11 views

Skip to first unread message

Dec 19, 2004, 2:24:17 PM12/19/04

to

In a recent posting I saw the claim:

"Under SR, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

ruler is shorter.

Under LET, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

ruler is *longer*."

"LET" referred to the mathematical physics as found in Lorentz' 1904

paper, and "SR" referred to the mathematical physics of as found in

Einstein's 1905 paper.

I don't think that that is correct; in any case, Lorentz obviously

didn't feel that he should be stuck to some little errors and

incomplete understanding that he had when writing a certain paper, and

neither did Einstein. After 1905 Lorentz taught relativity and he did

not propose a separate "LET" as there is no difference as far as

mathematical or experimental physics is concerned.

That reciprocity of observations directly follows from Lorentz'length

contraction and clock slowdown is not immediately obvious.

Recently I wrote for another newsgroup an example of the

Lorentz-Poincare interpretation of "length contraction" and "time

dilation" without making use of the Lorentz transformations.

I copied it below as it may help some with intuitive understanding

("feeling").

_____________________________________________________________________________

EXAMPLE OF APPARENT MUTUAL LENGTH CONTRACTION:

A MOVING RULER THAT PASSES A STATIONARY ROD

Text books show that the inverse Lorentz transformation follows from

the Lorentz transformation. However, abstract mathematical evidence

does not fully satisfy everyone, and the philosophical interpretations

are open for debate. It may appear impossible that with a shortened

ruler one could measure other objects to be shortened.

It is helpful to understand the possible mechanism of the phenomena. I

will try to transmit here the understanding thanks to the explanation

according to Lorentz, by only using his "length contraction"

(contraction of objects) and "local time" (clock slowdown), in

combination with Poincare's calibration procedure.

It should be kept in mind that Lorentz combined the "absolute space"

concept of Newton's physics (used for observer-independent inertia)

with the "ether" concept of Maxwell (used as a carrier for waves);

what follows should not be confused with Einstein's interpretation of

relativity or the Einstein-Minkowski's Space-Time concept of

relativity.

THE EXAMPLE:

If a steadily moving system has two clocks, each at one end of a

ruler, and the velocity relative to the stationary ether is v, then,

according to Lorentz-Poincare's theory,

its length L = L0 / gamma,

with gamma = 1/(SQRT(1-v^2/c^2), L the length of the ruler in

movement, L0 its length in rest. Clock rates are expected to reduce by

the same factor.

We will assume that this can be measured with a system of coordinates

that is itself resting in the ether. (In practice only effects on

clocks have been directly measured, although MMX was explained with

length contraction.) Only in the ether frame is light speed truly

isotropic, i.e. c in all directions.

For simplicity, for this example we will use a system of reference for

defining durations and lengths that is resting in the ether or

"absolute space", so that v is the "absolute speed" (= relative to

"absolute space"). we'll also only consider one dimension. Thus by

definition only in this frame will duration and length measurements

provide the true values.

Let's take v=0.8c, so that gamma = 5/3. Thus according to the theory,

the ruler will be contracted to 3/5 of its rest length: for this

example we'll assume a ruler that is 6 m in rest, so it will be 3.6 m

long. Similarly, the clocks will tick at 3/5 of the rate in rest,

making one tick 0.6 s of duration. Because this is determined relative

to the stationary ether or absolute space, the effects correspond to

physical reality.

Now, what length will be measured with the moving system, when it

passes a 6 m long rod that is in rest?

According to the theory, the measured relative speed is the same: the

velocity v'= -v in standard notation, or, what I prefer for

mathematical symmetry: defining approaching speeds as positive, v'=v.

(Primed symbols are the values as determined with the moving reference

system.)

That the perceived speeds are equal can be demonstrated as follows.

V'=V:

If the clocks have been synchronized with light or radio pulses, the

synchronization proceeded for example as follows, with a signal sent

from the middle towards the clocks:

Light signal to both clocks: assumed by convention to take 3[m]/c[m/s]

or 3/3E8 = 10 ns.

Note the convention: those observers, ignorant of the speed of their

system, use as working hypothesis that light speed is isotropically c

relative to their chosen reference system.

However, in reality and as noticed from the rest system,

Light signal to front clock:

1.8 [m] / {(1-0.8)*c} [m/s] = 9/c s

Light signal to rear clock:

1.8 [m] / {(1+0.8)*c} [m/s] = 1/c s

------ +

Synchronization error : 8/c s = 26.7 ns

Thus the number of ticks that C2 is ahead of C1 is:

t2'_offset = 3/5 * 8/c = 4.8/c ticks = +16E-9 ticks.

If we define t'=0 at the moment that clock C1 meets the rear end of

the rod, that will be indisputably so for C1 : t1'=0.

C2 C1

ruler ---------------------- --> v

rod______________________________________

However, from the system in rest it will be noted that at that moment

C2 already indicates 16 ns.

C2 will meet the front of the rod when the 3.6 m ruler has reached it,

moving at 0.8c, thus after 3.6/(0.8*c) = 4.5/c s. C2, ticking slow,

will then have advanced by:

delta_t'= 3/5 * 4.5/c = 2.7/c ticks or 9E-9 ticks.

Thus in total:

t2'= t2'_offset + delta_t' = 4.8/c + 2.7/c = 7.5/c ticks or 25E-9

tick.

Therefore, according to speed determination in the moving system, its

apparently 6 m long ruler was passed in 25 apparent ns, or at 0.8c, so

that the speed measurement with the erroneous instruments still

provides the correct result.

THE LENGTH MEASUREMENT:

Now we are ready to determine the length of the stationary rod

according to the moving system:

1. If the length is determined with a clock, based on the measured

speed, obviously the slower tick rate causes the same underestimation

of the rod's length: it counts only 3/5*25 = 15 nanoticks for passing

the rod, so that the rod's length seems to be:

0.8c [m'/s'] * 15E-9 [s'] = 3.6 m'.

2. More complicated is it if we compare lengths. For that we need to

determine at what point of the ruler t'=0 when the rod's left end

passes it.

