible. But you need to learn it first. ;)

-y

[rotchm]

I dont see how they could reunite together (simul) if the lengths
remain the same and that the SoL is constant in your absolute frame.
Can you show the math? Call AB the horizontal rod and AB' the
vertical one, where A is where they are both attached at 90 deg.

[kenseto]

Yes it is impossible....if it is possible they would have find the
absolute frame experimentally and thus refute the SRT.

[kenseto]

Relative velocity have no effect on the isotreopy of the speed of
light.

[rotchm]

That does not mean much to me. Can you show the math for the two
perpendicular lightclock setup?

[kenseto]

The math is:
In SR:
light-path length in the moving frame = 1/gamma meters in any
direction.

In IRT:
light-path length in the moving frame = 1/gamma meters in any
direction.
OR
light-path length in the moving frame = gamma meters in any direction.

[rotchm]

On May 15, 10:20 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:

> > That does not mean much to me. Can you show the math for the two
> > perpendicular lightclock setup?

> In IRT:
> light-path length in the moving frame = 1/gamma meters in any
> direction.
> OR
> light-path length in the moving frame = gamma meters in any direction.

??

Take our perpendicular 2-lightclock setup, an "L". Let this L travel
with speed v in the absolute frame (your e-frame? e-matrix). Is the
SoL= c (iso) in this frame? Will any of the arms of the L contract in
the e-frame?

[rotchm]

> Nothing happens to the rod because of a speed change.
> end of story.

How do you know? Handwaving does not make it true.

> If any movng observer gets an answer different form its known one, then they
> had better check their method of measurement..

Why? Are they not free to use whatever measurement procedure they
choose, even if their procedure gives different results? It is their
choice, no?

> The rod has an intrinsic and invariant property defined as the distance
> between its two ends. Any sane person would call that its 'length'.

Words or names are not 'sane'. They are a convention for
communication. In physics there is the expression 'proper length' that
is intrinsic/invariant. There is also the expression 'length' which is
observer dependent. Since you want to discuss physics, use its words
or you will not be understood.

[Absolutely Vertical]

no, it's a theory about certain aspects of physical things. all theories
are tested with measurement, and relativity is not an exception, but
this doesn't make it a 'theory about measurement'.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 7:47 AM, Y wrote:

>
> According to you all the bricks would be different sizes, depending on
> what depth in the viewing plane they would be.

no! length contraction has nothing to do with 'depth in the viewing
plane'. it has to do with relative motion between observers.

you are talking about a completely different subject, not relativity.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 14, 6:35 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 5/14/2013 5:26 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 14, 4:28 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2013 3:23 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 14, 1:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Note that "length contraction" is related to geometrical
>>>>>> projection, and does NOT involve any sort of "physical
>>>>>> change" in the "moving object". Ditto for "time dilation".
>>
>>>>> It is not ditto for time dilation. Clocks in relative motion
>>>>> accumulate clock seconds at different rates....SR predicts that.
>>>>> What
>>>>> this mean is that clocks in relative motion run at different intrisic
>>>>> rates
>>
>>>> no, it does not mean that. this is directly opposite of what sr says. sr
>>>> explicitly says there is no change in intrinsic clock rate of any clock.
>>
>>> What SR says is wrong.
>>
>> so you will never claim, then, that sr says that clocks in relative
>> motion have different intrinsic rates. promise?
>
> IRT says that clocks in relative motion have different intrinsic
> rates.

i don't give a flying squirrel's left testicle what irt says.
i just want to make sure you don't make wrong statements about what
special relativity says. as long as you never claim that sr says that
clocks in relative motion have different intrinsic rates, then i don't care.

>
>>
>>> The GPS says so.....they had to redefine the
>>> GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to make it
>>> run at the same intrinsic rate as the ground clock.
>>
>> even the gps clock doesn't run at a different intrinsic rate.
>
> But it does....that's why they had to redefine the GPS second to have
> 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second to
> correct the difference in the intrinsic rates.

nope, sorry. that's not the reason.

