Absolute Time

[kenseto]

The only time exists is absolute time. The passage
of absolute time is the same in all frames of reference.
IOW the passage of absolute time is not sensitive to motion.
There is no clock time unit (a clock second) that
represents the same amount of absolute time in different
frames (different states of absolute motion).

Scientists came up with the term "proper time"...this term
is designed to represent the same amount of absolute time
in different frames. For example a proper second on
the observer's clock represent a specific amount of
absolute time. SR predicts that this amount of absolute
time is represented by 1/gamma seconds of proper time
on the observed clock.

The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with
the ground clock. The GPS second is redefined to have
4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground
clcok second. This is designed to make the passage of
9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the ground clock
corresponds to the passage of 9,192,631,774.46 periods of
Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock. This makes the GPS
permanently in synch with the ground clock.

A new theory of relativity called IRT uses the above
concept of time. A paper on IRT is available in the
following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[Big Dog]

On 10/2/2012 11:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
> The only time exists is absolute time.

Assertion is not a valid arguement.

[Paul Cardinale]

On Oct 2, 10:41 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 11:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > The only time exists is absolute time.
>
> Assertion is not a valid arguement.
>

If the kenseto tries to read your response, this is what will
register: "?????? is not a ????? ??????".

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 11:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > The only time exists is absolute time.
>
>
>
> Assertion is not a valid arguement.

It's not an assertion. It is a new concept of time that leads
to a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT
as a subset. However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are
valid in all environments, including gravity. IRT also resolves
all the paradoxes of SRT. IRT is a complete that requires no
ad on epicycles as does SRT. Also IRT can be used to replace GRT.
So you see your assertion is not valid.

A paper on IRT is available in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics,org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[kenseto]

I suggest that you go and find out why you failed the Mars
Lander Mission.

[Big Dog]

On 10/2/2012 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/2/2012 11:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> The only time exists is absolute time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Assertion is not a valid arguement.
>
> It's not an assertion. It is a new concept of time that leads
> to a new theory of relativity called IRT.

A concept that asserts that it is the only one that exists.

> IRT includes SRT
> as a subset.

Despite the fact that IRT says certain things can happen that SRT says
absolutely cannot happen. By including SRT as a subset, IRT thereby
becomes internally contradictory.

> However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are
> valid in all environments, including gravity.

Ah, so you mean like the equations of general relativity, which are

valid in all environments, including gravity.

> IRT also resolves
> all the paradoxes of SRT.

There are no paradoxes in SRT. There are *perceived* paradoxes among
those who do not understand what SRT says.

> IRT is a complete that requires no
> ad on epicycles as does SRT.

There are no add-on epicycles onto SRT. You definitely think there are
some things that are add-ons, but they either haven't been added at all
(to anything) or they were part of SRT from the beginning.

> Also IRT can be used to replace GRT.
> So you see your assertion is not valid.

What assertion? I said that "assertion is not a valid arguement." Is
that the false assertion? If so, then why do you say it a lot?

[xxein]

xxein: The GPS does not use absolute time. Its clock uses proper
time for it's count cycle for a second. Same as an Earth clock does.
But it does however tick faster than an Earth clock. (See Paul B.
Anderson)

All we do is tell the GPS clock to give us an an extra 4.46
transitions/second of its Cs clock as a rate of operation to
synchronize to Earth's Cs clock surface time.

Their proper times contain 9,192,631,770 transitions of Cs as a
defined second.

You say "SR predicts that this amount of absolute time is represented
by 1/gamma seconds of proper time on the observed clock." Where did
SR mention an absolute time? It is represented by gamma as a
comparative time rate from this clock to that clock in moving frames.
See the difference?

Can you find the whereabouts of a Cs clock that only contains an
absolute time different from a proper time in transitions/second?

[John Gogo]

Because absolute time is found in a snapshot- which means it is made
sense in non-motion. What you talk about is the physics of motion of
which the absolute has nothing to do with.

[xxein]

xxein: Well? You find me an absolute then. Show your logic and math.

[JT]

If we could find a small oscillating object that is not affected by
inertia and gravity absolute time would not only be theoretical proven
but also practically viable, as we learn more about what photons
really is we probably find out that they indeed are partly made up by
small oscillating units, that may not be suspecible to inertia and
gravity.

[Alen]

Yes, it is possible to argue directly that there must
be an absolute time. If the SR transformation equations
relate two different times on two relatively moving clocks,
they relate them as co-existing, according to the orthodox
interpretation, which says nothing about past or future of
either clock. This means that they show two different times
at some common, time which defines their co-existence,
which is what the word means intrinsically. So there have
to be two times within an overall common, or absolute, time.

Whatever model you try to create, you cannot avoid the
existence of an absolute time.

Alen

[luke...@gmail.com]

Sure, if the vodka company pays me I'll sign.

[jem]

Bravo, Babble Boy, that post is even more nonsensical than Seto's. No
small feat there.

[Vilas Tamhane]

It is foolish to say that time is relative. In fact, according to SR,
all the inertial clocks tick exactly at the same rate in their own
frames. So when they are ticking at the same rate, question of
measuring time flow from different frame does not arise.

1. Bob measures Dave’s clock running slow.
2. Dave measures Bob’s clock running slow.
3. Bob and Dave find their own clocks running at equal rates.

If we don’t adhere to insane theory of relativity, then we have to
look at above three statements to arrive at correct conclusion. If (3)
is true, and even SR says so, then (1) and (2) are wrong. In short,
time flow is absolute. Unless any of the clock actually runs slow in
their own frame, (1) and (2) measurements are erroneous. They are
apparent.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 5:10:23 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 10/2/2012 11:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> The only time exists is absolute time.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Assertion is not a valid arguement.
>
> >
>
> > It's not an assertion. It is a new concept of time that leads
>
> > to a new theory of relativity called IRT.
>
>
>
> A concept that asserts that it is the only one that exists.
>
>
>
> > IRT includes SRT
>
> > as a subset.
>
>
>
> Despite the fact that IRT says certain things can happen that SRT says
>
> absolutely cannot happen. By including SRT as a subset, IRT thereby
>
> becomes internally contradictory.

That's the point what SR says is wrong and IRT interpretation
corrected the wrongs.

>
>
>
> > However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are
>
> > valid in all environments, including gravity.
>
>
>
> Ah, so you mean like the equations of general relativity, which are
>
> valid in all environments, including gravity.

No....IRT uses different approach to get the same answer.

>
>
>
> > IRT also resolves
>
> > all the paradoxes of SRT.
>
>
>
> There are no paradoxes in SRT. There are *perceived* paradoxes among
>
> those who do not understand what SRT says.

So there are paradoxes....for example SR asserts that:
the pole can fit into a shorter barn with both doors
close simultaneously and the same pole cannot fit into
the shorter barn with both doors close simultaneously. Another
example in the bug/revit paradox....the bug dies twice.

>
>
>
> > IRT is a complete that requires no
>
> > ad on epicycles as does SRT.
>
>
>
> There are no add-on epicycles onto SRT. You definitely think there are
>
> some things that are add-ons, but they either haven't been added at all
>
> (to anything) or they were part of SRT from the beginning.

Sure there SR ad ons:
1. the one-way speed of light is a defined constant using
the speed of light to define the speed of light.
2. Geometric projection.
3. mutual time dilation.
>

[paparios]

El miércoles, 3 de octubre de 2012 07:19:05 UTC-4, Alen escribió:

>
> Yes, it is possible to argue directly that there must
>
> be an absolute time. If the SR transformation equations
>
> relate two different times on two relatively moving clocks,
>
> they relate them as co-existing, according to the orthodox
>
> interpretation, which says nothing about past or future of
>
> either clock. This means that they show two different times
>
> at some common, time which defines their co-existence,
>
> which is what the word means intrinsically. So there have
>
> to be two times within an overall common, or absolute, time.
>
>
>
> Whatever model you try to create, you cannot avoid the
>
> existence of an absolute time.
>
>
>
> Alen

If the existence of that "absolute time" is clear for you, then it should be no problem for you to define what it is and how to measure it.

Specifically, what is the current "absolute time" and how is it related to the time shown in your clock?

[kenseto]

Yes it does use absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock.
The redefined GPS second contains the same amount of absolute time
as the ground clock second.

> Its clock uses proper
>
> time for it's count cycle for a second. Same as an Earth clock does.
>
> But it does however tick faster than an Earth clock. (See Paul B.
>
> Anderson)

Sigh....proper time is the clock representation of the same interval

absolute time in different frames.
>
>
>

> All we do is tell the GPS clock to give us an an extra 4.46
>
> transitions/second of its Cs clock as a rate of operation to
>
> synchronize to Earth's Cs clock surface time.

That operation is designed to make the GPS and the ground
clock running at the same rate in terms of absolute time.

[Big Dog]

On 10/3/2012 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 5:10:23 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/2/2012 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>>
>>>> On 10/2/2012 11:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Assertion is not a valid arguement.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> It's not an assertion. It is a new concept of time that leads
>>
>>> to a new theory of relativity called IRT.
>>
>>
>>
>> A concept that asserts that it is the only one that exists.
>>
>>
>>
>>> IRT includes SRT
>>
>>> as a subset.
>>
>>
>>
>> Despite the fact that IRT says certain things can happen that SRT says
>> absolutely cannot happen. By including SRT as a subset, IRT thereby
>> becomes internally contradictory.
>
> That's the point what SR says is wrong and IRT interpretation
> corrected the wrongs.

So it cannot contain SRT as a subset. What it means to contain SRT as a
subset is to say that all the statements of SRT are correct and IN
ADDITION there are other statements that IRT makes that are correct that
SRT says nothing about.