C2 C1

-------------------- --> v

rod______________________________________

We established that t2'=0 at a time 8/c= 26.7 ns earlier, thus when

the clock is 8/c * 0.8c = 6.4 m to the left. Funny enough, C1 has then

not yet met up with the rod, but the time as determined from C1 is

then -26.7 ns so that isn't relevant. What matters is that the front

end of the rod has not met with C2 when the clock time is 0, so that

the rod seems shorter than the ruler. In principle the mechanism is

thus explained.

For a precise determination one needs to either send a light signal

from C2 to the rod and back at t2=0, or (for the calculation less

complicated!) one needs to have clocks everywhere and then the clock

that reaches t'=0 when the front end of the rod passes it will

establish the apparent length.

In theory that should be at point: x'= 3/5*6 [m] = 3.6 marks (a mark

is an apparent meter). The clock at that point would have an offset as

follows: 3/5* 16E-9 ticks = +9.6 nanoticks.

That point is 3/5*x'= 2.16 m to the left of C1. Thus the ruler has

then 6-2.16 m= 3.84 m to go before C1 meets up, or 3.84/(0.8c)= 16 ns

before t=0. That corresponds to -9.6 nanoticks. As a result, the clock

at that point will then indeed indicate 0 - as it should be.

In the general case that both reference systems are in motion, all

measured lengths and durations will be distorted and not be conform

reality.

The Lorentz transformations (Poincare, 1905) follow directly from the

discussed model and were also used by Lorentz.

Harald van Lintel, Dec. 2004.

Dec 19, 2004, 6:58:23 PM12/19/04

to

"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:3bff5641.04121...@posting.google.com...

> In a recent posting I saw the claim:

>

> "Under SR, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is shorter.

> Under LET, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is *longer*."

That is wrong.

> "LET" referred to the mathematical physics as found in Lorentz' 1904

> paper, and "SR" referred to the mathematical physics of as found in

> Einstein's 1905 paper.

>

> After 1905 Lorentz taught relativity and he did

> not propose a separate "LET" as there is no difference as far as

> mathematical or experimental physics is concerned.

That is correct and well known.

Martin Hogbin

Dec 19, 2004, 7:01:06 PM12/19/04

to

Harald wrote:

> After 1905 Lorentz taught relativity and he did

> not propose a separate "LET" as there is no difference as far as

> mathematical or experimental physics is concerned.

Lorentz taught *general relativity*, which does not reduce to the

ether theory that you promote. That's a difference in the

physics. Take a look at Ilja Schmelzer's ideas, if you want to

see how an honest person conducts himself.

---Tim Shuba---

Dec 19, 2004, 9:18:27 PM12/19/04

to

> In a recent posting I saw the claim:

>

> "Under SR, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is shorter.

>

> "Under SR, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is shorter.

That's because A and B are both stupid.

> Under LET, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is *longer*."

That's because Lorentz wants to explain MMX, which SR cannot.

However, anyone that thinks the Earth changes its shape as it rotates

doesn't know about geophysics and is stupid.

[snip - You won't learn]

Androcles.

Dec 19, 2004, 11:55:43 PM12/19/04

to

Harry wrote:

> In a recent posting I saw the claim:

> "Under SR, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is shorter.

> Under LET, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is *longer*."

> In a recent posting I saw the claim:

> "Under SR, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is shorter.

> Under LET, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is *longer*."

This last claim is false. Do not believe everything you see in this

newsgroup.

> I don't think that that is correct; in any case, Lorentz obviously

> didn't feel that he should be stuck to some little errors and

> incomplete understanding that he had when writing a certain paper, and

> neither did Einstein. After 1905 Lorentz taught relativity and he did

> not propose a separate "LET" as there is no difference as far as

> mathematical or experimental physics is concerned.

Yes. Well known and non-controversial to anyone who has actually read

Lorentz's writings.

> That reciprocity of observations directly follows from Lorentz'length

> contraction and clock slowdown is not immediately obvious.

It is indeed obvious to anyone who understands group theory and the

structure of the Lorentz group. But I'll grant that to most people

around here that is by no means "immediate" (:-)).

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Dec 20, 2004, 3:43:51 AM12/20/04

to

"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message

news:jXsxd.2972$_X7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

Exactly. The reciprocity of "local time" observations wasn't clear to

Lorentz himself when he first presented it - as he admitted later. In

contrast, it was immediately obvious to Poincare when he read it (he even

illustrated the reciprocity that same year). But he was an excellent

mathematician, trained in group theory.

Harald

Dec 20, 2004, 3:55:46 AM12/20/04

to

"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message

news:tim.shuba-13CC7...@individual.net...

> ---Tim Shuba---

This thread is about the full observational reciprocity of "time dilation"

and "length contraction" independent of interpretation, and I don't know

enough of GRT to judge your claim. In any case, Lorentz obviously didn't

think so.

Harald

Dec 20, 2004, 4:05:36 AM12/20/04

to

"Androcles" <du...@dummy.net> wrote in message

news:TDqxd.559$ef...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Androcles, thanks for your great deduction that Lorentz was stupid.

Harald

Dec 20, 2004, 4:27:06 AM12/20/04

to

"Martin Hogbin" <goatN...@hogbin.org> wrote in message

news:cq54iv$kvs$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...

Yes. This thread is for the few who think that the measured effects can't

possibly be reciprocal.

Harald

Dec 20, 2004, 7:14:10 AM12/20/04

to

news:41c694f6$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

You are welcome. Anytime you want some simple and straightforward

logical conclusions made, come and see me.

BTW, I think you mean "[snip - I won't learn]"

Androcles.

> Harald

>

>

Dec 20, 2004, 4:01:08 PM12/20/04

to

> In a recent posting I saw the claim:

>

> "Under SR, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is shorter.

> Under LET, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is *longer*."

>

> "Under SR, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is shorter.

> Under LET, A thinks that B's ruler is shorter. B thinks that A's

> ruler is *longer*."

A correct ether theory would say that both A's ruler and B's ruler will

remain the same length physically. However, if A is more at rest in the

ether than B then the light path length of A's ruler is shorter than the

light path length of B's ruler.

>

> "LET" referred to the mathematical physics as found in Lorentz' 1904

> paper, and "SR" referred to the mathematical physics of as found in

> Einstein's 1905 paper.