>
>>
>> you keep claiming there is an sr correction to the gps clock rate. there
>> isn't.
>
> Sure the SR correction is ~7 us/day.

no, that is _wrong_ and i have no idea where you got the idea there is
such a 'sr correction' of 7 us/day. can you recall where you saw it?

>>
>

[Absolutely Vertical]

there is no such thing as absolute length. there is the length, which
varies for each observer. why do you feel the need to suppose there even
is such a thing as absolute length?

[Absolutely Vertical]

you are talking about a subject entirely different than relativity.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Perspective is not an issue when transforming shapes from one frame to another.
In fact, shape is not frame dependent even though some crazy people believe it
is.

Henry Wilson DSc.

[Absolutely Vertical]

moreover, you seem to be under the impression that any ideas you have
about measurement therefore qualify them to be about relativity. that's
also wrong.

could you please stick to the topic of the group? if you don't know what
relativity is or means, could you please do a little reading on that first?

[kenseto]

On May 15, 10:26 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 10:20 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > That does not mean much to me. Can you show the math for the two
> > > perpendicular lightclock setup?
> > In IRT:
> > light-path length in the moving frame = 1/gamma meters in any
> > direction.
> > OR
> > light-path length in the moving frame = gamma meters in any direction.
>
> ??

Why the question mark? The observed meter stick could be in a lower
state of absolute motion than the observer's meter stick and thus its
light-path length if longer.

>
> Take our perpendicular 2-lightclock setup, an "L". Let this L travel
> with speed v in the absolute frame (your e-frame? e-matrix).  Is the
> SoL= c  (iso) in this frame? Will any of the arms of the L contract in
> the e-frame?

The speed of light is isotropic in any frame. No material length
contraction. The light path length is predicted to be L/gamma if the
traveling stick is in a higher state of absolute motion than the
observer or L*gamma meters long if the traveling stick is in a lower
state of absolute motion than the observer.

[kenseto]

On May 15, 11:18 am, Absolutely Vertical

In that case I don't give a flying squirrel's right testical what SRT
says. so fuck off.

>
>
>
> >>> The GPS says so.....they had to redefine the
> >>> GPS second to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation to make it
> >>> run at the same intrinsic rate as the ground clock.
>
> >> even the gps clock doesn't run at a different intrinsic rate.
>
> > But it does....that's why they had to redefine the GPS second to have
> > 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second to
> > correct the difference in the intrinsic rates.
>
> nope, sorry. that's not the reason.

Sure that's the reason.

>
>
>
> >> you keep claiming there is an sr correction to the gps clock rate. there
> >> isn't.
>
> > Sure the SR correction is ~7 us/day.
>
> no, that is _wrong_ and i have no idea where you got the idea there is
> such a 'sr correction' of 7 us/day. can you recall where you saw it?

The info is available in the web. I am not going to spoon feed you.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 11:29 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 15, 11:18 am, Absolutely Vertical
> <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/15/2013 7:49 AM, kenseto wrote:

>>>>>>> It is not ditto for time dilation. Clocks in relative motion
>>>>>>> accumulate clock seconds at different rates....SR predicts that.
>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>> this mean is that clocks in relative motion run at different intrisic
>>>>>>> rates
>>
>>>>>> no, it does not mean that. this is directly opposite of what sr says. sr
>>>>>> explicitly says there is no change in intrinsic clock rate of any clock.
>>
>>>>> What SR says is wrong.
>>
>>>> so you will never claim, then, that sr says that clocks in relative
>>>> motion have different intrinsic rates. promise?
>>
>>> IRT says that clocks in relative motion have different intrinsic
>>> rates.
>>
>> i don't give a flying squirrel's left testicle what irt says.
>> i just want to make sure you don't make wrong statements about what
>> special relativity says. as long as you never claim that sr says that
>> clocks in relative motion have different intrinsic rates, then i don't care.
>
> In that case I don't give a flying squirrel's right testical what SRT
> says. so fuck off.

good. so since this is a group about _relativity_ and not irt, and you
don't care what _relativity_ says, then i assume you will get the fuck
out of a _relativity_ group.

thanks for letting everyone know that you don't give a flying squirrel's
left testicle what special relativity says.

the last thing you want to do is come into a _relativity_ group and
claim relativity says something it does _not_ say.