But you cannot say that SRT is contained as a subset AND say that its
statements are wrong. That is a self-contradictory statement.

>>
>>
>>
>>> However, unlkie SRT the equations of IRT are
>>> valid in all environments, including gravity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, so you mean like the equations of general relativity, which are
>> valid in all environments, including gravity.
>
> No....IRT uses different approach to get the same answer.

IRT doesn't get the same answers. You can't calculate anything in IRT
that you can calculate in GR. You've never ONCE demonstrated that IRT
can produce a calculated result that is identical to a result calculated
with GR.

>>
>>
>>
>>> IRT also resolves
>>> all the paradoxes of SRT.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are no paradoxes in SRT. There are *perceived* paradoxes among
>> those who do not understand what SRT says.
>
> So there are paradoxes....for example SR asserts that:
> the pole can fit into a shorter barn with both doors
> close simultaneously and the same pole cannot fit into
> the shorter barn with both doors close simultaneously.

No, it does not say that. As I said, there are *perceived* paradoxes

among those who do not understand what SRT says.

> Another
> example in the bug/revit paradox....the bug dies twice.

No, it does not say that. As I said, there are *perceived* paradoxes

among those who do not understand what SRT says.

>>
>>
>>

>>> IRT is a complete that requires no
>>> ad on epicycles as does SRT.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are no add-on epicycles onto SRT. You definitely think there are
>> some things that are add-ons, but they either haven't been added at all
>> (to anything) or they were part of SRT from the beginning.
>
> Sure there SR ad ons:
> 1. the one-way speed of light is a defined constant using
> the speed of light to define the speed of light.

No, this is not how the speed of light is defined. You have made an
error here. I've told you that already.

> 2. Geometric projection.

That was not added on. That was there in the beginning. I've told you
that already.

> 3. mutual time dilation.

That was not added on. That was there in the beginning. I've told you
that already.

See? No added epicycles.

>>

[kenseto]

The problem is: There is no oscillating object that is not affected by
inertial and gravity. That's why we have SR/GR or IRT.

[kenseto]

Absolute time is proper time.

[kenseto]

The problem is that SR interprets that a second is a
universal interval of time (absolute time) and at the same time
it claims that a clock second is not a universal interval of
time. You can find this contradictory claims in the pole and
the barn paradox. in the barn frame the longer pole can fit
into the shorter barn with both doors close simultaneously....
at the same time in the pole frame the same longer pole cannot

[Big Dog]

On 10/3/2012 8:56 AM, paparios wrote:

>
> If the existence of that "absolute time" is clear for you, then it should be no problem for
> you to define what it is and how to measure it.
>
> Specifically, what is the current "absolute time" and how is it related to the time shown in your clock?
>

No, no, no. Alen is saying that it is possible to argue for absolute
time on *philosophical* grounds, independent of what is measured. And he
is saying that it is possible to "interpret" measured time to have some
relation to an unmeasurable but nevertheless presumably existent
absolute time.

Which is kind of like a presumably existent God, argued on
philosophical, who is an agent of causation even though in ways masked
by observation. It is possible in every observational case to interpret
God's causative hand and thereby impossible to disprove God's existence
by such observations.

In the same way, it's impossible to disprove absolute time by such
observations, and Alen regards this as being grounds for saying that
absolute time is unavoidable.

[Big Dog]

On 10/3/2012 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> The problem is that SR interprets that a second is a
> universal interval of time (absolute time)

SR makes no such claim. You have an awful problem getting what SR
actually says.

[paparios]

El miércoles, 3 de octubre de 2012 09:47:13 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane escribió:

>
>
> It is foolish to say that time is relative. In fact, according to SR,
>
> all the inertial clocks tick exactly at the same rate in their own
>
> frames. So when they are ticking at the same rate, question of
>
> measuring time flow from different frame does not arise.
>
>

What it is foolish is to discuss a subject without knowing a bit about it. If this philosophical "absolute time" does exist, then it should be easy to measure it.

>
> 1. Bob measures Dave’s clock running slow.
>

Wrong. That sentence lacks a context, like "assume Dave is moving, inertially, with respect to Bob,".

> 2. Dave measures Bob’s clock running slow.
>

Same error as (a). In this case it should say "assume Bob is moving, inertially, with respect to Dave,".

> 3. Bob and Dave find their own clocks running at equal rates.
>

Again, this could only happen if Bob and Dave are co-located at the same position.

>
>
> If we don’t adhere to insane theory of relativity, then we have to
>
> look at above three statements to arrive at correct conclusion. If (3)
>
> is true, and even SR says so, then (1) and (2) are wrong. In short,
>
> time flow is absolute. Unless any of the clock actually runs slow in
>
> their own frame, (1) and (2) measurements are erroneous. They are
>
> apparent.

Of course you are comparing three scenarios which are not comparable, so your logic is flawed.

What SR says about a gedanken like this is the following:

a) Bob and Dave synchronize two atomic clocks, when they are together.
b) Dave and one of the clocks take a spaceship and move away at a constant very high speed v.
c) While in transit, Dave's spaceship passes through the location of several helper observers, which have synchronized clocks with Bob and are at rest in Bob's frame of reference. These helpers write the time shown by Dave's atomic clock as Dave passes through their location. Later these helpers will share this information with Bob and Dave.
d) After some time, Dave turns around and returns to meet Bob, again at a constant very high speed v. The helpers write again the time shown by Dave's clock.
e) Finally when Bob and Dave are together again, they share the results of their clock readings.

The findings will be as follows:

i) When Dave was in transit, his clock was measured to run slow with respect to Bob's clock (through the readings of Bob's helpers).
ii) When Dave returned and compare his clock with the one of Bob, they realized that Dave's clock showed less time than Bob's clock BUT, at the same time, both clock were ticking at exactly the same rate as before the trip.

[kenseto]

Absolute time is proper time. A proper second on the
observer's clock represents a specific anmount of
absolute time. This amount of absolute time is preidcted
to have 1/gamma second of proper time (absolute time)
on a clock moving wrt the observer.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:88aea667-c572-4b59...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

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

It is foolish to claim lightning can strike both ends of a train

simultaneously and then claim the strikes are not simultaneous

due to the VELOCITY of the train when the apparent

difference in the time of arrival of the light flashes is due to

the POSITION of the observer, but then, the crackpots really

are as insane as the fool that claimed it. 

  http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

 

 

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:20:36 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/3/2012 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> > The problem is that SR interprets that a second is a
>
> > universal interval of time (absolute time)
>
>
>
> SR makes no such claim. You have an awful problem getting what SR
>
> actually says.

Sure SR makes such claim.....SR compares a clock second on the
observer's clock directly with a clock second on a clock moving
wrt the observer. That means that both clock seconds represents

a universal interval of time
>
>
>

[Big Dog]

On 10/3/2012 9:35 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:20:36 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/3/2012 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The problem is that SR interprets that a second is a
>>
>>> universal interval of time (absolute time)
>>
>>
>>
>> SR makes no such claim. You have an awful problem getting what SR
>>
>> actually says.
>
> Sure SR makes such claim.....SR compares a clock second on the
> observer's clock directly with a clock second on a clock moving
> wrt the observer. That means that both clock seconds represents
> a universal interval of time

No, it doesn't mean that and it has NEVER meant that.
Comparison of any quantity has NEVER meant that the quantity is a
universal one. I don't know where you ever got the idea that it does
mean that.

Two different observers can compare their measurements of the velocity
of a car and get different answers, and that comparison does not and
never has meant that velocity is a universal or absolute quantity.

Ken, you have some goofy ideas that just are not right, and they need to
be dropped.

Comparison of a quantity does NOT mean the quantity is universal.
Period. End of story.

[Paul Cardinale]

> Lander Mission.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The putrid scum kenseto can only resort to lies when confronted with
his own rank stupidity.
The world will be a better place, and the average IQ of the human race
will rise markedly on the day the kenseto dies.

[Paul Cardinale]

On Oct 2, 2:02 pm, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> > On 10/2/2012 11:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > The only time exists is absolute time.
>
> > Assertion is not a valid arguement.
>

> It's not an assertion.

The kenseto is way too stupid to comprehend the words "assertion" and
"arguement" (as demonstrated by his response).

Paul Cardinale

[Paul Cardinale]

> Absolute time is proper time.- Hide quoted text -
>

The kenseto is way too stupid to understand the terms "absolute time"
and "proper time" (as demonstrated by his response).

[Paul Cardinale]

On Oct 3, 7:20 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/2012 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> > The problem is that SR interprets that a second is a
> > universal interval of time (absolute time)
>
> SR makes no such claim. You have an awful problem getting what SR
> actually says.
>

The kenseto is way too stupid to understand anything. Most multi-
syllable words are beyond his grasp.

Paul Cardinale

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:f5bbf426-5359-44b2...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

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

The miserable putrid scum Paul Cardinale can only resort to lies when confronted with
his own rank stupidity.
The world will be a better place, the average happiness and the average IQ of the

human race will rise markedly on the day the Porkie Crapinale dies.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:5530604c-8d1c-4d64...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:0204efda-fcaa-4d06...@c2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

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

The miserable putrid scum Paul Cardinale can only resort to lies when confronted with
his own rank stupidity.
The world will be a better place, the average happiness and the average IQ of the

human race will rise markedly on the day that Porkie Crapinale dies.

[kenseto]

Tell us why you failed the Mars Lander Mission.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:46:00 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/3/2012 9:35 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:20:36 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 10/3/2012 9:12 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The problem is that SR interprets that a second is a
>
> >>
>
> >>> universal interval of time (absolute time)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> SR makes no such claim. You have an awful problem getting what SR
>
> >>
>
> >> actually says.
>
> >
>
> > Sure SR makes such claim.....SR compares a clock second on the
>
> > observer's clock directly with a clock second on a clock moving
>
> > wrt the observer. That means that both clock seconds represents
>
> > a universal interval of time
>
>
>
> No, it doesn't mean that and it has NEVER meant that.
>
> Comparison of any quantity has NEVER meant that the quantity is a
>
> universal one. I don't know where you ever got the idea that it does
>
> mean that.