>

> I don't think that that is correct; in any case, Lorentz obviously

> didn't feel that he should be stuck to some little errors and

> incomplete understanding that he had when writing a certain paper, and

> neither did Einstein. After 1905 Lorentz taught relativity and he did

> not propose a separate "LET" as there is no difference as far as

> mathematical or experimental physics is concerned.

>

> That reciprocity of observations directly follows from Lorentz'length

> contraction and clock slowdown is not immediately obvious.

There is no reciprocity in a correct ether theory. The rate of a clock is

dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock and the clock at the

rest frame of the ether has the fastest clock rate. A correct ether theory

gives rise to an improved relativity theory called IRT. A description of IRT

is as follows:

Ken Seto

________________________________________________________________

IRT (Improved Relativity Theory) is a New Theory of Motion.

It includes SR and GR as subsets. Its equations are valid in all

environments....including gravity.

1) The laws of physics based on a clock second and light path

length of a measuring rod are the same for all observers in

all inertial reference frames.

2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock second

and the light path length of a measuring rod has the same

mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames.

3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second

and the physical length of a rod is different in different frames

of reference.

4) The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute

second and the physical length of a measuring rod has a different

mathematical ratio for light speed in different inertial frames. The

speed of light based on a defined absolute second and the physical

length of a measuring rod is maximum in the rest frame of the aether.

The Consequences of these Postulates:

(1). The speed of light is not a universal constant. It is a constant math

ratio as follows:

Light path length of rod (299,792,458 m)/the absolute time content for a

clock second co-moving with the rod.

Detailed explannation of this new definition:

By definition the speed of light in the rest frame of the ether is as

follows:

Light path length in the ether frame=gamma*299,792,458m. This is reduced

to--

(299,792,458m)-- because gamma is equal to one in the ether frame.

The absolute time content for a clock second in the ether frame=gamma*1

ether frame clock second. This is reduced to__ (1 ether frame clock

second)__ because gamma is equal to one in the ether frame.

Therefore the speed of light in the ether frame is:

299,792,458m/1 ether frame clock second

The speed of light in any frame moving in the stationary ether is determined

as follows:

The light path length of rod in the moving frame=gamma*299,792,458m

The absolute itme content for a moving clock second

=gamma*1 ether frame clock second

Therefore the speed of light in any moving frame in the stationary ether is

as follows:

gamma*299,792,458m/gamma*1 ether frame clock second.

This is reduce to a constant math ratio of:: 299,792,458m/1 ether frame

clock second

(2). The physical length of a rod remains the same in all frames of

reference. The light path length of a rod changes with the state of absolute

motion of the rod. The higher is the state of absolute motion the longer is

its light path length.

(3). The rate of a clock is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the

clock. The higher is the state of absolute motion the slower is its clock

rate.

(4). Absolute time exists. The relationship between clock time and absolute

time is as follows: A clock second will contain a different amount of

absolute time in different state of absolute motion (different frames of

reference). The higher is the state of absolute motion of the clock the

higher is the absolute time content for a clock second.

(5) Simultaneity is absolute. If two events are simultaneous in one frame,

identical events will also be simultaneous in different frames. However the

time interval for the simultaneity to occur will be different in different

frame. This is due to that different frames are in different states of

absolute motion.

(6) Relative motion between two observers A and B is the vector difference

of their absolute motions along the line joining A and B

C. The Math:

1. The time dilation (contraction) or expansion equations:

A and B are in relative motion from observer A's point of view:

Tab=Taa(Faa/Fab) OR Tab=Taa(Fab/Faa)

Taa=A clock time interval in observer A's frame

as measured by A

Tab= A's prediction of B's clock time interval for

an interval of Taa in his frame

Note: Even though Taa and Tab are two different clock time

intervals but in terms of absolute time content Taa=Tab

The light path length contraction or expansion equations for a physical rod:

Lab=Laa(Faa/Fab) OR Lab=Laa(Fab/Faa)

Laa=the light path length of a rod in A's frame as

measured by A.

Lab=the light path length of an identical rod in B's

frame as predicted by A

Note: Even though Laa and Lab are two different light

path lengths but these two light path lengths are

derived from identical rod that have the same

physical rod length. The different light path lengths

are the result of different states of absolute motion

of the rods.

2. The coordinate transform equations:

x'= Faa/Fab[x + t(Faa-Fab)(lambda)]

t'= Faa/Fab[t + x(Faa-Fab)/(Faa^2)(lambda)]

y'=y

z'=z

OR

x'= Fab/Faa[x - t(Faa-Fab)(lambda)]

t'= Fab/Faa[t - x(Faa-Fab)/(Faa^2)(lambda)]

y'=y

z'=z

A is the observer's frame (unprimed) and B is the observed frame (primed).

Faa = frequency of a standard light source in A's frame as measured by A.

Fab = frequency of an identical light source in B's frame as measured by A.

If Fab is not constant the mean value is used.

lambda = wave length of the standard light source in A's frame as measured

by A.

These coordinate transform equations are valid in all

environments ---including gravity. This means that

IRT includes SR/GR as subsets

3. Momentum of an object:

p=Mo(lambda)(Faa-Fab)

4. Kinetic Energy of an object::

K=Mo(Lambda)^2(Faa)^2(Faa/Fab-1)

5. Energy of a single particle:

E=Mo(Lambda)^2(Faa)^2

6. Gravtational Red or Blue Shift:

Delta (Faa) =Faa(1-Fab/Faa)

A positve value represents a red shift from A's location.

A negative value represents a blue shift from A's location

7. Gravitational Time Contraction or Expansion:

Delta(Taa)=Taa(1-Fab/Faa)

A positive value represents gravitational time contraction (dilation)

from A's location.

A negative value represents gravitational time expansion

from A's location.

8. The IRT procedure for determining the perihelion precession of

Mercury without recourse to GRT is:

a) Set up a corrdinate system for the Sun and Mervury.

b) Use the IRT Corrdinate tansformation equations to predict the

future positions of the Sun and Mercury.

c) The perihelion shift of Mercury will be revealed when these

future positions are plotted against time. Also, the value of the

shift can be determined from the plot.

Summarizing:

IRT is a complete theory of motion. It contains SR and GR as subsets.