>>
>>>> you keep claiming there is an sr correction to the gps clock rate. there
>>>> isn't.
>>
>>> Sure the SR correction is ~7 us/day.
>>
>> no, that is _wrong_ and i have no idea where you got the idea there is
>> such a 'sr correction' of 7 us/day. can you recall where you saw it?
>
>
> The info is available in the web. I am not going to spoon feed you.

bullshit. you're fucking lying again, you fucking liar.
you don't remember where you heard it. you're not even sure what you
heard. and you have no idea how to check whether that dim glimmer in
your memory is right or not. so you bullshit, you fucking liar.

[rotchm]

> > ??
>
> Why the question mark?

Because I dont understand the meaning of the words you use. That is
why I am asking for the math...it will help me see what your are
referring to.

> The observed meter stick could be in a lower
> state of absolute motion

?? I am talking abou the L shaped 2-light clock with speed v wrt the
e-matrix.

> light-path length if longer.

I dont know what that actually means.

> > Take our perpendicular 2-lightclock setup, an "L". Let this L travel
> > with speed v in the absolute frame (your e-frame? e-matrix).  Is the
> > SoL= c  (iso) in this frame? Will any of the arms of the L contract in
> > the e-frame?
>
> The speed of light is isotropic in any frame.

Ok, Therefore its is iso in the -matrix frame?
Thus its speed (c?) is constant in the e-matrix frame?

>No material length contraction.

Thus the two lightclocks of the "L" shaped device have the same length
as measured by the e-matrix frame?

> The light path length is predicted to be L/gamma if the

???

How much time does it take of a light signal to go from A to B back to
A?
How much time does it take of a light signal to go from A to B' back
to A?

Show the math. Here is the setup. The "L" is the 2-lightclock device,
the "MMX setup".


B'
L B The "L" has speed v to the right.
A

[rotchm]

On May 15, 12:29 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > >> you keep claiming there is an sr correction to the gps clock rate. there
> > >> isn't.
>
> > > Sure the SR correction is ~7 us/day.
>
> > no, that is _wrong_ and i have no idea where you got the idea there is
> > such a 'sr correction' of 7 us/day. can you recall where you saw it?
>
> The info is available in the web. I am not going to spoon feed you.

No ken, there is no actual SR correction to the GPS system. There is a
GR correction and this GR correction is (unfortunately) called "SR
correction".

GR predicts a correction of 39, not 46 as often misclaimed. The 46 is
GR's correction if one considers only the height. The -7 is GR's
correction if one considers only its speed.

[kenseto]

On May 15, 2:26 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ??
>
> > Why the question mark?
>
> Because I dont understand the meaning of the words you use. That is
> why I am asking for  the math...it will help me see what your are
> referring to.
>
> > The observed meter stick could be in a lower
> > state of absolute motion
>
> ??  I am talking abou the L shaped 2-light clock with speed v wrt the
> e-matrix.

I already told you that the orientation of the light clock is
irrelevant.

>
> > light-path length if longer.
>
> I dont know what that actually means.

It means that the path-length of light needed to travel to cover the
length of a meter stick.

>
> > > Take our perpendicular 2-lightclock setup, an "L". Let this L travel
> > > with speed v in the absolute frame (your e-frame? e-matrix).  Is the
> > > SoL= c  (iso) in this frame? Will any of the arms of the L contract in
> > > the e-frame?
>
> > The speed of light is isotropic in any frame.
>
> Ok, Therefore its is iso in  the -matrix frame?
> Thus its speed (c?) is constant in the e-matrix frame?