Sure it means that....if you compare clock seconds in different
frames directly you are assuming that a clock second is a universal
interval of time.
are assuming

>
>
>
> Two different observers can compare their measurements of the velocity
>
> of a car and get different answers, and that comparison does not and
>
> never has meant that velocity is a universal or absolute quantity.

The whole idea of time dilation is based on the assumption that a clock
second is a universal interval of time.

>
>
>
> Ken, you have some goofy ideas that just are not right, and they need to
>
> be dropped.
>

ROTFLOL....it is you who got the goofy idea.

[kenseto]

There is no measurement....there is prediction.

>
> 2. Dave measures Bob’s clock running slow.

There is no measurement,,,,there is prediction.

>
> 3. Bob and Dave find their own clocks running at equal rates.

This option is not valid....all clock in relative motion
accumulate clock seconds at different rates.

[Big Dog]

On 10/3/2012 5:56 PM, kenseto wrote:

>> No, it doesn't mean that and it has NEVER meant that.
>> Comparison of any quantity has NEVER meant that the quantity is a
>> universal one. I don't know where you ever got the idea that it does
>> mean that.
>
> Sure it means that....if you compare clock seconds in different
> frames directly you are assuming that a clock second is a universal
> interval of time.

Nope. This is simply wrong.

[space...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:45:05 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> The only time exists is absolute time. The passage

Mathmatical time is fastest fundamental or C time speed that
is slowed down from the Gamma curve.

Mitchell Raemsch

[kenseto]

You are simply wrong.

[kenseto]

Hey idiot why don't you tell us how you failed the Mars Lander Mission?

[Big Dog]

Sorry, but this isn't going to be settled by an argument. "Universal
interval" means something to the scientific community. So does
"comparison". If you want to have a private language where "comparison"
implies "universal interval", then you are welcome to your own private
language. In the language spoken by scientists, there is no such
implication.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:04:02 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/3/2012 8:51 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:15:32 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 10/3/2012 5:56 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> No, it doesn't mean that and it has NEVER meant that.
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Comparison of any quantity has NEVER meant that the quantity is a
>
> >>
>
> >>>> universal one. I don't know where you ever got the idea that it does
>
> >>
>
> >>>> mean that.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Sure it means that....if you compare clock seconds in different
>
> >>
>
> >>> frames directly you are assuming that a clock second is a universal
>
> >>
>
> >>> interval of time.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Nope. This is simply wrong.
>
> >
>
> > You are simply wrong.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Sorry, but this isn't going to be settled by an argument. "Universal
>
> interval" means something to the scientific community.

So what is that meaning....do you know?

>So does
>
> "comparison".

So what is that meaning? Do you know?
Are you trying to bullshit your way out?

If you want to have a private language where "comparison"
>
> implies "universal interval", then you are welcome to your own private
>
> language. In the language spoken by scientists, there is no such
>
> implication.

The public know what "universal interval" and "Comparison" mean.
Your bullshits do not carry water.

[Big Dog]

Ken, you don't even agree with what the public says the terms mean.

"Compare" means something very simple. I can have three apples in a
basket and you can have four peaches. We can both look into our baskets
and say "I have more fruits in my basket than you do." Note there is no
implication of any universal fruit. Ordinary people understand this to
be a comparison, even if you don't.

There can be a car traveling on the road, and two observers will see two
different speeds for the same car at the same time. An observer in a
passing truck will see the car traveling at 22 mph and an observer on
the ground will see the car traveling at 70 mph. They can compare their
observations, and this has absolutely no implication of a universal
speed of the car. In fact, in high school physics, those kids with a
public understanding of "compare" know you can compare 22 mph from one
observer with 70 mph with the observer. It's as simple as saying, "What
speed do you get for the car?" "I get 22 mph. What do you get?" "I get
70 mph." That's a comparison, and there's not a single implication for
any universal speed. Ordinary people from the public understand this,
even if you don't.

You have goofy ideas that not even the public agrees with you.

[Vilas Tamhane]

This is your SR. Not Einstein’s SR

[Big Dog]

On 10/4/2012 10:00 AM, Big Dog wrote:

>
> Ken, you don't even agree with what the public says the terms mean.
>
> "Compare" means something very simple. I can have three apples in a
> basket and you can have four peaches. We can both look into our baskets
> and say "I have more fruits in my basket than you do." Note there is no
> implication of any universal fruit. Ordinary people understand this to
> be a comparison, even if you don't.

Sorry, I realized that you, having reading difficulties, are going to
have problems following the above, so I'll rewrite this to be absolutely
clear.

"Compare" means something very simple. I can have three apples in a
basket and you can have four peaches. We can both look into our baskets

and compare the number of fruits. You will say, "I have more fruits than
you do you in your basket," and I will say, "Yes, you have more fruits
than I have." Note there is no implication of any universal fruit.

[Big Dog]

On 10/4/2012 11:05 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> This is your SR. Not Einstein�s SR
>

Be careful. What you said in your post is certainly not Einstein's SR.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Oct 3, 7:33 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@October2012.org> wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:88aea667-c572-4b59...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

According to second postulate of SR, velocity of light has to be same
in all inertial frames. If this is true, then a sensible physicist
would rather not use light as a proper tool to decide simultaniety.
For example, I can conduct same experiment to decide about
simultaniety by using different tool. I can fire bullets instead of
sending light pulses. If bullets are fired in train and on embankment
simutaneously as viewed by the observer on the embankment then clearly
bullets fired at A and B will meet at M simultaneously. Similarly the
bullets fired in the train will meet at M’ simultaneously. There is no
reason why simultaneity should depend on light.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:65659ec2-29aa-4d86...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

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

That’s your SR, not Einstein’s.

“light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which

is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”—Einstein.

 

c doesn’t become the same in all inertial frames until Section 5, The Composition of Velocities

 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

 

With c = 1 and w = 2,

V = (1+2)/(1+ 1/2) = 1 = c

With c = 1 and w = 1,

 

V = (1+1)/(1+ 1/1) = 1 = c

 

 

There are enough holes in the theory big enough to drive a bus through,

there

is no need to dynamite a new path in it.

[Ralph Garbage]

Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/4/2012 10:00 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> "Compare" means something very simple. I can have three apples in a
> basket and you can have four peaches. We can both look into our
> baskets and compare the number of fruits. You will say, "I have more
> fruits than you do you in your basket," and I will say, "Yes, you
> have more fruits than I have." Note there is no implication of any
> universal fruit. Ordinary people understand this to be a comparison,
> even if you don't.
>

What if your three apples weigh more than his four peaches? Might you not
have more fruit? Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "more"?... :))

[Big Dog]

On 10/4/2012 12:20 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> According to second postulate of SR, velocity of light has to be same
> in all inertial frames. If this is true, then a sensible physicist
> would rather not use light as a proper tool to decide simultaniety.
> For example, I can conduct same experiment to decide about
> simultaniety by using different tool. I can fire bullets instead of
> sending light pulses. If bullets are fired in train and on embankment
> simutaneously as viewed by the observer on the embankment then clearly
> bullets fired at A and B will meet at M simultaneously. Similarly the

> bullets fired in the train will meet at M� simultaneously. There is no

> reason why simultaneity should depend on light.
>

Oh good grief.

You're not following the thinking here at all.

When we say that two spatially separated events are simultaneous, then
this is what we mean by that.
1. IF you can find signals from both events that are GUARANTEED to
travel at the same speed

AND

2. There is a signal detector situated MIDWAY between the two event
locations

AND

3. The signals from the event are received at the same time

THEN you know the events are simultaneous.

However, if (1) AND (2) are true, but (3) is not true, then you know the
events are not simultaneous.

Do you agree these conditions will clearly settle whether the events are
simultaneous or not?

If so, then describe the case you're talking about with the bullets in
terms of these three conditions.

[paparios]

You can't read can you? I said "What SR says about a gedanken like this is the following". 107 years have passed from the writing of Einstein's June 1905 paper, and a lot have been learned and understood about SR in this elapsed time.

[paparios]

El jueves, 4 de octubre de 2012 13:20:26 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane escribió:

>
> According to second postulate of SR, velocity of light has to be same
>
> in all inertial frames. If this is true, then a sensible physicist
>
> would rather not use light as a proper tool to decide simultaniety.
>
> For example, I can conduct same experiment to decide about
>
> simultaniety by using different tool. I can fire bullets instead of
>
> sending light pulses. If bullets are fired in train and on embankment
>
> simutaneously as viewed by the observer on the embankment then clearly
>
> bullets fired at A and B will meet at M simultaneously. Similarly the
>
> bullets fired in the train will meet at M’ simultaneously. There is no
>
> reason why simultaneity should depend on light.

You should start by understanding how inertial frames of reference relate among them. SR says that for two inertial frames K and K', what it is found is that:

x/t = x'/t' = c

But that implies that x = f(x',t') and t = g(x',t'), from where the LT equations result.

[shuba]

Vilas wrote:

> According to second postulate of SR, velocity of light has to be same
> in all inertial frames. If this is true,

It isn't true. The so-called light postulate doesn't say this. For
someone who has been howling about this subject for many years,
it's instructive to note that you can't even use terms like 'speed'
and 'velocity' properly.

> There is no reason why simultaneity should depend on light.

Indeed it doesn't. So much for another straw man.


---Tim Shuba---

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"paparios" <papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:127f7b06-1498-4197...@googlegroups.com...

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

 

You can’t answer a straightforward question or read algebra, can you, papabozo?

What Einstein said in SR is t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v), you idiot.

What Einstein said in SR is tB-tA = rAB/(c-v), you moron.

What Einstein said in SR is tB-tA = t’A-tB, you imbecile.

For c = 5 and v = 3 that’s 1/8 = 1/2, you dumbfuck.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 11:00:36 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/4/2012 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:04:02 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Sorry, but this isn't going to be settled by an argument. "Universal
>
> >>
>
> >> interval" means something to the scientific community.
>
> >
>
> > So what is that meaning....do you know?
>
> >
>
> >> So does
>
> >>
>
> >> "comparison".
>
> >
>
> > So what is that meaning? Do you know?
>
> > Are you trying to bullshit your way out?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If you want to have a private language where "comparison"
>
> >>
>
> >> implies "universal interval", then you are welcome to your own private
>
> >>
>
> >> language. In the language spoken by scientists, there is no such
>
> >>
>
> >> implication.
>
> >
>
> > The public know what "universal interval" and "Comparison" mean.
>
> > Your bullshits do not carry water.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Ken, you don't even agree with what the public says the terms mean.
>
>
>
> "Compare" means something very simple. I can have three apples in a
>
> basket and you can have four peaches. We can both look into our baskets
>
> and say "I have more fruits in my basket than you do." Note there is no
>
> implication of any universal fruit. Ordinary people understand this to
>
> be a comparison, even if you don't.

ROTFLOL....idiot that's not the type of comparison we were
talking about....we were taking about comparing an "A" second with
a "B" second. Gee you are stupid.

[Big Dog]

On 10/4/2012 5:37 PM, kenseto wrote:

>>
>> "Compare" means something very simple. I can have three apples in a
>> basket and you can have four peaches. We can both look into our baskets
>> and say "I have more fruits in my basket than you do." Note there is no
>> implication of any universal fruit. Ordinary people understand this to
>> be a comparison, even if you don't.
>
>
> ROTFLOL....idiot that's not the type of comparison we were
> talking about....we were taking about comparing an "A" second with
> a "B" second. Gee you are stupid.

It's still a comparison, Ken. You imply that comparison of a quantity
implies that quantity is universal. It just ain't so.

If the apples/peaches comparison bothers you, then look at the velocity
A, velocity B comparison below. You can compare two observers'
velocities of the same car -- it's EASY -- without any implication of a
universal velocity at all.

Even the ordinary public understands this. Why don't you?

[Big Dog]

On 10/4/2012 5:48 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/4/2012 5:37 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>>>
>>> "Compare" means something very simple. I can have three apples in a
>>> basket and you can have four peaches. We can both look into our baskets
>>> and say "I have more fruits in my basket than you do." Note there is no
>>> implication of any universal fruit. Ordinary people understand this to
>>> be a comparison, even if you don't.
>>
>>
>> ROTFLOL....idiot that's not the type of comparison we were
>> talking about....we were taking about comparing an "A" second with
>> a "B" second. Gee you are stupid.
>
> It's still a comparison, Ken. You imply that comparison of a quantity
> implies that quantity is universal. It just ain't so.
>
> If the apples/peaches comparison bothers you, then look at the velocity
> A, velocity B comparison below. You can compare two observers'
> velocities of the same car -- it's EASY -- without any implication of a
> universal velocity at all.
>
> Even the ordinary public understands this. Why don't you?

Oh, maybe you meant to say that Comparing A fruits to B fruits doesn't
imply a universal fruit, and that Comparing A velocity to B velocity
doesn't imply a universal velocity, but that Comparing a A second with a
B second implies a universal second. Why? BECAUSE IT DOES!!!

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Oct 4, 10:48 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/4/2012 12:20 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
>
>
> > According to second postulate of SR, velocity of light has to be same
> > in all inertial frames. If this is true, then a sensible physicist
> > would rather not use light as a proper tool to decide simultaniety.
> > For example, I can conduct same experiment to decide about
> > simultaniety by using different tool. I can fire bullets instead of
> > sending light pulses. If bullets are fired in train and on embankment
> > simutaneously as viewed by the observer on the embankment then clearly
> > bullets fired at A and B will meet at M simultaneously. Similarly the

> > bullets fired in the train will meet at M’ simultaneously. There is no

> > reason why simultaneity should depend on light.
>
> Oh good grief.
>
> You're not following the thinking here at all.
>
> When we say that two spatially separated events are simultaneous, then
> this is what we mean by that.
> 1. IF you can find signals from both events that are GUARANTEED to
> travel at the same speed
>
> AND
>
> 2. There is a signal detector situated MIDWAY between the two event
> locations
>
> AND
>
> 3. The signals from the event are received at the same time
>
> THEN you know the events are simultaneous.
>
> However, if (1) AND (2) are true, but (3) is not true, then you know the
> events are not simultaneous.
>
> Do you agree these conditions will clearly settle whether the events are
> simultaneous or not?
>
> If so, then describe the case you're talking about with the bullets in
> terms of these three conditions.

You need your points (1), (2) and (3) to keep yourself within the
established beliefs. I know these points and may I know when and where
did I contradict these?

If observer in K’ sends two pulses of light from A’ and B’ to the mid
point M’ and if they meet simultaneously at M’, then according to SR,
events in K’ are simultaneous. Observer in K will say that these
events are not simultaneous. Only reason for this assumption is
constancy of velocity of light.

However, instead of light pulses, observer in K’ fires two bullets
with equal velocity then these events, too, are simultaneous in K’.
But now we arrive at the big difference. Now observer in K will also
find that the two events, which are simultaneous in K’ are also
simultaneous in K.

[jem]

Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/4/2012 5:37 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>>>
>>> "Compare" means something very simple. I can have three apples in a
>>> basket and you can have four peaches. We can both look into our baskets
>>> and say "I have more fruits in my basket than you do." Note there is no
>>> implication of any universal fruit. Ordinary people understand this to
>>> be a comparison, even if you don't.
>>
>>
>> ROTFLOL....idiot that's not the type of comparison we were
>> talking about....we were taking about comparing an "A" second with
>> a "B" second. Gee you are stupid.
>
> It's still a comparison, Ken. You imply that comparison of a quantity
> implies that quantity is universal. It just ain't so.
>

In order to quantitatively compare two things, the things must be
expressed in common units (e.g., fruits, MPH). What Seto's claiming
(and very likely the only thing Seto's ever gotten right on SPR) is
that common time units (e.g., seconds) must be universal in order to
quantitatively compare the amounts of time registered by any two
(ideal) clocks (e.g., the ages of the SR twins).

Of course, Seto also conflates the universality of time units with
absolute time, based on the vague similarity of the words "universal"
and "absolute". The universal-absolute distinction, in this context,
has been carefully explained to Seto at least several times, but it's
well beyond his ability to comprehend.

[Big Dog]

On 10/4/2012 11:28 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Oct 4, 10:48 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/4/2012 12:20 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> According to second postulate of SR, velocity of light has to be same
>>> in all inertial frames. If this is true, then a sensible physicist
>>> would rather not use light as a proper tool to decide simultaniety.
>>> For example, I can conduct same experiment to decide about
>>> simultaniety by using different tool. I can fire bullets instead of
>>> sending light pulses. If bullets are fired in train and on embankment
>>> simutaneously as viewed by the observer on the embankment then clearly
>>> bullets fired at A and B will meet at M simultaneously. Similarly the

>>> bullets fired in the train will meet at M� simultaneously. There is no

>>> reason why simultaneity should depend on light.
>>
>> Oh good grief.
>>
>> You're not following the thinking here at all.
>>
>> When we say that two spatially separated events are simultaneous, then
>> this is what we mean by that.
>> 1. IF you can find signals from both events that are GUARANTEED to
>> travel at the same speed
>>
>> AND
>>
>> 2. There is a signal detector situated MIDWAY between the two event
>> locations
>>
>> AND
>>
>> 3. The signals from the event are received at the same time
>>
>> THEN you know the events are simultaneous.
>>
>> However, if (1) AND (2) are true, but (3) is not true, then you know the
>> events are not simultaneous.
>>
>> Do you agree these conditions will clearly settle whether the events are
>> simultaneous or not?
>>
>> If so, then describe the case you're talking about with the bullets in
>> terms of these three conditions.
>
> You need your points (1), (2) and (3) to keep yourself within the
> established beliefs. I know these points and may I know when and where
> did I contradict these?
>

> If observer in K� sends two pulses of light from A� and B� to the mid
> point M� and if they meet simultaneously at M�, then according to SR,
> events in K� are simultaneous. Observer in K will say that these

> events are not simultaneous. Only reason for this assumption is
> constancy of velocity of light.
>

> However, instead of light pulses, observer in K� fires two bullets
> with equal velocity then these events, too, are simultaneous in K�.

Yes.

> But now we arrive at the big difference. Now observer in K will also

> find that the two events, which are simultaneous in K� are also
> simultaneous in K.

No. Because condition 1 is not satisfied in K. Do you see why?

>

[kenseto]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 6:47:58 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/4/2012 5:37 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> "Compare" means something very simple. I can have three apples in a
>
> >> basket and you can have four peaches. We can both look into our baskets
>
> >> and say "I have more fruits in my basket than you do." Note there is no
>
> >> implication of any universal fruit. Ordinary people understand this to
>
> >> be a comparison, even if you don't.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ROTFLOL....idiot that's not the type of comparison we were
>
> > talking about....we were taking about comparing an "A" second with
>
> > a "B" second. Gee you are stupid.
>
>
>
> It's still a comparison, Ken. You imply that comparison of a quantity
>
> implies that quantity is universal. It just ain't so.

Hey idiot.....you can compare oranges with oranges because
they are the same fruit. But you can't compare oranges with apples
becuse they are not the same fruit.
An "A" second have different duration than a "B" second
therefore you cannot compare them directly to reach the
bogus cocnept of time dilation. Gee you are stupid.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Oct 5, 6:00 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/4/2012 11:28 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 10:48 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/4/2012 12:20 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> >>> According to second postulate of SR, velocity of light has to be same
> >>> in all inertial frames. If this is true, then a sensible physicist
> >>> would rather not use light as a proper tool to decide simultaniety.
> >>> For example, I can conduct same experiment to decide about
> >>> simultaniety by using different tool. I can fire bullets instead of
> >>> sending light pulses. If bullets are fired in train and on embankment
> >>> simutaneously as viewed by the observer on the embankment then clearly
> >>> bullets fired at A and B will meet at M simultaneously. Similarly the

> >>> bullets fired in the train will meet at M’ simultaneously. There is no

> >>> reason why simultaneity should depend on light.
>
> >> Oh good grief.
>
> >> You're not following the thinking here at all.
>
> >> When we say that two spatially separated events are simultaneous, then
> >> this is what we mean by that.
> >> 1. IF you can find signals from both events that are GUARANTEED to
> >> travel at the same speed
>
> >> AND
>
> >> 2. There is a signal detector situated MIDWAY between the two event
> >> locations
>
> >> AND
>
> >> 3. The signals from the event are received at the same time
>
> >> THEN you know the events are simultaneous.
>
> >> However, if (1) AND (2) are true, but (3) is not true, then you know the
> >> events are not simultaneous.
>
> >> Do you agree these conditions will clearly settle whether the events are
> >> simultaneous or not?
>
> >> If so, then describe the case you're talking about with the bullets in
> >> terms of these three conditions.
>
> > You need your points (1), (2) and (3) to keep yourself within the
> > established beliefs. I know these points and may I know when and where
> > did I contradict these?
>

> > If observer in K’ sends two pulses of light from A’ and B’ to the mid

> > point M’ and if they meet simultaneously at M’, then according to SR,
> > events in K’ are simultaneous. Observer in K will say that these

> > events are not simultaneous. Only reason for this assumption is
> > constancy of velocity of light.
>

> > However, instead of light pulses, observer in K’ fires two bullets
> > with equal velocity then these events, too, are simultaneous in K’.

>
> Yes.
>
> > But now we arrive at the big difference. Now observer in K will also

> > find that the two events, which are simultaneous in K’ are also

> > simultaneous in K.
>
> No. Because condition 1 is not satisfied in K. Do you see why?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Events are simultaneous in K’ and I need not repeat the reasons.

Observer in the stationary frame K, finds that mid point M’ is moving
with velocity v and so to decide about simultaneity of events at A and
B, he must apply the condition (1). Accordingly taking into account,
motion of M’, stationary observer expects that to decide if the events
at A and B are simultaneous or not, APPARENT velocity of the signals
has to be same. In other words, velocity of signals in frame K’ as
measured by K, should be same.

This condition is fulfilled when actual bullets are fired. Apparent
velocity of the bullets, as measured in K is same and condition (1) is
fulfilled. On the other hand, this condition is not fulfilled when
light pulses are used.

[kenseto]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 8:45:52 AM UTC-4, jem wrote:
> Big Dog wrote:
>
> > On 10/4/2012 5:37 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>>
>
> >>> "Compare" means something very simple. I can have three apples in a
>
> >>> basket and you can have four peaches. We can both look into our baskets
>
> >>> and say "I have more fruits in my basket than you do." Note there is no
>
> >>> implication of any universal fruit. Ordinary people understand this to
>
> >>> be a comparison, even if you don't.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> ROTFLOL....idiot that's not the type of comparison we were
>
> >> talking about....we were taking about comparing an "A" second with
>
> >> a "B" second. Gee you are stupid.
>
> >
>
> > It's still a comparison, Ken. You imply that comparison of a quantity
>
> > implies that quantity is universal. It just ain't so.
>
> >
>
>
>
> In order to quantitatively compare two things, the things must be
>
> expressed in common units (e.g., fruits, MPH). What Seto's claiming
>
> (and very likely the only thing Seto's ever gotten right on SPR) is
>
> that common time units (e.g., seconds) must be universal in order to
>
> quantitatively compare the amounts of time registered by any two
>
> (ideal) clocks (e.g., the ages of the SR twins).
>
>
>
> Of course, Seto also conflates the universality of time units with
>
> absolute time, based on the vague similarity of the words "universal"
>
> and "absolute".

A clock second is not a universality of time unit (or an absolute time unit)....if it is then all clocks in relative motion will run at the
same rate.

>The universal-absolute distinction, in this context,
>
> has been carefully explained to Seto at least several times, but it's
>
> well beyond his ability to comprehend.

Of course I won't accept your faulty explanation.
There is no distinction between a universal time unit and an
absolute time unit.

[Big Dog]

On 10/5/2012 9:28 AM, kenseto wrote:

>
> Hey idiot.....you can compare oranges with oranges because
> they are the same fruit. But you can't compare oranges with apples
> becuse they are not the same fruit.
> An "A" second have different duration than a "B" second
> therefore you cannot compare them directly to reach the
> bogus cocnept of time dilation. Gee you are stupid.

Really, Seto? You think that two seven-year-olds cannot look into a
basket with 3 apples and a basket with 4 peaches, and agree that the
second basket has more fruits? Do you really think they will shrug their
shoulders and not be able to say anything?

Most people are not as stupid as you, Seto. Even seven-year-olds would
be able to make the comparison you say is impossible.

[Big Dog]

On 10/5/2012 9:35 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:00 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/4/2012 11:28 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 4, 10:48 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/2012 12:20 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>
>>>>> According to second postulate of SR, velocity of light has to be same
>>>>> in all inertial frames. If this is true, then a sensible physicist
>>>>> would rather not use light as a proper tool to decide simultaniety.
>>>>> For example, I can conduct same experiment to decide about
>>>>> simultaniety by using different tool. I can fire bullets instead of
>>>>> sending light pulses. If bullets are fired in train and on embankment
>>>>> simutaneously as viewed by the observer on the embankment then
clearly
>>>>> bullets fired at A and B will meet at M simultaneously. Similarly the

>>>>> bullets fired in the train will meet at M� simultaneously. There

>>> If observer in K� sends two pulses of light from A� and B� to the mid

>>> point M� and if they meet simultaneously at M�, then according to SR,
>>> events in K� are simultaneous. Observer in K will say that these

>>> events are not simultaneous. Only reason for this assumption is
>>> constancy of velocity of light.
>>

>>> However, instead of light pulses, observer in K� fires two bullets
>>> with equal velocity then these events, too, are simultaneous in K�.

>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> But now we arrive at the big difference. Now observer in K will also

>>> find that the two events, which are simultaneous in K� are also

>>> simultaneous in K.
>>
>> No. Because condition 1 is not satisfied in K. Do you see why?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

> Events are simultaneous in K� and I need not repeat the reasons.
>
> Observer in the stationary frame K, finds that mid point M� is moving

> with velocity v and so to decide about simultaneity of events at A and
> B, he must apply the condition (1).
> Accordingly taking into account,

> motion of M�, stationary observer expects that to decide if the events

> at A and B are simultaneous or not, APPARENT velocity of the signals

> has to be same. In other words, velocity of signals in frame K� as

> measured by K, should be same.
>
> This condition is fulfilled when actual bullets are fired. Apparent
> velocity of the bullets, as measured in K is same and condition (1) is
> fulfilled. On the other hand, this condition is not fulfilled when
> light pulses are used.

Don't be silly. The bullets (the signals) do not have the same velocity
away from the sources in K. Do you see why?

>

[Big Dog]

On 10/5/2012 9:50 AM, kenseto wrote:

>
> Of course I won't accept your faulty explanation.
> There is no distinction between a universal time unit and an
> absolute time unit.
>

Seto's style: "I don't understand your distinction. Therefore it does
not exist. Nothing exists unless I understand it."

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Oct 5, 8:32 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 9:35 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>  > On Oct 5, 6:00 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >> On 10/4/2012 11:28 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>> On Oct 4, 10:48 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >>>> On 10/4/2012 12:20 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>  >>
>  >>>>> According to second postulate of SR, velocity of light has to be same
>  >>>>> in all inertial frames. If this is true, then a sensible physicist
>  >>>>> would rather not use light as a proper tool to decide simultaniety.
>  >>>>> For example, I can conduct same experiment to decide about
>  >>>>> simultaniety by using different tool. I can fire bullets instead of
>  >>>>> sending light pulses. If bullets are fired in train and on embankment
>  >>>>> simutaneously as viewed by the observer on the embankment then
> clearly
>  >>>>> bullets fired at A and B will meet at M simultaneously. Similarly the

>  >>>>> bullets fired in the train will meet at M’ simultaneously. There

>  >>> If observer in K’ sends two pulses of light from A’ and B’ to the mid

>  >>> point M’ and if they meet simultaneously at M’, then according to SR,
>  >>> events in K’ are simultaneous. Observer in K will say that these

>  >>> events are not simultaneous. Only reason for this assumption is
>  >>> constancy of velocity of light.
>  >>

>  >>> However, instead of light pulses, observer in K’ fires two bullets
>  >>> with equal velocity then these events, too, are simultaneous in K’.

>  >>
>  >> Yes.
>  >>
>  >>> But now we arrive at the big difference. Now observer in K will also

>  >>> find that the two events, which are simultaneous in K’ are also

>  >>> simultaneous in K.
>  >>
>  >> No. Because condition 1 is not satisfied in K. Do you see why?
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >

>  > Events are simultaneous in K’ and I need not repeat the reasons.
>  >
>  > Observer in the stationary frame K, finds that mid point M’ is moving

>  > with velocity v and so to decide about simultaneity of events at A and
>  > B, he must apply the condition (1).
>  > Accordingly taking into account,

>  > motion of M’, stationary observer expects that to decide if the events

>  > at A and B are simultaneous or not, APPARENT velocity of the signals

>  > has to be same. In other words, velocity of signals in frame K’ as

>  > measured by K, should be same.
>  >
>  > This condition is fulfilled when actual bullets are fired. Apparent
>  > velocity of the bullets, as measured in K is same and condition (1) is
>  > fulfilled. On the other hand, this condition is not fulfilled when
>  > light pulses are used.
>
> Don't be silly. The bullets (the signals) do not have the same velocity
> away from the sources in K. Do you see why?
>
>  >

Don’t answer unless you understand what I wrote. Bullets don’t have
same velocity in K and this is not essential. What is essential is
that, as measured by K, bullets should have same velocity in K’.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Big Dog’s attitude: “ I am god and so whatever I say is always
correct.”

[shuba]

Vilas wrote:

> Bullets don’t have
> same velocity in K and this is not essential. What is essential is
> that, as measured by K, bullets should have same velocity in K’.

Nice. Along with a continued misunderstanding of the term
'velocity' even after having it explicitly pointed out, you also
have *no* comprehension of the concepts of reference frames and
invariant quantities. Yet you've written a "book"!


---Tim Shuba---

[Vilas Tamhane]

You are one of those idiots who have mugged up theories without
understanding meaning of the terms. You are one of those idiots who
lack intelligence to think on their subjects and cannot go beyond
theories they have learned by heart without applying critical mind
which they have none. You one of those idiots who naturally get
offended when told that what they have learned is in fact wrong at
many places. You are one of those idiots who cannot understand
anything written which is contrary to the beleifs they have been
taught to believe in. Such idiots who flare up on contradicting,
populate spaces of religion and of course one of that is modern
physics. They indulge in only thing such idiots are best at. What else
such iditos can do? They can just whine and pass personal malicious
comments.

[shuba]

Vilas wrote:

> You one of those idiots who naturally get
> offended when told that what they have learned is in fact wrong at
> many places.

I am not offended at all. Of course that's your goal, but it is a
failure, much like your futile attempts at understanding basic
concepts of physics. By the way, how are your "book" sales going?


---Tim Shuba---

[Big Dog]

On 10/5/2012 10:53 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Don’t answer unless you understand what I wrote. Bullets don’t have
> same velocity in K and this is not essential. What is essential is
> that, as measured by K, bullets should have same velocity in K’.
>

No sir. That is not correct.

K has to make his own assessment of simultaneity, not "borrow" the
conditions from K'. Otherwise, all K is doing is saying to K', "Do the
conditions 1, 2, and 3 apply as YOU measure them?" and K' replies, "Yes,
they do." Then (in your mind), K says to K', "Then as far as you're
concerned, the two guns were fired simultaneously?" and K' answers,
"Yes, as far as I'm concerned, they did." Then (as you see it), K just
says, "OK, good enough for me, then."

[Big Dog]

Don't be stupid. One does not have to claim to be god to claim to be
correct. Do you look askance at your third grade math teacher and say,
"He thinks he's god and whatever he teaches us is correct"?

Now, on what basis would you imagine a scientist would base a claim of
being correct, other than arrogance and ego? Do you think there IS such
a basis for a such a claim? Or do you think no such basis exists, and
all of science is just opinion?

[Vilas Tamhane]

Thanks for mentioning it. Sales spikes whenever you mention it.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

A stupid cunt "shuba" <t...@sh.uba> wrote in message news:k33rcs$sv2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
blah blah splutter babble
---Tim Shuba---

Nice.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

A stupid cunt "shuba" <t...@sh.uba> wrote in message news:k33rcs$sv2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
blah blah splutter babble
---Tim Shuba---

 

Nobody is offended by your baby babble, shithead shuba

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3807344d-39b4-4fbe...@m5g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...

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

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Nice one, Vilas. In your face, miserable shuba.

[Big Dog]

Fascinating. What constitutes a "spike"? Number and units, please.

[Big Dog]

On 10/5/2012 1:25 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

You have three Kindle books available. The number of visits to any of
those pages has been less than 5 in the last two months. There are no
print copies available through any online reseller that I can find.

The book on special relativity focuses on the reciprocity statements of
special relativity. Yet, from what you've said on this newsgroup, it's
clear you have never seen a precise statement of what SR says about
reciprocity in any way. So why would you write an entire book about
something superficial you read that misrepresented relativistic
reciprocity to you?

[Vilas Tamhane]

Of course this is the only procedure.
At what points events have occurred? At A and B located in the frame
K’
At what point signals meet? At M’ located at the mid point in frame
K’.
Who is sending the signals? Sources located at A and B in frame K’
In case there is a difference in judgment about simultaneity whose
results should be considered as valid? Of course those of observer in
K’. (Results arrived by K are apparent.)
Why observer K differs? It is because, for K, the mid point M’ is
moving to meet a signal in one direction and moving away from the
signal approaching from other direction. VELOCITY OF SIGNALS IN FRAME
K’ is c and so observer in K differs about simultaneity.
Now if we stick to the procedure as described by SR, we get following,
Note that what K can measure is only the velocity of the signals. That
these meet at M’ for both is a given fact. Now what will be the
velocity of bullets as measured by K? For a bullet fired from B, it is
Vb-v, where Vb is the velocity of bullet in K’ and v is the velocity
of the frame K’. So the apparent velocity of the bullet as measured by
K is (Vb-v)+v=Vb. This is because M’ is moving to right with speed of
v. similar argument can be made for the other bullet. Of course this
procedure takes us to the readings of frame K’ but this is inevitable
when bullets are used.
Note that, K always measures apparent velocity of the signal. By using
this velocity, what he is doing is that he is cancelling velocity of
the detector of mid point. The difference is due to the fact that
according to SR, velocity of light is unchanged. And so apparent
velocity becomes (c-v) and (c+v). In spite of these different
velocities, signals meet at M’ simultaneously and so according to K,
events are not simultaneous.
With bullets we are using exactly the same procedure. We are
calculating apparent velocity which is Vb for both the bullets.
Therefore observer in K expects these to arrive at M’ simultaneously
and this is what is observed. So if bullets are used, events will be
simultaneous even in frame K.
Good night. Post your reply to which I will respond tomorrow.

[Vilas Tamhane]

As I said don’t worry about the books just now. Wait for one year. So
far as my book on programming is concerned, VC++6 is now old and they
have advanced to VC10. Naturally, students do not wish to read old
programming language (though I am using it myself to write
professional programs to design transformers).
I wish to make changes in my book on SR. Once I do that, I will see
that the sales of the book picks up but still there will be low sales
as 99 percent students would wish to learn what they are supposed to
learn and not the stuff that is different than that in the text book.
After a year I will be writing a book on SR, “Relativity for all”
which will explain in simple language what is SR and how people of
your community hoodwinked the general public.
Another reason for the low sale is that, it is now pirated and it is
freely available.

[Big Dog]

On 10/5/2012 2:09 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Oct 5, 11:21 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 10:53 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>
>>> Don t answer unless you understand what I wrote. Bullets don t have
>>> same velocity in K and this is not essential. What is essential is
>>> that, as measured by K, bullets should have same velocity in K .
>>
>> No sir. That is not correct.
>>
>> K has to make his own assessment of simultaneity, not "borrow" the
>> conditions from K'. Otherwise, all K is doing is saying to K', "Do the
>> conditions 1, 2, and 3 apply as YOU measure them?" and K' replies, "Yes,
>> they do." Then (in your mind), K says to K', "Then as far as you're
>> concerned, the two guns were fired simultaneously?" and K' answers,
>> "Yes, as far as I'm concerned, they did." Then (as you see it), K just
>> says, "OK, good enough for me, then."
>
> Of course this is the only procedure.
> At what points events have occurred? At A and B located in the frame
> K’
> At what point signals meet? At M’ located at the mid point in frame
> K’.
> Who is sending the signals? Sources located at A and B in frame K’
> In case there is a difference in judgment about simultaneity whose
> results should be considered as valid? Of course those of observer in
> K’. (Results arrived by K are apparent.)

Let's stop here for a second. Sources (guns) belong in BOTH frames.
Events always exist in all frames. Even the event of the bullets
arriving at M' is an event in K as well as in K'. (I hope you understood
this already.)

There is no preference given to A and B (the guns firing) "belonging" to
one frame more than the other.

And the question is, are the events A and B simultaneous (according to
the conditions by which we determine that) according to M? according to
M'? BOTH observers have both events A and B in their respective frames
(K and K').

In Einstein's teaching example, this is why he used lightning bolts.
Lightning bolts are events that just happen. They occur in both K and
K'. Signals from the SAME TWO lightning bolts travel toward both M and
M'. BOTH M and M' see the light from those two lightning bolts.

You made a different supposition, in which guns fire and the signal from
the guns (the bullet) does not proceed to both observers, but only to
one. As you have posed it, M does not see any bullets from the gun at
all and cannot make any assessment of simultaneity of the gun firings at
all. But that shouldn't imply to you that M' has a physical priority on
simultaneity of the gun firings.

The ENTIRE POINT of Einstein's teaching puzzle was to take an instance
where TWO observers both get signals from the SAME two events, and to
see if they arrive at the same conclusion about the events'
simultaneity, where they BOTH have access to the same amount of
information about the events.

I'm deeply sorry if that whole point eluded you from the outset. Who on
earth presented it to you in the first place and did not explain it
properly?

[Big Dog]

OK, so you don't worry about the books just now and whether there really
is a spike in sales or not. Fine, I won't worry about it, either.

> I wish to make changes in my book on SR. Once I do that, I will see
> that the sales of the book picks up

You can see the future!

> but still there will be low sales
> as 99 percent students would wish to learn what they are supposed to
> learn and not the stuff that is different than that in the text book.

Well, that's an interesting remark. By your own account of the lack of
interest in your book, it is because you have not aimed at your target
audience correctly, and they are interested in something other than what
you offered. Most people when they write books have an audience in mind,
and if they are successful, then the specific people they have in mind
will have bought the books. This doesn't seem to be true for you.

> After a year I will be writing a book on SR, “Relativity for all”
> which will explain in simple language what is SR

Please learn what SR really says first. So far you're not doing so well.

> and how people of
> your community hoodwinked the general public.

I'd like to explore this "hoodwinked" further. By "hoodwink", do you
mean that it was a bait-and-switch, that relativity promised to be
consistent with intuition and common sense, and then failed to be that?
By "hoodwink", do you mean that it promised to be easily understood by
everyone, and yet when you read it you found it not easily understood at
all, and so you feel cheated?

> Another reason for the low sale is that, it is now pirated and it is
> freely available.

Really? It seems to have been put on File Downloader by you. Do you
pirate your own stuff?

[Big Dog]

On 10/5/2012 2:30 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Another reason for the low sale is that, it is now pirated and it is
> freely available.

From the first two or three pages of the freely available version that
you made available, allow me to make an editorial comment.

You feel strongly, obviously, at a gut, emotional level, that nature
should be intuitive and obvious. You strongly desire nature to be
understandable in terms of a theory that springs naturally from senses,
common experience, and clear thought. You believe strongly that whatever
phenomena we observe in our thin slice through nature, should be the
same at all scales, galactic to subatomic.

To you what would be a rude and unfair shock would be that our thin
observational slice is not very representative of nature as a whole. If
the bulk of nature were dramatically different than the rules we infer
from our small sensory sample, then you would feel at sea and somehow
cheated. Why would nature conspire to hide most of its real behavior
from our senses?

There is also a tinge of panic in your writings, arguing that to
entertain a wildly different natural world than what we can see, would
be to abandon science entirely -- or at the very least obscure it from
everyday people with an interest in it. As though if everyday people
can't understand it, then nobody really can.

In this way, you not only argue for an everyman, populist scientific
participation, but you warn that SURELY nature would want that for us
too, and would not be so coldly cruel as to be arcane and hard to
intuit. For the everyman, populist scientist does not have access to
observations of nature being strange, does not have access to the
domains outside our sensory realm. The everyman populist scientist only
has his eyes, his ears, his fingers, and his wits.

Well, I got a few news items for you, pal.

- Nature doesn't care what we can observe, or what we think based on
what we observe.

- The human race *collectively* has conspired to gain access to nature
outside our human sensory limits, even if that opportunity is not passed
around freely like a bag of cookies to everyone. Guess what? It's
nothing like what we see in everyday life.

- Both to observe how nature behaves outside our sensory limits, and to
make sense of that behavior, requires more effort, investment, and
preparation than what most laypeople are willing to put out. That
shouldn't come as a surprise -- things that are INTERESTING are also
HARD to obtain, and things that are HARD to do require special tools,
special skills, special experience, and spectacular focus.

I'd like you to consider your expectations around other hard things:
climbing Himalayan mountains, deep-sea diving at 500 m, being a
world-class trapeze artist, launching a manned vehicle to the top of the
atmosphere, performing vascular surgery under pressure, composing a
symphonic piece for 24 instruments, decoding the human genome. Are these
things also in the category of accomplishments you feel should be
achievable by everyday people without hard work and preparation? No.
Then why would you think physics should be different?

What I've said here goes against everything you say in the first two or
three pages of your book. If you take issue with the things I've said
here, then be specific in voicing your complaints. If you agree with
what I've said above, then this is an indicator of what's wrong with
your book and why people don't buy it.

[shuba]

Vilas wrote:

> On Oct 5, 10:47 pm, shuba <t...@sh.uba> wrote:

>> By the way, how are your "book" sales going?

> Thanks for mentioning it. Sales spikes whenever you mention it.

I think you are fibbing. Nevertheless, you're welcome.

http://www.amazon.com/Absurd-Theory-Special-Relativity-ebook/dp/B004OYT9J6

You see, though I'm sure you'd like to believe differently, serious
science has nothing to fear from your ilk. Usenet is primarily for
entertainment, and while it's possible to learn some things due to
reading posts here, mostly that means following up with one's own
research and study. Your arguments and rants here are so utterly
ludicrous and your knowledge of special relativity is so shallow
that anyone who buys your book because of posts here deserves what
they get. So I have no problem whatsoever if people do buy it. Of
course there is a huge amount of decent material about the subject,
much of it available for free online or at public libraries.


---Tim Shuba---

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"shuba" <t...@sh.uba> wrote in message news:k4nsce$n7a$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

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

Bwahahahaha!

Very amusing, shithead shuba, you stupid cunt. You see,

though I'm sure you'd like to believe differently, serious

science has nothing to fear from your religion. Your arguments and rants

here are, and I quote:

[Vilas Tamhane]

Right. Event that has happened in one frame is also an event in
another frame.
Problem with the lightning stroke is that it is not a single event but
a series of events and so it conveniently obliterates everything.
Right configuration would be pulses of light at A and B which are
reflected by two mirrors at 45, in respective frames. Upper two should
be half silvered and below them we should have transparent floor for
the train. You may say that with this there are four separate events,
but for the present conclusions they can be considered as two events.

In Einstein’s gedanken, both conclude that the events are
simultaneous. But K has to look at happenings in K’ to arrive at the
conclusion that events are not simultaneous in the frame K’. You
should understand that I am talking about viewpoint of K. Light pulses
can also trigger four guns and the events A’ and A can be treated as a
single event. Same with B and B’. In their respective frames, events
are simultaneous and so there is no need for the guns in frame K. So
the question of preference does not arise. Nor am I deviating from the
original gedanken, except that instead of light pulses I am using
bullets.

[Vilas Tamhane]

You have no right to tell me what I think. Your mind reading is
completely wrong.
Nature is nature; it doesn’t conspire to do anything. Job of
physicists is to unveil unknown secrets. There is concern and not
panic in my writing. Not everyday people but if educated people do not
understand physics explained in verbose form then I can say with
certainty that whatever is said is wrong. As I said earlier, world is
not yellow if you are jaundiced (B.Russell).
Rest of what you wrote is crap. Science you describe in that part is
wild speculations, in Koobee Woblee’s word, mathemagic. I don’t mind
speculations but expect then to be rational and reasonable. What we
have is spiritualism based on mathematical acrobatics and idiotic
imaginations.

[jem]

> On 10/5/2012 9:50 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course I won't accept your faulty explanation.
>> There is no distinction between a universal time unit and an
>> absolute time unit.
>>

:) Seto, you can't even correctly repeat the things you're told, let
alone comprehend them.

Cartoons, Seto. Get somebody to help you turn on the TV.

[kenseto]

Pot kettle black.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Oct 6, 5:01 am, shuba <t...@sh.uba> wrote:
> Vilas wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 10:47 pm, shuba <t...@sh.uba> wrote:
> >> By the way, how are your "book" sales going?
> > Thanks for mentioning it. Sales spikes whenever you mention it.
>
> I think you are fibbing. Nevertheless, you're welcome.
>

> http://www.amazon.com/Absurd-Theory-Special-Relativity-ebook/dp/B004O...

>
> You see, though I'm sure you'd like to believe differently, serious
> science has nothing to fear from your ilk. Usenet is primarily for
> entertainment, and while it's possible to learn some things due to
> reading posts here, mostly that means following up with one's own
> research and study. Your arguments and rants here are so utterly
> ludicrous and your knowledge of special relativity is so shallow
> that anyone who buys your book because of posts here deserves what
> they get. So I have no problem whatsoever if people do buy it. Of
> course there is a huge amount of decent material about the subject,
> much of it available for free online or at public libraries.
>
>          ---Tim Shuba---

Once again thanks for the publicity.

[Big Dog]

Good.

> Problem with the lightning stroke is that it is not a single event but
> a series of events and so it conveniently obliterates everything.

I beg your pardon. In what was proposed, a lightning stroke was
described as a momentary source with a single flash of light (radiating
to all observers), and which would leave evidence of its location by a
scorch mark. Why do you think of it as something other than as described?

> Right configuration would be pulses of light at A and B which are
> reflected by two mirrors at 45, in respective frames. Upper two should
> be half silvered and below them we should have transparent floor for
> the train. You may say that with this there are four separate events,
> but for the present conclusions they can be considered as two events.
>

> In Einstein�s gedanken, both conclude that the events are
> simultaneous.

In *Einstein's* gedanken? No they don't. Are you reading the same
material by Einstein that I've read?

> But K has to look at happenings in K� to arrive at the
> conclusion that events are not simultaneous in the frame K�.

No, you have not read and understood what Einstein said.

Here is what the gedanken says:
1. The three criteria of simultaneity (as we outlined them earlier) are
laid out.
2. M and M' both agree that criteria 3 is not met for M', and is met for
M. There can be no disagreement about actual observations.
3. For M, all three simultaneity criteria are met, and so the
*unambiguous* conclusion is that the flashes were simultaneous.
4. For M' the first two simultaneity criteria are met, but the third one
is not, and so the *unambiguous* conclusion is that the flashes are not
simultaneous.
At this point Einstein pauses and points out that there is no priority
given to either frame, so it's impossible to point to either frame and
say that one is right and the other is wrong. So it is a simple fact
that simultaneity is frame-dependent.
5. BUT, Einstein goes a step further and says, M and M' are both
thinking people, and they must be then puzzling over the result and they
go back to wondering how they go to this place. So they ask the
question, how is it that criteria 3 is met for M and not for M', which
leads to the inescapable conclusion?
6. Einstein shows that this result is perfectly understandable. M looks
at what's happening for M' and sees that *of course* the signals do not
arrive at the same time at M', because condition 2 doesn't hold for M'
in K. M' disagrees, of course, and says that of course condition 2 holds
-- he can measure that he stood exactly midway between the lightning
flashes, as evidenced by later measurements to the scorch marks on the
train. So there is a source of disagreement.
7. What Einstein did NOT talk about is how M' accounts for the fact that
M saw the signals at the same time, even though the flashes were not
simultaneous. This too is easy to understand, as M is not midway between
the two events in frame K', and it's easy to see how light from the
later lightning strike could arrive at M at the same time as light from
the earlier lightning strike. So this is how M' accounts for M receiving
the light at the same time.
8. The two observers think about this some more and are still flummoxed
by the inescapable conclusions about simultaneity based on the three
criteria, and then they ask, how is it that criterion 1 is satisfied by
both observers? If the signal speed is identical from both flashes for
M, shouldn't it be nonidentical for M', or vice-versa? But here is where
experiment comes in and says, no, it is confirmed experimentally that
the signal speed is identical from both flashes for M and also identical
from both flashes for M'. So condition 1 is satisfied for both, and
there is no escape from the simultaneity conclusions they made earlier.

It's a pity that you have misunderstood this gedanken so badly. Who
taught it to you? Or was it the case that no one taught it to you and
you attempted to learn it yourself without assistance?

> You
> should understand that I am talking about viewpoint of K. Light pulses

> can also trigger four guns and the events A� and A can be treated as a
> single event. Same with B and B�. In their respective frames, events

[kenseto]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 11:00:31 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 9:28 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Hey idiot.....you can compare oranges with oranges because
>
> > they are the same fruit. But you can't compare oranges with apples
>
> > becuse they are not the same fruit.
>
> > An "A" second have different duration than a "B" second
>
> > therefore you cannot compare them directly to reach the
>
> > bogus cocnept of time dilation. Gee you are stupid.
>
>
>
> Really, Seto? You think that two seven-year-olds cannot look into a
>
> basket with 3 apples and a basket with 4 peaches, and agree that the
>
> second basket has more fruits? Do you really think they will shrug their
>
> shoulders and not be able to say anything?

Hey idiot you are comparing the number of Fruuits in each
basket.....not the number of same kind of fruit.
SR compare time as follows:
Delta(t')=gamma*delta(t)
This equation says that the passage of 1 second of proper time
on the observed clock is corresponded to the passage of gamma seconds
of proper time on the observer's clock.
Gee you are so fucking stupid you don't even understand how
SR compares time in different frames.


>
>
>
> Most people are not as stupid as you, Seto. Even seven-year-olds would
>
> be able to make the comparison you say is impossible.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e12944cb-57ff-493e...@c6g2000pba.googlegroups.com

Hm... judging from your pubertal behaviour and mindset and your lack
of knowledge, I was genuinely convinced you were 13 or 14 years
old or so. Dreadful mistake. Therefore I sincerely apologise to all
13 and 14 years olds on the planet.

So, I did some research...
Turns out this is you: https://twitter.com/tamhanespeaks
Turns out you're another retired engineer, like most crackpots here.
Turns out you're another rabid antisemite, like most crackpots here.
Turns out you're also a rabid antidemocrat.
Good sickening grief.

Dirk Vdm

[Big Dog]

We'll see.

> Nature is nature; it doesn�t conspire to do anything. Job of

> physicists is to unveil unknown secrets. There is concern and not
> panic in my writing. Not everyday people but if educated people do not
> understand physics explained in verbose form then I can say with
> certainty that whatever is said is wrong.

So I take it that you consider yourself educated, and that you have read
the physics in verbose form and do not understand it, and thus you say
with certainty that it is wrong.

Do you not consider it even a remote possibility that someone who is
intelligent and educated can read something and still not understand it
correctly? Do you really think that is impossible, and you are simply
unwilling to entertain it?

> As I said earlier, world is
> not yellow if you are jaundiced (B.Russell).
> Rest of what you wrote is crap. Science you describe in that part is

> wild speculations, in Koobee Woblee�s word, mathemagic.

All wild speculations are also put to experimental test. If the
predictions of the wild speculations match experimental observation,
this is an indication that nature has indeed foisted a surprise on us,
giving us phenomena that can only be understood by deviating from the
previous models and philosophies we earlier had -- the same models and
philosophies that told us these observed events would simply be impossible.

You characterize deviations from previous models and philosophies as
"wild speculations", as though that is reason enough not to take them
seriously. But comparison with observation IS treating things very
seriously.

I would submit to you that clinging to a previous model or philosophy,
even if it tells you that something is impossible even though it is
*observed* is not treating nature very seriously. It puts too much
emphasis on the human mental construction, and gives no room for nature
to inform us that the human mental construction is simply wrong.

> I don�t mind

> speculations but expect then to be rational and reasonable.

Again, you and I have a different understanding of what "rational"
means. You insist that "rational" means consistency with common sense,
which is an extrapolated rule based on our limited sensory experience,
with no room given to nature being DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT than those
extrapolated rules. You say you don't mind speculations, but you DO
expect that nature be consistent with extrapolated rules based on
limited sensory experience. I'm telling you that nature has no such
boundaries and will not respect your expectations of it.

> What we
> have is spiritualism based on mathematical acrobatics and idiotic
> imaginations.

It's actually very understandable. I can understand your frustration in
considering yourself intelligent and educated and having read some
verbose explanations of it, and still not being able to understand it.
That sometimes happens. It does NOT mean that what you are reading about
is simply incomprehensible by anyone and is spiritualism.

[Big Dog]

On 10/6/2012 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 11:00:31 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 9:28 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Hey idiot.....you can compare oranges with oranges because
>>
>>> they are the same fruit. But you can't compare oranges with apples
>>
>>> becuse they are not the same fruit.
>>
>>> An "A" second have different duration than a "B" second
>>
>>> therefore you cannot compare them directly to reach the
>>
>>> bogus cocnept of time dilation. Gee you are stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Really, Seto? You think that two seven-year-olds cannot look into a
>> basket with 3 apples and a basket with 4 peaches, and agree that the
>> second basket has more fruits? Do you really think they will shrug their
>> shoulders and not be able to say anything?
>
> Hey idiot you are comparing the number of Fruuits in each
> basket.....not the number of same kind of fruit.

So you agree that comparison is possible without there having to be a
universal fruit.

Presumably you agree that comparing velocities of a car by different
observers is possible without there being a universal speed of the car.

Therefore you agree that comparing values does not imply a universal
value after all.

I'm glad at last that you have decided that seven-year-olds should not
be able to do something easily that you said earlier was impossible to do.

[Big Dog]

On 10/6/2012 9:10 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>
> Hm... judging from your pubertal behaviour and mindset and your lack
> of knowledge, I was genuinely convinced you were 13 or 14 years
> old or so. Dreadful mistake. Therefore I sincerely apologise to all
> 13 and 14 years olds on the planet.
>
> So, I did some research...
> Turns out this is you: https://twitter.com/tamhanespeaks
> Turns out you're another retired engineer, like most crackpots here.
> Turns out you're another rabid antisemite, like most crackpots here.
> Turns out you're also a rabid antidemocrat.
> Good sickening grief.

Right. A retired engineer who regards himself as intelligent and
educated, and for whom understanding physics should pose no great
difficulty. Imagine his shock when he discovered that even when reading
popularizations of relativity, he found he could not follow it and
understand it. Never mind that he chose to read popularizations, rather
than reading materials aimed for teaching the subject. Never mind that
he did not submit himself to the position of a student under the
guidance of a teacher, and chose to self-teach, even though he did not
attempt to do that with engineering. In any event, since relativity
turned out to be incomprehensible to him -- an intelligent and educated
engineer -- it simply must be the case that it is in fact all a sham, a
construct with no physical understanding, an irrational excursion.

And, you see, it takes a person like Tamhane who SHOULD be able to
understand it and CAN'T to reveal that it is really incomprehensible,
period.

The ego. He and Koobee and Parker and others should form a Former
Engineers with Huge Egos Coalition.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 10/2/2012 7:41 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 11:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> The only time exists is absolute time.
>
> Assertion is not a valid arguement.

Except when you blather it ?

"there is not motion chemistry"

Remember what you said, not-knower man ?

Uwe Hayek.

>> The passage
>> of absolute time is the same in all frames of reference.
>> IOW the passage of absolute time is not sensitive to motion.
>> There is no clock time unit (a clock second) that
>> represents the same amount of absolute time in different
>> frames (different states of absolute motion).
>>
>> Scientists came up with the term "proper time"...this term
>> is designed to represent the same amount of absolute time
>> in different frames. For example a proper second on
>> the observer's clock represent a specific amount of
>> absolute time. SR predicts that this amount of absolute
>> time is represented by 1/gamma seconds of proper time
>> on the observed clock.
>>
>> The GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with
>> the ground clock. The GPS second is redefined to have
>> 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground
>> clcok second. This is designed to make the passage of
>> 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation on the ground clock
>> corresponds to the passage of 9,192,631,774.46 periods of
>> Cs 133 radiation on the GPS clock. This makes the GPS
>> permanently in synch with the ground clock.
>>
>> A new theory of relativity called IRT uses the above
>> concept of time. A paper on IRT is available in the
>> following link:
>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
>>
>