It's equations are valid in all environments. In addition it resolves the

following observed difficulties of GR:

1. GR predicts that the expansion of the universe should be slowing down.

Actual observations show that the expansion is speeding up. IRT have no

such problem. It predicts what is observed.

2. GR gives the wrong prediction for the path of the space craft Pioneer 10.

IRT has no such problem. It predicts that the space craft is accelerating

toward the Sun because of a concentration of dark matter contained

within the solar system---especially around the Sun.

3. GR gives the wrong rotational curve for galaxies. Again IRT has no

such problem because IRT includes the effects of dark matter in its

calculations.

Ken Seto

Dec 20, 2004, 5:30:25 PM12/20/04

to

Ken Seto wrote:

There is no reciprocity in a correct ether theory. The rate of a clock

is

dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock and the clock at

the

rest frame of the ether has the fastest clock rate. A correct ether

theory

gives rise to an improved relativity theory called IRT. A description

of IRT

is as follows:

There is no reciprocity in a correct ether theory. The rate of a clock

is

dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock and the clock at

the

rest frame of the ether has the fastest clock rate. A correct ether

theory

gives rise to an improved relativity theory called IRT. A description

of IRT

is as follows:

Ken, this thread is about how Lorentz contraction and clock slowdown

leads to reciprocity of observations when assuming an absolute

reference frame. I demonstrated it using a single reference system and

junior high-school math.

Harald

Dec 20, 2004, 8:37:03 PM12/20/04

to

<harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

news:1103581825....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Sigh...your problem is that you assume v'=v. This assumption is what gives

you the reciprocity. In real life a clock second in the primed frame is

equal to

(Gamma*1 ether frame clock second). This means that v as measured by the

ether clock second is not equal to v' as measured by the moving frame clock

second.

Before you use high school math on me you need to learn some logic.

Ken Seto

Dec 20, 2004, 9:09:53 PM12/20/04

to

<harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

news:1103581825....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

another problem with your mathematical proof of reciprocity is that you

assumed that the primed frame (the moving frame) can be at rest and thus

have the same properties as the ether frame which logically sees all clocks

to run slow compared to its clock.

Ken Seto

Dec 21, 2004, 8:32:05 AM12/21/04

to

"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message

news:37Lxd.4962$vb7...@fe1.columbus.rr.com...

>

> <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> news:1103581825....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > Ken Seto wrote:

> > There is no reciprocity in a correct ether theory. The rate of a clock

> > is

> > dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock and the clock at

> > the

> > rest frame of the ether has the fastest clock rate. A correct ether

> > theory

> > gives rise to an improved relativity theory called IRT. A description

> > of IRT

> > is as follows:

> >

> > Ken, this thread is about how Lorentz contraction and clock slowdown

> > leads to reciprocity of observations when assuming an absolute

> > reference frame. I demonstrated it using a single reference system and

> > junior high-school math.

>

> Sigh...your problem is that you assume v'=v.

Read it again. I did not assume but showed that v'=v.

Dec 21, 2004, 8:36:15 AM12/21/04

to

news:RBLxd.3837$mA3...@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

>

> <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> news:1103581825....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > Ken Seto wrote:

> > There is no reciprocity in a correct ether theory. The rate of a clock

> > is

> > dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock and the clock at

> > the

> > rest frame of the ether has the fastest clock rate. A correct ether

> > theory

> > gives rise to an improved relativity theory called IRT. A description

> > of IRT

> > is as follows:

> >

> > Ken, this thread is about how Lorentz contraction and clock slowdown

> > leads to reciprocity of observations when assuming an absolute

> > reference frame. I demonstrated it using a single reference system and

> > junior high-school math.

>

> another problem with your mathematical proof of reciprocity is that you

> assumed that the primed frame (the moving frame) can be at rest

>

> <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> news:1103581825....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > Ken Seto wrote:

> > There is no reciprocity in a correct ether theory. The rate of a clock

> > is

> > dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock and the clock at

> > the

> > rest frame of the ether has the fastest clock rate. A correct ether

> > theory

> > gives rise to an improved relativity theory called IRT. A description

> > of IRT

> > is as follows:

> >

> > Ken, this thread is about how Lorentz contraction and clock slowdown

> > leads to reciprocity of observations when assuming an absolute

> > reference frame. I demonstrated it using a single reference system and

> > junior high-school math.

>

> another problem with your mathematical proof of reciprocity is that you

> assumed that the primed frame (the moving frame) can be at rest

No the frame that is moving relative to the ether can never be at rest. I

showed that nevertheless it will appear to be at rest for co-moving

observers who assume to be at rest.

Dec 21, 2004, 9:23:47 AM12/21/04

to

"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

news:41c825e1$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

>

> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message

> news:RBLxd.3837$mA3...@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

> >

> > <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> > news:1103581825....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > > Ken Seto wrote:

> > > There is no reciprocity in a correct ether theory. The rate of a clock

> > > is

> > > dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock and the clock

at

> > > the

> > > rest frame of the ether has the fastest clock rate. A correct ether

> > > theory

> > > gives rise to an improved relativity theory called IRT. A description

> > > of IRT

> > > is as follows:

> > >

> > > Ken, this thread is about how Lorentz contraction and clock slowdown

> > > leads to reciprocity of observations when assuming an absolute

> > > reference frame. I demonstrated it using a single reference system and

> > > junior high-school math.

> >

> > another problem with your mathematical proof of reciprocity is that you

> > assumed that the primed frame (the moving frame) can be at rest

>

> No the frame that is moving relative to the ether can never be at rest.

Right.....when the moving observer sees the ether frame clock moving wrt him

it is not due to the ether frame clock that is moving but rather it is due

to the moving observer who is doing the moving. This means that the ether

frame clock can never be running slow compared to all the other clocks

moving in the ether. Also this means that there is no reciprocity between

the moving clock and the ether frame clock.

>I

> showed that nevertheless it will appear to be at rest for co-moving

> observers who assume to be at rest.

That's the problem. No observer can assume to be at rest in the ether. Also

There is no way to show that "it will appear to be at rest" without making

additional assumptions. Since no observer is at rest in the ether therefore

any observer will see some clocks moving wrt him running slow and some

clocks moving wrt him running fast.