The speed of light is isotropic in all frames, including the e-matrix
frame. It does not mean that the speed of light has the value of c in
all frames. Why? Because a clcok second in different frame have
different duration....different absolute time content.

>
> >No material length contraction.
>
> Thus the two lightclocks of the "L" shaped device have the same length
> as measured by the  e-matrix frame?

There is no e-frame observer.....only an observer who is also moving
in the e-matrix.

>
> > The light path length is predicted to be L/gamma if the
>
> ???

The light-path length is observer dependent.

>
> How much time does it take of a light signal to go from A to B back to
> A?

According to whose clock???

> How much time does it take of a light signal to go from A to B' back
> to A?
>
> Show the math. Here is the setup. The "L" is the 2-lightclock device,
> the "MMX setup".
>
> B'
> L  B   The "L" has speed v to the right.
> A

In the observer's frame the speed of light is isotropic and thus it
takes the same time for traverse the length L no matter the
orientation of the arms.

[rotchm]

On May 15, 3:35 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:

? I still do not comprehend what I sniped out... See below.

> In the observer's frame the speed of light is isotropic and thus it
> takes the same time for traverse the length L no matter the
> orientation of the arms.

Hmmmm... lets try to analyse the L 2-clock again (MMX).

You have it in hand. Send out a 2 pulses in it from A. One goes to B
back to A. The other goes to B' and back to A. We agree that the 2
pulses reunite together at A (no matter who is logging or observing),
right?

I will show the math for this, where D is the length of the rods
(lightclock)
ABA : T = D/c + D/c = 2D/c
AB'A: T = D/c + D/c = 2D/c

IOW, they will arrive at A t the same time or simul or together.

Now you set your L into motion (to the right). Again within it send
the 2 pulses. Will they reunite together at A? I will show the math
for the vertical part (which is moving now with speed v wrt our
initial frame).

AB' : The path of light from A to B' is oblique, the hypotenuse of D
and vt. Thus the length of this hypo is s[D2 +(vt)2]. Thus the time t
it takes for this "up" part is t = s[...]/c. Isolating t we get t =
(D/c)g. The down part is symmetrical thus equal. The total time then
for AB'A is T = 2(D/c)g

Now, what about the horizontal path, knowing that its length (wrt the
initial frame) has not changed? Will T = as above or not? show the
math.

[Absolutely Vertical]

ken has no idea what the difference between sr and gr is. all he thinks
is that if it doesn't agree with his ideas, it must be wrong. and he
says his ideas are right just because he wants some attention for having
ideas.

[Y]

i didn't say absolute frame. I said absolute vale. If you're looking
for a privellaged frame you're looking for the wrong thing.

-y

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 07:40:55 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Nothing happens to the rod because of a speed change.
>> end of story.
>
>How do you know? Handwaving does not make it true.

Roberts and Andersen told me so.

>> If any movng observer gets an answer different form its known one, then they
>> had better check their method of measurement..
>
>Why? Are they not free to use whatever measurement procedure they
>choose, even if their procedure gives different results? It is their
>choice, no?
>
>> The rod has an intrinsic and invariant property defined as the distance
>> between its two ends. Any sane person would call that its 'length'.
>
>Words or names are not 'sane'. They are a convention for
>communication. In physics there is the expression 'proper length' that
>is intrinsic/invariant. There is also the expression 'length' which is
>observer dependent. Since you want to discuss physics, use its words
>or you will not be understood.
>

poor old fella...

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 05:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato
<rval...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 15:56:46 UTC-5, HG Wilson escribi�:
>> On May 15, 2:27�am, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls...@gmail.com>

>> > You are implicitly assuming here that if an entity A moves at speed v w.r.t. an entity B, then
B moves at speed
v w.r.t. A. You are totally wrong in this point.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gawd you put up some funny arguments!
>>
>> It makes no difference to my proof whether it is right or wrong.
>>
>It makes a very big difference. Your proof depends completely on your assertion
about the rod moving to the
left at speed v in the frame O2. You take for granted that if O2 is moving
to the right at speed v w.r.t. the road at rest in O1, then the road is
moving to the left at speed v w.r.t. O2.
>
>Be prudent and analyze a little more the particular case of the Earth-Moon system
moving in the Solar system.