Ken Seto

Dec 21, 2004, 9:59:11 AM12/21/04

to

news:TlWxd.9744$LW1....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

Right.

> This means that the ether

> frame clock can never be running slow compared to all the other clocks

> moving in the ether. Also this means that there is no reciprocity between

> the moving clock and the ether frame clock.

Right. If you had understood the text and calculations, you would now

*understand why* the moving measurement system will not only measure in

error, but that this error results in the misjudged assessment that the

ether frame clock is both moving and running slow, although this is

counter-intuitive as long as you don't grasp the timing effects.

> > I showed that nevertheless it will appear to be at rest for co-moving

> > observers who assume to be at rest.

>

> That's the problem. No observer can assume to be at rest in the ether.

Just ask around, and you will discover that nearly everyone thinks that

lightspeed is truly isotropic relative to the lab.

> Also

> There is no way to show that "it will appear to be at rest" without making

> additional assumptions. Since no observer is at rest in the ether

therefore

> any observer will see some clocks moving wrt him running slow and some

> clocks moving wrt him running fast.

Again you missed something. They have little other choice than to assume

that they are in rest when calibrating their system. Their only realistic

alternative would be to ask you how fast they are going! ;-)

Harald

Dec 21, 2004, 9:45:27 AM12/21/04

to

"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

news:41c824e7$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

>

> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message

> news:37Lxd.4962$vb7...@fe1.columbus.rr.com...

> >

> > <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> > news:1103581825....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > > Ken Seto wrote:

> > > There is no reciprocity in a correct ether theory. The rate of a clock

> > > is

> > > dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock and the clock

at

> > > the

> > > rest frame of the ether has the fastest clock rate. A correct ether

> > > theory

> > > gives rise to an improved relativity theory called IRT. A description

> > > of IRT

> > > is as follows:

> > >

> > > Ken, this thread is about how Lorentz contraction and clock slowdown

> > > leads to reciprocity of observations when assuming an absolute

> > > reference frame. I demonstrated it using a single reference system and

> > > junior high-school math.

> >

> > Sigh...your problem is that you assume v'=v.

>

> Read it again. I did not assume but showed that v'=v.

But what you showed is based some assumptions that leads to v'=v. In real

life the moving observer must assume that the observed relative motion

between him and the ether frame clock is due to his motion in the ether and

that the ether frame clock's motion is zero (v=0).

Ken Seto

Dec 21, 2004, 10:49:06 AM12/21/04

to

news:bGWxd.5932$vb7....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...

If we do that, we will actually be using the ether as master reference

frame. And with such a reference, everyone will agree. Now tell me your

speed relative to the ether (we need to know it accurately - we want at

least 4 decimals precision).

Harald

Dec 21, 2004, 1:17:03 PM12/21/04

to

news:41c84503$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

There is no need to know your speed in the ether. You can do calculations

with IRT and give you all the answers you needed. However, there is a way to

determine your absolute motion. The experiment described in the following

link (page 3) is such an experiment.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf

Ken Seto

Dec 21, 2004, 2:35:08 PM12/21/04

to

news:41c83950$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

Sigh....there is no measurement make between frames. There are predictions

by the various theories. The calculations you presented is based on the

euqations which are in turn based on a set of assumptions that already

assumed reciprocity.

>but that this error results in the misjudged assessment that the

> ether frame clock is both moving and running slow, although this is

> counter-intuitive as long as you don't grasp the timing effects.

A correct ether such as IRT would avoid such misjudged assessment. IRT has

the correct assement of the situation. It says that a moving observer will

see the ether frame clock not to be moving and the clock rate at the ether

frame is faster than his clock.

>

> > > I showed that nevertheless it will appear to be at rest for co-moving

> > > observers who assume to be at rest.

> >

> > That's the problem. No observer can assume to be at rest in the ether.

>

> Just ask around, and you will discover that nearly everyone thinks that

> lightspeed is truly isotropic relative to the lab.

So?? A correct ether theory would predict that the speed of light to be

isotropic in all frames. The reason is that the speed of light is a constant

math ratio as follows:

Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a

clock second co-moving with the rod.

>

> > Also

> > There is no way to show that "it will appear to be at rest" without

making

> > additional assumptions. Since no observer is at rest in the ether

> therefore

> > any observer will see some clocks moving wrt him running slow and some

> > clocks moving wrt him running fast.

>

> Again you missed something. They have little other choice than to assume

> that they are in rest when calibrating their system.

I didn't miss anything. IRT allows the observer's clock to run fast or slow

compared to a clock moving wrt him.

>Their only realistic

> alternative would be to ask you how fast they are going! ;-)

NO...IRT is a realistic alternative. You can determine how fast you are

moving in the ether by doing the experiment in the following link (page 3).

Ken Seto

Dec 22, 2004, 9:16:23 AM12/22/04

to

news:MV_xd.11885$mA3....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

>

> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> news:41c83950$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

> >

> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message

> > news:TlWxd.9744$LW1....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

SNIP

>

> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> news:41c83950$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

> >

> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message

> > news:TlWxd.9744$LW1....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

> > > This means that the ether

> > > frame clock can never be running slow compared to all the other clocks

> > > moving in the ether. Also this means that there is no reciprocity

> between

> > > the moving clock and the ether frame clock.

> >

> > Right. If you had understood the text and calculations, you would now

> > *understand why* the moving measurement system will not only measure in

> > error,

>

> Sigh....there is no measurement make between frames. There are predictions

> by the various theories. The calculations you presented is based on the

> euqations which are in turn based on a set of assumptions that already

> assumed reciprocity.

Some here emphatically deny the reciprocity following from the proposed

effects. That's why I gave the example.

> >but that this error results in the misjudged assessment that the

> > ether frame clock is both moving and running slow, although this is

> > counter-intuitive as long as you don't grasp the timing effects.

>

> A correct ether such as IRT would avoid such misjudged assessment.

Fabulous. I'm amazed about your God who is so thoughtful to construct an

ether that will avoid misjudged assessments of it.

> IRT has

> the correct assement of the situation. It says that a moving observer will

> see the ether frame clock not to be moving and the clock rate at the ether

> frame is faster than his clock.

Then you're a wonderboy to think that you can tell from your observation

which things are in rest in the ether - then we can base our reference

system on that!

> > > > I showed that nevertheless it will appear to be at rest for

co-moving

> > > > observers who assume to be at rest.

> > >

> > > That's the problem. No observer can assume to be at rest in the ether.

> >

> > Just ask around, and you will discover that nearly everyone thinks that

> > lightspeed is truly isotropic relative to the lab.

>

> So??

So your "no observer" is wrong, there are many observers who make an

assumption that is effectively the same.

> A correct ether theory would predict that the speed of light to be

> isotropic in all frames.

An example of a visible ether is air. Now give a "correct" theory for sound

propagation in which the speed of sound around a riding train is isotropic

relative to the train....

> The reason is that the speed of light is a constant math ratio as follows:

> Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a

> clock second co-moving with the rod.

Physics isn't math. But then, many in this group don't understand that...

> > > Also

> > > There is no way to show that "it will appear to be at rest" without

> making

> > > additional assumptions. Since no observer is at rest in the ether

> > therefore

> > > any observer will see some clocks moving wrt him running slow and some

> > > clocks moving wrt him running fast.

> >

> > Again you missed something. They have little other choice than to assume

> > that they are in rest when calibrating their system.

>

> I didn't miss anything. IRT allows the observer's clock to run fast or

slow

> compared to a clock moving wrt him.

>

> >Their only realistic

> > alternative would be to ask you how fast they are going! ;-)

>

> NO...IRT is a realistic alternative. You can determine how fast you are

> moving in the ether by doing the experiment in the following link (page

3).

I have seen it a long time ago, but I gave up trying to explain it to you.

All the best,

Harald

Dec 22, 2004, 2:50:37 PM12/22/04

to

news:41c980c7$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

>

> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message

> news:MV_xd.11885$mA3....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

> >

> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> > news:41c83950$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

> > >

> > > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message

> > > news:TlWxd.9744$LW1....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

> SNIP

>

> > > > This means that the ether

> > > > frame clock can never be running slow compared to all the other

clocks

> > > > moving in the ether. Also this means that there is no reciprocity

> > between

> > > > the moving clock and the ether frame clock.

> > >

> > > Right. If you had understood the text and calculations, you would now

> > > *understand why* the moving measurement system will not only measure

in

> > > error,

> >

> > Sigh....there is no measurement make between frames. There are

predictions

> > by the various theories. The calculations you presented is based on the

> > euqations which are in turn based on a set of assumptions that already

> > assumed reciprocity.

>

> Some here emphatically deny the reciprocity following from the proposed

> effects. That's why I gave the example.

>

> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message

> news:MV_xd.11885$mA3....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

> >

> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> > news:41c83950$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

> > >

> > > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message

> > > news:TlWxd.9744$LW1....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

> SNIP

>

> > > > This means that the ether

> > > > frame clock can never be running slow compared to all the other

clocks

> > > > moving in the ether. Also this means that there is no reciprocity

> > between

> > > > the moving clock and the ether frame clock.

> > >

> > > Right. If you had understood the text and calculations, you would now

> > > *understand why* the moving measurement system will not only measure

in

> > > error,

> >

> > Sigh....there is no measurement make between frames. There are

predictions

> > by the various theories. The calculations you presented is based on the

> > euqations which are in turn based on a set of assumptions that already

> > assumed reciprocity.

>

> Some here emphatically deny the reciprocity following from the proposed

> effects. That's why I gave the example.

When both observers use the same equation to calculate clock time in each

other frame that means that you already assumed reciprocity

>

> > >but that this error results in the misjudged assessment that the

> > > ether frame clock is both moving and running slow, although this is

> > > counter-intuitive as long as you don't grasp the timing effects.

> >

> > A correct ether such as IRT would avoid such misjudged assessment.

>

> Fabulous. I'm amazed about your God who is so thoughtful to construct an

> ether that will avoid misjudged assessments of it.

IRT realizes that an observed clock can run fast or slow compared to the

observer's clock but it does not say which clock run slow and that's why it

gives two equations for clock time dilation.

>

> > IRT has

> > the correct assement of the situation. It says that a moving observer

will

> > see the ether frame clock not to be moving and the clock rate at the

ether

> > frame is faster than his clock.

>

> Then you're a wonderboy to think that you can tell from your observation

> which things are in rest in the ether - then we can base our reference

> system on that!

All objects are in a state of absolute motion. No object is at rest in the

ether. That's why IRT give two equations....one for clock time dilation and

the other for clock time expansion.

>

> > > Just ask around, and you will discover that nearly everyone thinks

that

> > > lightspeed is truly isotropic relative to the lab.

> >

> > So??

>

> So your "no observer" is wrong, there are many observers who make an

> assumption that is effectively the same.

Where did I say "no observer"??

>

> > A correct ether theory would predict that the speed of light to be

> > isotropic in all frames.

>

> An example of a visible ether is air.

That's not the correct structure for an ether.

> Now give a "correct" theory for sound

> propagation in which the speed of sound around a riding train is isotropic

> relative to the train....

The speed of light is isotropic on earth because the direction of absolute

motion is in the vertical direction.

>

> > The reason is that the speed of light is a constant math ratio as

follows:

> > Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a

> > clock second co-moving with the rod.

>

> Physics isn't math. But then, many in this group don't understand that...

The above is not math. It is a definition.

>

> > > Again you missed something. They have little other choice than to

assume

> > > that they are in rest when calibrating their system.

> >

> > I didn't miss anything. IRT allows the observer's clock to run fast or

> slow

> > compared to a clock moving wrt him.

> >

> > >Their only realistic

> > > alternative would be to ask you how fast they are going! ;-)

> >

> > NO...IRT is a realistic alternative. You can determine how fast you are

> > moving in the ether by doing the experiment in the following link (page

> 3).

>

> I have seen it a long time ago, but I gave up trying to explain it to

you.

I don't recall that. I doubt that you have read it. In any case it is

approved for publication by the peer reviewed journal "Galilean

Electrodynamics". I value their judgement more than your ranting.