You are considering a rotating reference frame.

>RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[kenseto]

What is "absolute vale"?

[kenseto]

> That is like saying that you cannot generate or construct a
> perspective view from an orthogonal view. You will find that working
> in reverse is quite possible. But you need to learn it first. ;)
>

Then do it and get a Nobel prize.

[kenseto]

Your problem is that you assume wrongly how light travel from A to B
and back to A ....amd from A to B' and back to A.
In the rest frame of the MMX the speed of light is isotropic and
therefore the pulses will re-unite at A in phase.

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El miércoles, 15 de mayo de 2013 18:04:40 UTC-5, Henry Wilson DSc. escribió:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 05:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato
>
> <rval...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> >El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 15:56:46 UTC-5, HG Wilson escribi�:
>
> >> On May 15, 2:27�am, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls...@gmail.com>

>
>
>
> >> > You are implicitly assuming here that if an entity A moves at speed v w.r.t. an entity B, then
>
> B moves at speed
>
> v w.r.t. A. You are totally wrong in this point.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Gawd you put up some funny arguments!
>
> >>
>
> >> It makes no difference to my proof whether it is right or wrong.
>
> >>
>
> >It makes a very big difference. Your proof depends completely on your assertion
>
> about the rod moving to the
>
> left at speed v in the frame O2. You take for granted that if O2 is moving
>
> to the right at speed v w.r.t. the road at rest in O1, then the road is
>
> moving to the left at speed v w.r.t. O2.
>
> >
>
> >Be prudent and analyze a little more the particular case of the Earth-Moon system
>
> moving in the Solar system.
>
>
>
> You are considering a rotating reference frame.
>

No.

1905 Einstein never assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place, as you can read almost at the end of the Introduction in his first Relativity paper (Jun30). He defines time only for stationary systems of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good, condition satisfied in any 1686 Newtonian center of mass system.

As we can see, in 1905 Relativity (1905R) an entity can moves (having different positions in different instants) only as a part of some stationary system, with the corresponding space and time of such reference frame. All the space points of the frame are at rest for all instants, having then no sense at all to refer any kind of such frame movement (rotational or any other) in 1905R.

Applying 1686 Newton Corollary VI to the Solar system, it is the best-known 1905R stationary system where we can describe the movement of all its parts. By the way, 1905R derived relativistic equations for the gravitational n-body problem find recently total experimental support managing the Solar system, with an accuracy better than 1 part in 10^11.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

>
>
> >RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[rotchm]

> Your problem is that you assume wrongly how light travel from A to B
> and back to A ....amd from A to B' and back to A.

Then tell me, how?

> In the rest frame of the MMX the speed of light is isotropic and
> therefore the pulses will re-unite at A in phase.

But I want to describe the situation wrt to the original frame (call
it O). I showed you part of the math.Show me the rest so that I may
understand what you re getting at. Describe the situation of the
moving L (the MMX) wrt O. You seem to say that if it moving its shape
does not change (no contraction) and that the SoL is still c wrt O.
Therefore, in the moving AB horizontal rod, it takes time of ? for
light to go from A to B back to A. Show the math for ?.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/16/2013 9:23 AM, kenseto wrote:

> Your problem is that you assume wrongly how light travel from A to B
> and back to A ....amd from A to B' and back to A.
> In the rest frame of the MMX the speed of light is isotropic and
> therefore the pulses will re-unite at A in phase.

from your statement above it is obvious you don't even know what 'in
phase' means.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" <rval...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b7515327-94be-430d...@googlegroups.com...

1905 Einstein never assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place, as you can read almost at the end of the Introduction in his first Relativity paper (Jun30).

 

====================================

So what?

 

 

He defines time only for stationary systems of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good,

========================================

 

Stupid liar, he does not claim systems of coordinates are stationary and he attempts to define tau for the moving system.