Ken Seto

Dec 23, 2004, 4:43:57 AM12/23/04

to

news:hekyd.20626$mA3....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

SNIP because I give up again. ONly one remark:

> > I have seen it a long time ago, but I gave up trying to explain it to

> you.

>

> I don't recall that. I doubt that you have read it. In any case it is

> approved for publication by the peer reviewed journal "Galilean

> Electrodynamics". I value their judgement more than your ranting.

AFAIK that journal didn't peer review it and then "approved it for

publication" .

Harald

Dec 23, 2004, 9:44:20 AM12/23/04

to

Dec 23, 2004, 12:27:20 PM12/23/04

to

news:8RAyd.21340$mA3....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

* Not peer-reviewed or edited, but thought to be worthwhile and interesting

enough for easy public access. These articles are not copyrighted and

remain the author's property.

- http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/links-papers.htm

I wonder if he carefully read it; in any case your statement was misleading.

Harald

Dec 23, 2004, 1:33:43 PM12/23/04

to

news:41caff05$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

Hey idiot....that's not the Peer-Rewieved journal "Galilean

Electrodynamics". They plan to public my experiment in 2005.

Ken Seto

Dec 28, 2004, 6:48:05 AM12/28/04

to

Here follows an addition to my example, in which I show that no light

assumption is needed - specially written for Greywolf. :-))

assumption is needed - specially written for Greywolf. :-))

Another, less used way of synchronizing clocks is "slow" clock

transport. We will verify if it should yield the same result as the

"esync" in our example.

A co-moving observer calibrates a clock C3 directly next to clock C1

and then moves it to the rear clock C2 at 0.001c according to speed

measurement in that system. We supposing that the system has been

calibrated before by esync.

Then, as the co-moving observer assumes to be in rest, he will expect

that it will take 6 marks / 3E5 = 20 microticks.

C3 is supposed to advance SQR(1 - (0.001)^2) * 20 ticks =

= (20 microticks - 10 pticks). Thus C2 should indicate 10 pticks more

than C3.

In reality the clock transport will take (20 - 0.016)= 19.084

microticks on C1 and C2, corresponding to 33306.7 ns.

The ruler travels in this time 33.3067E-6 * 0.8c = 7993.6 m, so that C3

travels from C1 by (7993.6 - 3.6) m = 7990 m through the ether to C2.

C3 will thus advance by:

SQRT(1 - 0.7996)^2) * 33306.7 ns = 19855.990 nanoticks.

C1 advanced by: 19840.000 nanoticks

...................................--------- -

Advance of C3 on C1: 15.990 nanoticks

Advance of C2 : 16.000 nanoticks

......................................------ -

Advance of C3 on C2 : -10 picoticks

Thus if C2 has an offset of 16 nanoticks, C3 will lag 10 pticks behind

on C2 and the moving observer will consider C2 to be perfectly

synchronized.

Harald, Dec. 2004

Dec 28, 2004, 1:55:40 PM12/28/04

to

harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

news:1104234485.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Here follows an addition to my example, in which I show that no light

> assumption is needed - specially written for Greywolf. :-))

>

> Another, less used way of synchronizing clocks is "slow" clock

> transport. We will verify if it should yield the same result as the

> "esync" in our example.

news:1104234485.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Here follows an addition to my example, in which I show that no light

> assumption is needed - specially written for Greywolf. :-))

>

> Another, less used way of synchronizing clocks is "slow" clock

> transport. We will verify if it should yield the same result as the

> "esync" in our example.

Slow clock transport is not a way of synchronizing clocks. It is supposed

to be a way of maintaining e-synchronization.

> A co-moving observer calibrates a clock C3 directly next to clock C1

You mean sets it to the same time?

> and then moves it to the rear clock C2 at 0.001c according to speed

> measurement in that system.

Sorry, can't do it. We haven't measured 'c' yet. That's the whole point of

the experiment.

> We supposing that the system has been

> calibrated before by esync.

Yep. That's where you make your error. Nothing further must be said. Once

you assume e-synching, you are using light to measure distances. And you'll

get exactly what Dr. E claimed. Not because the second postulate is

correct, but because e-synching forces any readings to match.

{snip the rest}

--

greywolf42

ubi dubium ibi libertas

{remove planet for return e-mail}

Dec 28, 2004, 5:20:42 PM12/28/04

to

greywolf42 wrote:

> harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> news:1104234485.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> > Here follows an addition to my example, in which I show that no

light

> > assumption is needed - specially written for Greywolf. :-))

> >

> > Another, less used way of synchronizing clocks is "slow" clock

> > transport. We will verify if it should yield the same result as the

> > "esync" in our example.

>

> Slow clock transport is not a way of synchronizing clocks. It is

supposed

> to be a way of maintaining e-synchronization.

Nonsense. No reference to e-synching is needed.

> > A co-moving observer calibrates a clock C3 directly next to clock

C1

>

> You mean sets it to the same time?

Yes. DOn't you know how slow clock transport works?!

> > and then moves it to the rear clock C2 at 0.001c according to speed

> > measurement in that system.

>

> Sorry, can't do it. We haven't measured 'c' yet. That's the whole

point of

> the experiment.

I showed in the foregoing example that c'= c. But here it doesn't

really matter. Just move the clock slow and next time slower to see if

it was slow enough. The slowest movement will show that the motion of

the example has a 10 ps deviation due to "fast" motion relative to the

ruler. All this is well known and you can verify it in one minute...

> > We supposing that the system has been

> > calibrated before by esync.

>

> Yep. That's where you make your error. Nothing further must be

said. Once

> you assume e-synching, you are using light to measure distances.

Of course not, no e-synching is needed for this method. I just showed

that you are mistaken to claim that the result will *differ*.

> And you'll

> get exactly what Dr. E claimed. Not because the second postulate is

> correct, but because e-synching forces any readings to match.

Dr. E and e-synching have nothing to do with this. But your

presumptions and refusal to pick up a pocket calculator have everything

to do with it...

As long as you don't verify these things for yourself you are beyond

help. I thought that by showing you step by step how it works you would

get it, but I used bad psychology by using the "esync" word

unnecessarily. Sorry. Thus I wasted my time on you, but no hard

feelings. Next time you argue the same old nonsense about

non-symmetrical measurements I'll simply ignore it.