Why do all you shitheaded relativists have to LIE?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:25:22 -0700 (PDT), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato
<rval...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El mi�rcoles, 15 de mayo de 2013 18:04:40 UTC-5, Henry Wilson DSc. escribi�:

rame movement (rotational or any other) in 1905R.
>
>Applying 1686 Newton Corollary VI to the Solar system, it is the best-known 1905R
> stationary system where we can describe the movement of all its parts. By the
>way, 1905R derived relativistic equations for the gravitational n-body problem find
recently total experimental support managing the Solar system, with an
> accuracy better than 1 part in 10^11.

By the way, Newtonian physics explains the solar system with an accuracy of 1
part in 10^111111.

>RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>
>>
>>
>> >RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

Henry Wilson DSc.

[kenseto]

No the combined height and speed corections is 38 us/day running fast
and this is called the GR corection. The speed correction of 7 us/day
running slow is calculated using the SR formula.

[kenseto]

On May 15, 5:12 pm, Absolutely Vertical <absolutelyverti...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ideas.- Hide quoted text -

Pot kettle black.....the total correction of 38 us/day running fast
and it is the sum of the height correction of 45 us/day running fast
and the velocity effect 7 us/day running slow. Gee you are so fucking
stupid.

[kenseto]

On May 14, 6:19 pm, Elmer Wright <elme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> kenseto wrote:

> > On May 14, 4:43 pm, Jeff Bennett <jben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> kenseto wrote:
> >> > What this mean is that clocks in relative motion run at different
> >> > intrisic rates
>

> >> What makes clocks to do that?
>
> > Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute
> > time in different frames. The reason is that the intrinsic rate of a
> > clcok is dependent on its state of absolute motion. The higher is the
> > state of absolute motion the longer it is needed for a clock to complete
> > a cycle.
>
> Is because a friction?

No...it is because it takes a longer duration for the Cs 133 atom to
complete a transition. This means that a clock second will have
different duration in different frame and that's why clocks in
relative motion accumulate clock seconds in different frames
(different states of absolute motion).

[Elmer Wright]

kenseto wrote:

>> Is because a friction?
>
> No...it is because it takes a longer duration for the Cs 133 atom to
> complete a transition.

Why should this be the case, since atoms in vacuum are atoms in vacuum
everywhere in your theory. Are you sure is not a friction? I can't explain
that slowness without a friction of some kind.

[rotchm]

On May 16, 4:58 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:

> No the combined height and speed corections is 38 us/day running fast
> and this is called the GR corection. The speed correction of 7 us/day
> running slow is calculated using the SR formula.

GR predicts that the clock up there (with its given speed) will run
fast by 38 us/d. And that is what is observed. No SR involved.

[kenseto]

On May 16, 10:46 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your problem is that you assume wrongly how light travel from A to B
> > and back to A ....amd from A to B' and back to A.
>
> Then tell me, how?
>
> > In the rest frame of the MMX the speed of light is isotropic and
> > therefore the pulses will re-unite at A in phase.
>
> But I want to describe  the situation wrt to the original frame (call
> it O). I  showed you part of the math.Show me the rest so that I may
> understand what you re getting at.

Your math is based on the bogus assumption that the speed of light is
not isotropic in all frames.

>Describe the situation of the
> moving L (the MMX) wrt O.

O can use the postulate that speed of light is isotropic in all frame
and that there is no difference in closing velocities in the observed
frame.

>You seem to say  that if it moving its shape
> does not change (no contraction) and that the SoL  is still c wrt O.

Right the shape of the L does not change materially and relative
velocity has no effect on the material shape. The light-path length
for both arms will be the same in the rest frame of the arms. But the
light-path length of the arms will be different than the light path
length of identical arms in the observer's frame by a factor of 1/
gamma.

[rotchm]

On May 16, 5:32 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:

> Your math is based on the bogus assumption that the speed of light is
> not isotropic in all frames.

No it is not. I used c as the SoL. I showed the math an it only used
c for the SoL.

> O can use the postulate that speed of light is isotropic in all frame

O is the base frame, say the ground frame. The "L", (MMX) is moving to
the right with speed v.

> and that there is no difference in closing velocities in the observed
> frame.

??

Light is moving to the right with speed c. The far end of the
horizontal lightclock is moving with speed v to the right. How much
time does it take for the light to reach the far end of the
lightclock (of length D). Show the math.

> > Therefore, in the moving  AB horizontal rod, it takes time of ?  for
> > light to go from A to B back to A. Show the math for ?.

Why havent you answered this? Thats is what I am asking you above. A
horisontal rod AB of length D is moving with speed v wrt the ground.
ow much time does it take for the lightpulse to go from A to B
back to A?

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El jueves, 16 de mayo de 2013 11:03:06 UTC-5, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway escribió:
> "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" <rval...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:b7515327-94be-430d...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> 1905
> Einstein never assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in
> which
> electromagnetic processes take place, as you can read almost at the end of
> the
> Introduction in his first Relativity paper (Jun30).
>
>  
>
> ====================================
>
> So what?
>

The implication is that the space of any 1905 Einstein stationary system makes honor to its name, being always stationary. Or you find any logic in denoting stationary an entity that can be later moving?

>  
>
>  
>
> He
> defines time only for stationary systems of coordinates in which the
> equations
> of Newtonian mechanics hold good,
>
> ========================================
>
>  
>
> Stupid liar, he does not claim systems of
> coordinates are stationary and he attempts to define tau for the moving
> system.
>

He writes very clearly at the beginning of Section 1:

"Let us take a system of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of coordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter we call it the 'stationary system'."

The later introduced “moving system” is NOT a stationary system, 1905 Einstein only define time for stationary systems and always distinguishes a stationary system from a moving one. Read at the end of Section1:

“It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it “the time of the stationary system”.

The time tau is NOT the time of the moving system, but the time of a different stationary system where the moving system is at rest (ceasing then to be a moving system in that new and different stationary system), because 1905 Einstein ONLY defines time for stationary systems.

The moving system moves in the stationary system, the stationary system does NOT move in the moving system. The transform introduced by Einstein in Section 3 is NOT a bidirectional one. Reading the title is sufficient to realize it. The symmetric equivalence relation among “inertial” systems is introduced in today Special Relativity (SR) AFTER 1905.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" <rval...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:aee51e94-1c63-4b66...@googlegroups.com...

El jueves, 16 de mayo de 2013 11:03:06 UTC-5, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway  escribió:
> "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" <rval...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:b7515327-94be-430d...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> 1905
> Einstein never assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in
> which
> electromagnetic processes take place, as you can read almost at the end of
> the
> Introduction in his first Relativity paper (Jun30).
>
> 
>
> ====================================
>
> So what?
>
The implication is that the space of any 1905 Einstein stationary system makes honor to its name, being always stationary. Or you find any logic in denoting stationary an entity that can be later moving?
> 
>
> 
>
> He
> defines time only for stationary systems of coordinates in which the
> equations
> of Newtonian mechanics hold good,
>
> ========================================
>
> 
>
> Stupid liar, he does not claim systems of
> coordinates are stationary and he attempts to define tau for the moving
> system.
>
He writes very clearly at the beginning of Section 1:

"Let us take a system of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of coordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter we call it the 'stationary system'."

 

===========================================

Yes, so “call it“ doesn’t mean it is,  imbecile, and

neither does “distinguish this system of coordinates

verbally from others”.

There are no stationary systems in nature, 

and

the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good

in ALL systems of coordinates.

So, s

tupid liar, he does not claim systems of coordinates

are stationary and he attempts to define tau for the moving

system as different from the stationary system.
Learn to READ, you fucking moron.

[kenseto]

The height correction is 45 us/day running fast. The SR correction
(speed correction) is 7 us/day running slow for a combined result of
38 us/day running fast.