Cheers,

Harald

Dec 30, 2004, 1:15:05 PM12/30/04

to

harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

news:1104272442.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>

> greywolf42 wrote:

> > harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

> > news:1104234485.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> > > Here follows an addition to my example, in which I show that no

> > > light assumption is needed - specially written for Greywolf. :-))

> > >

> > > Another, less used way of synchronizing clocks is "slow" clock

> > > transport. We will verify if it should yield the same result as the

> > > "esync" in our example.

> >

> > Slow clock transport is not a way of synchronizing clocks. It is

> > supposed to be a way of maintaining e-synchronization.

>

> Nonsense. No reference to e-synching is needed.

SCT *is* used with e-synching. It is not itself a way of synchronizing

clocks. And you admitted assuming that the clocks had been e-synched,

below.

> > > A co-moving observer calibrates a clock C3 directly next to clock

> > > C1

> >

> > You mean sets it to the same time?

>

> Yes. DOn't you know how slow clock transport works?!

I was merely attempting to clarify your unusual term of 'calibration' for

'synchronization'. The two terms mean substantially different things.

> > > and then moves it to the rear clock C2 at 0.001c according to speed

> > > measurement in that system.

> >

> > Sorry, can't do it. We haven't measured 'c' yet. That's the whole

> > point of the experiment.

>

> I showed in the foregoing example that c'= c.

There *IS* no foregoing example in this process. c' = c only if you perform

e-synching.

> But here it doesn't

> really matter. Just move the clock slow and next time slower to see if

> it was slow enough. The slowest movement will show that the motion of

> the example has a 10 ps deviation due to "fast" motion relative to the

> ruler. All this is well known and you can verify it in one minute...

How can it be verified? It has never been done without e-synching.

(A)

> > > We supposing that the system has been

> > > calibrated before by esync.

> >

> > Yep. That's where you make your error. Nothing further must be

> > said. Once you assume e-synching, you are using light to measure

distances.

(B)

> Of course not, no e-synching is needed for this method. I just showed

> that you are mistaken to claim that the result will *differ*.

Your statement (A) directly contradicts your statement (B).

> > And you'll

> > get exactly what Dr. E claimed. Not because the second postulate is

> > correct, but because e-synching forces any readings to match.

>

> Dr. E and e-synching have nothing to do with this. But your

> presumptions and refusal to pick up a pocket calculator have everything

> to do with it...

> As long as you don't verify these things for yourself you are beyond

> help. I thought that by showing you step by step how it works you would

> get it, but I used bad psychology by using the "esync" word

> unnecessarily. Sorry. Thus I wasted my time on you, but no hard

> feelings. Next time you argue the same old nonsense about

> non-symmetrical measurements I'll simply ignore it.

At least you'll be consistent in ignoring everything you don't want to see.

;)

Dec 31, 2004, 11:28:19 AM12/31/04

to

Harald wrote:

> But here it doesn't

> really matter. Just move the clock slow and next time slower to see

if

> it was slow enough. The slowest movement will show that the motion of

> the example has a 10 ps deviation due to "fast" motion relative to

the

> ruler. All this is well known and you can verify it in one minute...

> But here it doesn't

> really matter. Just move the clock slow and next time slower to see

if

> it was slow enough. The slowest movement will show that the motion of

> the example has a 10 ps deviation due to "fast" motion relative to

the

> ruler. All this is well known and you can verify it in one minute...

Greywolf:

How can it be verified? It has never been done without e-synching.

(A)

Hey I here above *explained* how it is done (if you take the effort to

grab a calculator...).

Now I guess that you really don't know slow clock transport, despite my

explanation of how it works.

Please allow me a last attempt to activate your grey cells to switch

from auto-pilot into think-mode:

According to you, if you slowly move a clock through the ether from one

clock to another, what is the problem, in principle? How bad would it

be in practice? And how can you determine how bad it is without knowing

c?

(I already gave you the answers, but discovered that it's useless as

long as you don't find out for yourself!).

> > > We supposing that the system has been

> > > calibrated before by esync.

> > Yep. That's where you make your error. Nothing further must be

> > said. Once you assume e-synching, you are using light to measure

distances

.

(B)

> Of course not, no e-synching is needed for this method. I just showed

> that you are mistaken to claim that the result will *differ*.

Greywolf wrote:

Your statement (A) directly contradicts your statement (B).

In other words:

(1) you can, if you are at rest in the ether, synchronize clocks with

esynching.

(A) you can also, if you are at rest in the ether, synchronize clocks

without esynching and use slow clock transport instead - the slower the

more accurate, and how slow that should be is easy to discover by

trying.

(B) If you transport the clock very slowly, you will find no difference

between the two methods (1) and (A).

Where's the contradiction? And how can it be that you don't know this

after all these years?!

> > And you'll

> > get exactly what Dr. E claimed. Not because the second postulate is

> > correct, but because e-synching forces any readings to match.

> Dr. E and e-synching have nothing to do with this. But your

> presumptions and refusal to pick up a pocket calculator have

everything

> to do with it...

> As long as you don't verify these things for yourself you are beyond

> help. I thought that by showing you step by step how it works you

would

> get it, but I used bad psychology by using the "esync" word

> unnecessarily. Sorry. Thus I wasted my time on you, but no hard

> feelings. Next time you argue the same old nonsense about

> non-symmetrical measurements I'll simply ignore it.

Greywolf:

At least you'll be consistent in ignoring everything you don't want to

see.

;)

I wasted my time to make *you* see what you obviously *refused* to see

- so much that you even couldn't get yourself to plug the numbers in...

likely you're too afraid that it may be correct. It must be

psychological!

There were a few typos in the calculation but you didn't notice (it

should have been 19984 and 19999.990 nanoticks for C1 and C3

respectively) . And will you even *try* to check it? I don't think so!

But just in case, in order to know what I'm talking about, you only

have to verify that if C3 travels in 33307 nanoseconds through the

ether from C1 to C2, in that time C1 will advance by 19984 nanoticks

but C3 by 20000 nanoticks. And that the error would be 0 nanoticks if

the ruler were resting in the ether.

Harald

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu