The Clock Transport Paradox

[SRdude]

We start with two clocks of an inertial coordinate system.

[0]-----------x axis-----------[?]
Clock A Clock B

Neither clock is running, Clock A reads zero, and Clock B is waiting
for its reading.

When a transported clock, Clock C, meets Clock A in passing, both are
started on zero.

Clock C
[0] -->
[0]-----------x axis-----------[?]
Clock A Clock B

Clock C goes on to meet Clock B, and B starts as it copies C's time.

Clock C
--------------------------------[Ta] -->
[?]----------x axis-----------[Ta]
Clock A Clock B

Clocks A and B are now used to measure light's one-way speed.

The experiment is repeated, using a faster passing clock, Clock D.

Clock D (moves faster wrt the given ICS)
[0] ------>
[0]-----------x axis-----------[?]
Clock A Clock B

As before, after A and B are started, they are used to measure light's
one-way speed.

Although special relativity theory agree that the one-way light speeds
are different, the paradox lies in the fact that the theory has no
physical explanation for these different one-way light speeds.

The immediate cause of the different light speeds is the difference in
time readings on the transported clocks at the end. The only possible
cause for these different time readings is the difference in absolute
speeds of the transported clocks.

Special relativity not only denies the just-proved facts that clocks
that move differently through space have different intrinsic rates,
but the "theory" even claims that motion through space has no place in
physics. (Note: The word intrinsic is used here as in "One twin's
age was intrinsically different from the other's.")

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

On May 13, 7:58 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
> We start with two clocks of an inertial coordinate system.
>
> [0]-----------x axis-----------[?]
> Clock A                            Clock B
>
> Neither clock is running, Clock A reads zero, and Clock B is waiting
> for its reading.
>
> When a transported clock, Clock C, meets Clock A in passing, both are
> started on zero.
>
> Clock C
> [0] -->
> [0]-----------x axis-----------[?]
> Clock A                            Clock B
>
> Clock C goes on to meet Clock B, and B starts as it copies C's time.
>
>                                           Clock C
> --------------------------------[Ta] -->
> [?]----------x axis-----------[Ta]
> Clock A                            Clock B

Ok...

> Clocks A and B are now used to measure light's one-way speed.

C_A = clock A etc...

Huh? How so? Note that C_A and C_B are NOT synched. The clock
transport you performed does not synch time in the i-frame. The time
at B as C_C coincides there is D/V where D is the distance between A
and B and V the speed of C_C wrt the iframe (of A and B). The device
C_B indicates (D/V)/g but *the time* a B is D/V.

Moreover, how would you measure the owls? specify the procedure.

> The experiment is repeated, using a faster passing clock, Clock D.

Ok...

> As before, after A and B are started, they are used to measure light's
> one-way speed.

Time at B is D/V_2 and C_B indicates (D/V_2)/g.

> Although special relativity theory agree that the one-way light speeds
> are different,

??

> the paradox lies in the fact that the theory has no
> physical explanation for these different one-way light speeds.

What paradox?

?? Define what you mean by owls. What is the procedure to measure it.

Fix that up and we will continue.

[SRdude]

On Mon, 13 May 2013), rotchm wrote:

<<<snip>>>

Whoever you are, do you not know that clock's that are transported at
different speeds (relative to a given frame) will yield different
values for the one-way speed of light? (This is easy to show
mathematically even in the full context of special relativity.)

And if you don't know how to use two clocks to measure the one-way
speed of light, then I feel that you should not be posting here about
physics.

The paradox is that SR has no phyical explanation for these different
one-way light speeds. ( This has nothing to do with E-synch. I am not
claiming that the transported clocks are synch'd in the frame. You
need to learn how to read.)

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

On May 13, 9:01 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:

> Whoever you are,

I am the Authoritive figure of SR here.

> do you not know that clock's that are transported at
> different speeds (relative to a given frame) will yield different
> values for the one-way speed of light?

Many here have no clue what "one-way speed of light" means and all
have a different definition for it. That is why I asked you, what is
*your* concept of, your procedure, to measure this "owls". You failed
to answer that question. Try again.

And recall that your clock_B that was calibrated via the clock_C does
not represent time in the i-frame.

> The paradox is that SR has no phyical explanation for these different
> one-way light speeds.

First of, SR does not give "explanations". Its results, its math,
simply predicts the values indicated by clocks (or other measuring
devices/quantities).

> ( This has nothing to do with E-synch. I am not
> claiming that the transported clocks are synch'd in the frame. You
> need to learn how to read.)

I never said that that was your claim. You need to learn to read.

[Absolutely Vertical]

don't be an idiot. the purpose of specifying _slow_ transport is to make
it so that any -- repeat _any_ -- effects due to the speed of transport
are below measurement resolution. yet in the above, you clearly violate
this by making the second clock's transport fast enough that the effect
is noticeable with measurements.

so in the context of relativity, clock a and clock b are not
synchronized in the second pass because the synchronizing clock was not
transported slowly enough to count as _slow_ clock transport. so it's no
wonder that you get a different measurement of c with improperly
synchronized clocks.

idiot.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

What else is new.

A little spacetime diagrams shows that his "jonesspeed of light",
depending on the speed v of his "jonestransported" clock is
given by
s(v) = 1 / ( 1/c - ( 1 - sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) )/v )
which --of course-- has a limit c for v --> 0.
Duh.

Dirk Vdm

[SRdude]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:21:44 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 13, 9:01 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
>
>> Whoever you are,
>
>I am the Authoritive figure of SR here.
>
>> do you not know that clock's that are transported at
>> different speeds (relative to a given frame) will yield different
>> values for the one-way speed of light?
>
>Many here have no clue what "one-way speed of light" means and all
>have a different definition for it. That is why I asked you, what is
>*your* concept of, your procedure, to measure this "owls". You failed
>to answer that question. Try again.

Hogwash and balderdash. There is only one way to use two clocks to
measure the one-way speed of anything, including light. If you don't
know, then you don't need to be discussing science, much less physics.

>And recall that your clock_B that was calibrated via the clock_C does
>not represent time in the i-frame.
>
>> The paradox is that SR has no phyical explanation for these different
>> one-way light speeds.
>
>First of, SR does not give "explanations". Its results, its math,
>simply predicts the values indicated by clocks (or other measuring
>devices/quantities).

Special relativity claims that absolute motion is a meaningless
concept. It also claims that clocks do not have different intrinsic
or physical rates. Both of these very stupid claims were utterly
invalidated via my simple clock transport experiments.

>> ( This has nothing to do with E-synch. I am not
>> claiming that the transported clocks are synch'd in the frame. You
>> need to learn how to read.)
>
>I never said that that was your claim. You need to learn to read.

You cannot even recall what you wrote. Here is how you put it:

"The clock transport you performed does not synch time in the
i-frame."

(You even repeated it above.)

This has nothing to do with my conclusion that the transported clocks
record two different one-way light speeds.

It also has nothing to do with the fact that special relativity denies
all meaning to the concept of motion through space or with the fact
that clocks that move at different absolute speeds run at different
physical rates.

Dr. Cad

[SRdude]

On Tue, 14 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

> so it's no wonder that you get a different measurement of c with improperly
>synchronized clocks.
>
>idiot.

Now you are Absolutely Horizontal.

Your statement just leads directly to more quagmires. Since the two
origin clocks were certainly absolutely synchronous at the start of
the experiment, WHY would they NOT be absolutely synchronous after one
moved steadily on down the road?

And it was never my intention to properly synchronize anything,
certainly not the clocks.

And where is your grand proof that SR's clocks are not "improperly
synchronized" (as your above implied)?

And now let's look at your wonderful opening statement:

>don't be an idiot. the purpose of specifying _slow_ transport
>is to make it so that any -- repeat _any_ -- effects due to the
>speed of transport are below measurement resolution. yet in
>the above, you clearly violate this by making the second clock's
>transport fast enough that the effect is noticeable with
>measurements.

1. How can mere relative motion possibly affect a clock's atomic
rhythm?

2. Any possible effect must be due to a clock's absolute motion.

3. Your above just tells me that not only do you not understand my
simple experiment, but you also do not understand relativity "theory."

4. Also note that, as John Wheeler noted (in his "famous" book
_Spacetime Physics_), not even the very slowest transport case can
result in exactly c for the one-way speed of light. (p. 19, 1963
ed.)

5. But Wheeler still claimed that very slow clock transport is a legit
clock-synch method.
(ibid.)

6. And Wheeler also tried a physical explanation for the
out-of-synchness of a transported clock, namely, the fact that it
moved rapidly relative to the base frame. Again, I ask the important
question How can mere relative motion count?

7. To clue you in, the purpose of my transport experiment(s) is to
show clearly that clocks that move at different absolute speeds run at
different (intrinsic) rates, thereby changing the (one-way) speed of
light as measured by them.

8. This flies directly in the nasty face of the infamous odometer
"explanation" of any clock paradox experiment, whereby it is stated
that odometers moving along different routes to the same place do
indeed read differently at the end, but this does not mean that they
"ran differently" or had "different intrinsic rhythms," as is claimed
re clocks.

9. I am not saying that my transport experiment correctly measures
light's one-way speed, but I am saying that the different (incorrect)
results can only be caused by different absolute clock speeds in
space.

10. Special relativity simply cannot cope with this result, therefore
the paradox.

Dr. Cad
(Jodi Arias approved of all of my above)

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 7:10 PM, SRdude wrote:

>
> Special relativity claims that absolute motion is a meaningless
> concept. It also claims that clocks do not have different intrinsic
> or physical rates. Both of these very stupid claims were utterly
> invalidated via my simple clock transport experiments.
>

you did not refer to experiments of any kind. suppositions about
hypothetical situations are not experiments. do not flatter yourself
that they are.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/14/2013 7:37 PM, SRdude wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>
>> so it's no wonder that you get a different measurement of c with improperly
>> synchronized clocks.
>>
>> idiot.
>
> Now you are Absolutely Horizontal.
>
> Your statement just leads directly to more quagmires. Since the two
> origin clocks were certainly absolutely synchronous at the start of
> the experiment, WHY would they NOT be absolutely synchronous after one
> moved steadily on down the road?

they are not synchronous initially. they are _stopped_ remember? you
choose starting events with the passage of a transported clock. if the
motion of the transported clock is _slow_ enough that you cannot detect
any effects of its motion, then it is a slowly transported clock. if it
is not transported slow enough that this is the case, then you have not
done slow clock transport.

the _only_ synchronization you did with the clocks was via that
transported clock, which was not transported slowly enough to call slow
clock transport.

is this not obvious?

>
> And it was never my intention to properly synchronize anything,
> certainly not the clocks.
>
> And where is your grand proof that SR's clocks are not "improperly
> synchronized" (as your above implied)?
>
> And now let's look at your wonderful opening statement:
>
>> don't be an idiot. the purpose of specifying _slow_ transport
>> is to make it so that any -- repeat _any_ -- effects due to the
>> speed of transport are below measurement resolution. yet in
>> the above, you clearly violate this by making the second clock's
>> transport fast enough that the effect is noticeable with
>> measurements.
>
> 1. How can mere relative motion possibly affect a clock's atomic
> rhythm?
>
> 2. Any possible effect must be due to a clock's absolute motion.

look at the above two statements. in the first, you splutter with
incredulity that a state of motion could possibly have a physical effect
on a clock, then in the second you splutter that it _must_ be a state of
motion that affects the clock. but, you say with eyebrows arched, it is
not relative motion that must matter but _absolute_ motion. aha!!

idiot.

>
> 3. Your above just tells me that not only do you not understand my
> simple experiment, but you also do not understand relativity "theory."

you are free to dismiss all you want. you are deeply confused about what
slow clock transport means.

>
> 4. Also note that, as John Wheeler noted (in his "famous" book
> _Spacetime Physics_), not even the very slowest transport case can
> result in exactly c for the one-way speed of light. (p. 19, 1963
> ed.)

of course. read what _i_ said. slow clock transport results in an effect
that is _below the clock resolution_. wheeler's comment is about an
exactly precise result. the criterion of slow clock transport is about a
real clock with a finite precision. then you compared two cases where
there is a _measurable_ difference in the produced speed of light, which
means _above_ the clock's resolution. as i said, you are confused about
what slow clock transport even means.

>
> 5. But Wheeler still claimed that very slow clock transport is a legit
> clock-synch method.
> (ibid.)

why yes, it is, for clocks with finite resolution. slow enough means
that two different transport speeds, both slow enough, will result in
the same value of the speed of light, within clock resolution.

>
> 6. And Wheeler also tried a physical explanation for the
> out-of-synchness of a transported clock, namely, the fact that it
> moved rapidly relative to the base frame. Again, I ask the important
> question How can mere relative motion count?

you are asking, 'but... but... _how_ does this happen? unless i
understand _how_ it happens, then it cannot happen!'

the reason is the structure of spacetime, which is something you do not
understand. nevertheless, the experimental consequences of it have been
verified. this is how we know, in science, that the premises are correct.

>
> 7. To clue you in, the purpose of my transport experiment(s) is to
> show clearly that clocks that move at different absolute speeds run at
> different (intrinsic) rates, thereby changing the (one-way) speed of
> light as measured by them.

you are not measuring the speed of light if the clocks are not
synchronized. if you follow your procedure with a transported clock that
is not transported slowly enough, then you do not produce synchronized
clocks. therefore the result you get is not the speed of light. this
should be obvious even to an oak stump.

>
> 8. This flies directly in the nasty face of the infamous odometer
> "explanation" of any clock paradox experiment, whereby it is stated
> that odometers moving along different routes to the same place do
> indeed read differently at the end, but this does not mean that they
> "ran differently" or had "different intrinsic rhythms," as is claimed
> re clocks.

what the hell are you talking about?

>
> 9. I am not saying that my transport experiment correctly measures
> light's one-way speed, but I am saying that the different (incorrect)
> results can only be caused by different absolute clock speeds in
> space.

no, it can be caused by other things, such as not using synchronized
clocks! thus, your claim that it can _only_ be due to absolute motion is
patently and obviously wrong. and you're an idiot.

>
> 10. Special relativity simply cannot cope with this result, therefore
> the paradox.

there is no paradox, other than the fact that you first claimed that the
clocks are measuring the speed of light and then that they're not
measuring the speed of light. the resolution of the paradox is that
you're not measuring the speed of light, because you are not using
synchronized clocks. and they are not synchronized, because the clock
you're transporting isn't being transported slowly enough.

which is what i said at the outset. which you still do not understand.
because you are, apparently, denser than a four-foot stack of national
geographic magazines.

>
> Dr. Cad
> (Jodi Arias approved of all of my above)
>

how dare you taint jodi arias with your drivel...

[rotchm]

On May 14, 8:10 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:21:44 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >Many here have no clue what "one-way speed of light" means and all
> >have a different definition for it.

> Hogwash and balderdash.  There is only one way to use two clocks to
> measure the one-way speed of anything, including light.

I agree. But many (idiots) here dont. That is why I m asking *you* to
specify *your* measurement procedure.

> If you don't
> know, then you don't need to be discussing science, much less physics.

I do know. Do you? Prove it! Define your one way speed measurement
procedure.

> Special relativity claims that absolute motion is a meaningless
> concept.

Some authors claim that. Some philosophies of SR claim that. SR dos
not claim that. SR claims that it is non detectable, not that it is
meaningless. Einstein claimed that "...it is not needed...".

> It also claims that clocks do not have different intrinsic
> or physical rates.

SR does not claim that. Some authors that use loose wordings claim
that. SR claims that one tick on a clock is one tick on a clock.

>Both of these very stupid claims were utterly
> invalidated via my simple clock transport experiments.

Just do the math of SR. The result of that math represents the values
that will be indicated on the clocks. No need of the words
"absolute", "physical", "real", "rates", "projection" etc.
The parameters x and t in SR represent the values obtained by the
coordinated measuring apparatus; that is all; no need of other vague
and fancy words.

> You cannot even recall what you wrote.  Here is how you put it:
> "The clock transport you performed does not synch time in the
> i-frame."
> (You even repeated it above.)

And I stand by it. Your clock transport is not a valid synch
procedure. If you want to analize SR, use SR's premises. In SR the
synch procedure is the e-sync.

> This has nothing to do with my conclusion that the transported clocks
> record two different one-way light speeds.

It will not record two different owls. It will record two different
values which are not speed:Speed is "X/T" where X is the distance
traveled and T the time interval. The values of your transported
clocks are NOT time; they are NOT T; they are not time in the iframe;
they are in essence two random values. If you want to measure the ow
speed with the clock at B you NEED to e-synch this clock with A, else
it will not represent time.

> It also has nothing to do with the fact that special relativity denies
> all meaning to the concept of motion through space

Again, irrelevant words. Again, the parameters x and t in SR
represent the values obtained by the coordinated measuring apparatus;
that is all; no need of other vague and fancy words.

[rotchm]

On May 14, 8:37 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:

> Since the two
> origin clocks were certainly absolutely synchronous at the start of
> the experiment, WHY would they NOT be absolutely synchronous after one
> moved steadily on down the road?

Why must they remain absolutely synchronous? If we dont know, then we
cant make such claim.

> And it was never my intention to properly synchronize anything,
> certainly not the clocks.

Ok. But in SR, the x and t represent coordinated iframe, i.e. e-
synched clocks. If you dont use e-synched clocks then you are not
doing SR.

> And where is your grand proof that SR's clocks are not "improperly
> synchronized" (as your above implied)?

SR is uses e-synch to define its t.

> 1. How can mere relative motion possibly affect a clock's atomic
> rhythm?

If we dont know, we cant assume it. SR doesn't assume it. But its
postulates imply that a clock going overthere will indicate a lesser
value than an e-synched clock overthere.

> 2. Any possible effect must be due to a clock's absolute motion.

Perhaps. SR says nothing about that. SR says a clock going overthere
will indicate a lesser value than an e-synched clock overthere.

> 4. Also note that, as John Wheeler noted (in his "famous" book
> _Spacetime Physics_), not even the very slowest transport case can
> result in exactly c for the one-way speed of light.

correct. Any clock transport attaining point B will not indicate the
exact time at B. But if slow enough the difference will be below the
sensitivity of the instrument. It is that what Wheeler meant.

> 5. But Wheeler still claimed that very slow clock transport is a legit
> clock-synch method.

*If* it is slow enough; if it indicates a final time at B to within
the sensitivity of the e-synched clock at B.

> 6. And Wheeler also tried a physical explanation for the
> out-of-synchness of a transported clock,

Irrelevant to SR. The explanations will not change the math, the
prediction of SR.

> 7. To clue you in, the purpose of my transport experiment(s) is to
> show clearly that clocks that move at different absolute speeds run at
> different (intrinsic) rates,

True in LET. Does not apply in SR since it [SR] does not define
"absolute".

> thereby changing the (one-way) speed of light as measured by them.

Nope. The value of your transported clock does not reflect time in the
i-frame.
It does *aproximately* reflect time in the iframe is moved slowly
enough, if it is below the sensitivity of the measuring devices thus
meaning it yields the same owls to within accuracies.

> 9. I am not saying that my transport experiment correctly measures
> light's one-way speed, but I am saying that the different (incorrect)
> results can only be caused by different absolute clock speeds in
> space.

"cause" is irrelevant in modern physics. It belongs to philosophy. The
"causes" will not change the math, the predictions of the math.

[Dono.]

On May 13, 6:21 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 9:01 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
>
> > Whoever you are,
>
> I am the Authoritive figure of SR  here.

Mike Crotch,

You aren't only SEVERELY delusional, you are also ignorant when it
comes to the English language

[SRdude]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:00:53 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On May 14, 8:10 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:21:44 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Many here have no clue what "one-way speed of light" means and all
>> >have a different definition for it.
>
>> Hogwash and balderdash. There is only one way to use two clocks to
>> measure the one-way speed of anything, including light.
>
>I agree. But many (idiots) here dont. That is why I m asking *you* to
>specify *your* measurement procedure.

It is not mine, it is the only one that exists in physics. No need to
specify further.

>
>> Special relativity claims that absolute motion is a meaningless
>> concept.
>
>Some authors claim that. Some philosophies of SR claim that. SR dos
>not claim that. SR claims that it is non detectable, not that it is
>meaningless. Einstein claimed that "...it is not needed...".

Einstein said this:

"... and as the prime factor involved in this contraction we find, not
the motion in itself, to which we cannot attach any meaning, but the
motion with respect to the body of reference chosen in the particular
case in point."

Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General
Theory. 1920.

XVI. Experience and the Special Theory of Relativity

http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html

Got it?

>> It also claims that clocks do not have different intrinsic
>> or physical rates.
>
>
>SR does not claim that. Some authors that use loose wordings claim
>that. SR claims that one tick on a clock is one tick on a clock.

If SR claims that (inertially-moving) clocks do indeed have different
intrinsic rhythms, then what does SR say causes this?

>
>>Both of these very stupid claims were utterly
>> invalidated via my simple clock transport experiments.
>
>Just do the math of SR. The result of that math represents the values
>that will be indicated on the clocks. No need of the words
>"absolute", "physical", "real", "rates", "projection" etc.
>The parameters x and t in SR represent the values obtained by the
>coordinated measuring apparatus; that is all; no need of other vague
>and fancy words.

The math of SR is void of physical meaning because SR has not only no
reason for the different one-way light speeds in my clock transport
experiments, but also denies the existence of the only possible
physical cause, namely, different absolute clock speeds.

What do you say is the cause for the different light speeds?

>> You cannot even recall what you wrote. Here is how you put it:
>> "The clock transport you performed does not synch time in the
>> i-frame."
>> (You even repeated it above.)
>
>And I stand by it. Your clock transport is not a valid synch
>procedure. If you want to analize SR, use SR's premises. In SR the
>synch procedure is the e-sync.

Not according to John Wheeler, a relativity expert. He claimed that
there are two valid clock synchronization methods, namely, E-synch and
very slow clock transport. I should not have to spend my time here
repeating what the experts wrote long ago. You need to study up on SR
if you wish to continue talking about it as if you know it.

>> This has nothing to do with my conclusion that the transported clocks
>> record two different one-way light speeds.
>
>It will not record two different owls. It will record two different
>values which are not speed:Speed is "X/T" where X is the distance
>traveled and T the time interval. The values of your transported
>clocks are NOT time; they are NOT T; they are not time in the iframe;
>they are in essence two random values. If you want to measure the ow
>speed with the clock at B you NEED to e-synch this clock with A, else
>it will not represent time.
>

The transported clocks were truly synch'd with the frame's origin
clock at the start. You need to pay more attention.

A question:
Why would the transported clocks get out-of-synch with the origin
clock?

I predict that you will merely sidestep.

>> It also has nothing to do with the fact that special relativity denies
>> all meaning to the concept of motion through space
>
>Again, irrelevant words. Again, the parameters x and t in SR
>represent the values obtained by the coordinated measuring apparatus;
>that is all; no need of other vague and fancy words.

This coming from someone who hasn't even read Wheeler....

Dr. Cad

[SRdude]

On 5 /14 /2013, Vert wrote:
>On 5/14/2013 7:10 PM, SRdude wrote:
>

> >Special relativity claims that absolute motion is a meaningless

> >concept. It also claims that clocks do not have different intrinsic
> >or physical rates. Both of these very stupid claims were utterly

> >invalidated via my simple clock transport experiments.
>

>you did not refer to experiments of any kind. suppositions about
>hypothetical situations are not experiments. do not flatter yourself
>that they are.

And I was giving you credit for having half a brain.

So using transported clocks to measure the one-way speed of light is
not an experiment. You need your head examined, pronto.

On 14 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>On 5/14/2013 7:37 PM, SRdude wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>>
>>> so it's no wonder that you get a different measurement of c with improperly
>>> synchronized clocks.
>>>
>>> idiot.
>>
>> Now you are Absolutely Horizontal.
>>
>> Your statement just leads directly to more quagmires. Since the two
>> origin clocks were certainly absolutely synchronous at the start of
>> the experiment, WHY would they NOT be absolutely synchronous after one
>> moved steadily on down the road?
>
>they are not synchronous initially. they are _stopped_ remember? you
>choose starting events with the passage of a transported clock. if the
>motion of the transported clock is _slow_ enough that you cannot detect
>any effects of its motion, then it is a slowly transported clock. if it
>is not transported slow enough that this is the case, then you have not
>done slow clock transport.

You still do not even understand the given experiments, and they are
very simple.

I never said a word about doing "slow clock transport."

Here is the first experiment replayed:

We start with two clocks of an inertial coordinate system.

[0]-----------x axis-----------[?]
Clock A Clock B

Neither clock is running, Clock A reads zero, and Clock B is waiting
for its reading.

When a transported clock, Clock C, meets Clock A in passing, both are
started on zero.

Clock C
[0] -->
[0]-----------x axis-----------[?]
Clock A Clock B

Clock C goes on to meet Clock B, and B starts as it copies C's time.

Clock C
--------------------------------[Ta] -->
[?]----------x axis-----------[Ta]
Clock A Clock B

Clocks A and B are now used to measure light's one-way speed.

Look at and study this simple experiment until you have it figured out

>
>the _only_ synchronization you did with the clocks was via that
>transported clock, which was not transported slowly enough to call slow
>clock transport.
>
>is this not obvious?

This is funny; you are talking about a mere relative speed as if it
could have any physical effect upon a clock's intrinsic rhythm.

Exactly how "slow" (relative to the base frame) must a transported
clock "move" in order to call it "slow transport"?

And again I ask you to state why the two origin clocks (the frame's
origin clock and the transported clock _at_ the frame's origin) would
not remain truly synchronous forever no matter what the "speed" of the
transported clock?

You are bringing up all the irrelevancies while totally ignoring the
paradox.

Typical poor-relativity-student style.

>>
>> And it was never my intention to properly synchronize anything,
>> certainly not the clocks.
>>
>> And where is your grand proof that SR's clocks are not "improperly
>> synchronized" (as your above implied)?
>>
>> And now let's look at your wonderful opening statement:
>>
>>> don't be an idiot. the purpose of specifying _slow_ transport
>>> is to make it so that any -- repeat _any_ -- effects due to the
>>> speed of transport are below measurement resolution. yet in
>>> the above, you clearly violate this by making the second clock's
>>> transport fast enough that the effect is noticeable with
>>> measurements.
>>
>> 1. How can mere relative motion possibly affect a clock's atomic
>> rhythm?
>>
>> 2. Any possible effect must be due to a clock's absolute motion.
>
>look at the above two statements. in the first, you splutter with
>incredulity that a state of motion could possibly have a physical effect
>on a clock, then in the second you splutter that it _must_ be a state of
>motion that affects the clock. but, you say with eyebrows arched, it is
>not relative motion that must matter but _absolute_ motion. aha!!
>
>idiot.

ad hominem's are your only forte. sad.

My first "splutter" pertained only to mere relative motion, whereas my
second pertained to absolute motion. The two are completely
different.

Anyway, just forget about what I "spluttered"; just tell us why my
transported clocks obtain different one-way light speeds.

And tell us why SR cannot cope with this.

>> 3. Your above just tells me that not only do you not understand my
>> simple experiment, but you also do not understand relativity "theory."
>
>you are free to dismiss all you want. you are deeply confused about what
>slow clock transport means.
>

See my above.

>>
>> 4. Also note that, as John Wheeler noted (in his "famous" book
>> _Spacetime Physics_), not even the very slowest transport case can
>> result in exactly c for the one-way speed of light. (p. 19, 1963
>> ed.)
>
>of course. read what _i_ said. slow clock transport results in an effect
>that is _below the clock resolution_. wheeler's comment is about an
>exactly precise result. the criterion of slow clock transport is about a
>real clock with a finite precision. then you compared two cases where
>there is a _measurable_ difference in the produced speed of light, which
>means _above_ the clock's resolution. as i said, you are confused about
>what slow clock transport even means.

See my above.

>>
>> 5. But Wheeler still claimed that very slow clock transport is a legit
>> clock-synch method.
>> (ibid.)
>
>why yes, it is, for clocks with finite resolution. slow enough means
>that two different transport speeds, both slow enough, will result in
>the same value of the speed of light, within clock resolution.
>

We are talking theoretical physics here, so there is no such clock
resolution problem.

Tell us why my 2 transported clocks obtain different values for the
one-way speed of light. That is the question.

>>
>> 6. And Wheeler also tried a physical explanation for the
>> out-of-synchness of a transported clock, namely, the fact that it
>> moved rapidly relative to the base frame. Again, I ask the important
>> question How can mere relative motion count?
>
>you are asking, 'but... but... _how_ does this happen? unless i
>understand _how_ it happens, then it cannot happen!'
>
>the reason is the structure of spacetime, which is something you do not
>understand. nevertheless, the experimental consequences of it have been
>verified. this is how we know, in science, that the premises are correct.

Space-time has no physical structure, dummy.

Space-time is math (geometry)

Why do my 2 transported clocks obtain different values for the one-way
speed of light. That is the question.

>>
>> 7. To clue you in, the purpose of my transport experiment(s) is to
>> show clearly that clocks that move at different absolute speeds run at
>> different (intrinsic) rates, thereby changing the (one-way) speed of
>> light as measured by them.
>
>you are not measuring the speed of light if the clocks are not
>synchronized. if you follow your procedure with a transported clock that
>is not transported slowly enough, then you do not produce synchronized
>clocks. therefore the result you get is not the speed of light. this
>should be obvious even to an oak stump.

See my replayed experiment above, plus my above conments.

Why do my 2 transported clocks obtain different values for the one-way
speed of light. That is the question.

>>
>> 8. This flies directly in the nasty face of the infamous odometer
>> "explanation" of any clock paradox experiment, whereby it is stated
>> that odometers moving along different routes to the same place do
>> indeed read differently at the end, but this does not mean that they
>> "ran differently" or had "different intrinsic rhythms," as is claimed
>> re clocks.
>
>what the hell are you talking about?

Search for "odometer" in this newsgroup.

>>
>> 9. I am not saying that my transport experiment correctly measures
>> light's one-way speed, but I am saying that the different (incorrect)
>> results can only be caused by different absolute clock speeds in
>> space.
>
>no, it can be caused by other things, such as not using synchronized
>clocks! thus, your claim that it can _only_ be due to absolute motion is
>patently and obviously wrong. and you're an idiot.
>

See my above.

>> 10. Special relativity simply cannot cope with this result, therefore
>> the paradox.
>
>there is no paradox, other than the fact that you first claimed that the
>clocks are measuring the speed of light and then that they're not
>measuring the speed of light. the resolution of the paradox is that
>you're not measuring the speed of light, because you are not using
>synchronized clocks. and they are not synchronized, because the clock
>you're transporting isn't being transported slowly enough.

Just exactly how "SLOW" must a transported clock travel in order to
correctly synchronize it?

When did I say that the transported clocks are not measuring light's
one-way speed?

>which is what i said at the outset. which you still do not understand.
>because you are, apparently, denser than a four-foot stack of national
>geographic magazines.

Why do the transported clocks not remain absolutely synchronous with
the frame's origin clock? (They started out absolutely synchronous
with it.)

Dr. Cad
expecting many more irrelevancies from U-NO-Hoo

[rotchm]

On May 15, 8:33 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:00:53 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> It is not mine, it is the only one that exists in physics. No need to
> specify further.

Talking a bout a one way speed measurement (owsm) here. The owsm uses
two e-synched clocks. Your transport procedure is not an e-synch
procedure; it does not coordinate the value of the B clock to A's
iframe. B does not represent time in the A frame.

> If SR claims that (inertially-moving) clocks do indeed have different
> intrinsic rhythms, then what does SR say causes this?

SR does not claim that, nor does SR give any "causes". SR says: do the
math; the results obtained will be the values indicated on the
measuring devices.

> The math of SR is void of physical meaning

True as for the math goes. Physics associates the results of SR to
observables (x and t). The model (SR) says that he results obtained
will be the values indicated on the measuring devices.

> because SR has not only no reason for the different one-way light speeds
> in my clock transport experiments,

No need of "reasons" nor "causes". You may want causes but SR is
devoid of such concepts and is not needed in physics. Moreover, SR
does not predict different OWLS as you present it. If it does, show
the math. You still havent showed the math of your claim.

> What do you say is the cause for the different light speeds?

In SR, that notion (cause) is not defined, thus no "cause". Also, SR
does not predict different lightspeeds. It predicts that all
lightspeeds is (will be measured as) c.

> >And I stand by it. Your clock transport is not a valid synch
> >procedure. If you want to analize SR, use SR's premises. In SR the
> >synch procedure is the e-sync.
>
> Not according to John Wheeler, a relativity expert.

Yes according to Wheeler.

> He claimed that
> there are two valid clock synchronization methods, namely, E-synch

Yes, as Poincare stated well before 1905.

> and very slow clock transport.

No. You misunderstand what he and that meant. It meant that *if* its
done sufficiently slow, then the discrepancy will be below the
precision of the measuring devices. In that case, the slow clock
transport can be taken to be ~ e-synch. In the case of v-->0, the
discrepancy -->0 but also is physically impossible: v-->0, the
transported clock will never reach its destination, even if its 1
millimeter away!

> The transported clocks were truly synch'd with the frame's origin
> clock at the start.

No, not at all. proof:

Let D be the distance between fixed points A and A'. e-synch these
clocks. Done.
Let clockB (cB) set itself to zero with A and travels with speed v to
its destination A'.
It takes a time of t = D/v for cB to coincide with A', i.e. the value
on A' is t = D/v. SR says that as cB coincides with A', the value on
cB is t/g = (D/v)/g = (D/v)s(1-v2/c2), s=sqrt.

OIW, A' = D/v (time in the original frame, or the frame of A), and
B = (D/v)/g.

IOW, A' <> B. They do not show the same value; B does not represent
time in A frame.

> A question: Why would the transported clocks get out-of-synch with the
> origin clock?

Bad question; you cant compare side-by-side A and B since B is gone
overthere. You mean to ask if the transported clock will be out of
synch with *time* in A's frame....or, you mean to ask if the
transported clock will be out of synch with the A's clock located at
the destination point (A'). Answer: Yes the transported clock will be
theoretically out of synch, as shown above. BUT, if v is sufficiently
small, this out of synch will not be noticed by A' due to its limited
accuracy. Thats what Wheeler meant.

> I predict that you will merely sidestep.

Wrong again.

> This coming from someone who hasn't even read Wheeler....

Ha! Only if you knew...

[rotchm]

On May 15, 9:06 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
> On 5 /14 /2013, Vert wrote:
>
> >On 5/14/2013 7:10 PM, SRdude wrote:
>
> > >Special relativity claims that absolute motion is a meaningless
> > >concept.  It also claims that clocks do not have different intrinsic
> > >or physical rates. Both of these very stupid claims were utterly
> > >invalidated via my simple clock transport experiments.
>
> >you did not refer to experiments of any kind. suppositions about
> >hypothetical situations are not experiments. do not flatter yourself
> >that they are.
>
> And I was giving you credit for having half a brain.
>
> So using transported clocks to measure the one-way speed of light is
> not an experiment. You need your head examined, pronto.
>
> On 14 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5/14/2013 7:37 PM, SRdude wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>
> >>> so it's no wonder that you get a different measurement of c with improperly
> >>> synchronized clocks.
>
> >>> idiot.
>
> >> Now you are Absolutely Horizontal.
>
> >> Your statement just leads directly to more quagmires.  Since the two
> >> origin clocks were certainly absolutely synchronous at the start of

> Here is the first experiment replayed:
>
> We start with two clocks of an inertial coordinate system.
>
> [0]-----------x axis-----------[?]
> Clock A                            Clock B

<SNIP>

> Clocks A and B are now used to measure light's one-way speed.

No, you cant do that. B does not represent time in A's frame; it is
not e-synched with A. B is like om random number you set on B. If you
want to use SR, its "x" and "t" represent coordinated variables,
coordinated by the e-synch. Your transported clock B is NOT e-synched
in A's frame. Get that through your head.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

FWIW, anyone can use this diagram to make sure
you and Brian are talking about the same thing:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/JonesSpeed.png

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:kn2717$sim$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

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

It’s worth fuck all, shithead.

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

 

 

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 8:06 PM, SRdude wrote:
> On 5 /14 /2013, Vert wrote:
>> On 5/14/2013 7:10 PM, SRdude wrote:
>>
>>> Special relativity claims that absolute motion is a meaningless
>>> concept. It also claims that clocks do not have different intrinsic
>>> or physical rates. Both of these very stupid claims were utterly
>>> invalidated via my simple clock transport experiments.
>>
>
>> you did not refer to experiments of any kind. suppositions about
>> hypothetical situations are not experiments. do not flatter yourself
>> that they are.
>
> And I was giving you credit for having half a brain.
>
> So using transported clocks to measure the one-way speed of light is
> not an experiment. You need your head examined, pronto.

it is a _proposal_ for an experiment. you also _predict_ the results of
that experiment. an experiment involves really taking data, and using
the data to check the predictions. you are not describing any
experimental results.

as i pointed out to you, you are proposing to measure the speed of light
with two clocks, but you are not using synchronized clocks for the
reasons i've already described. so the claim that you are measuring the
speed of _anything_ let alone light, is a rather crappy experimental
proposal.

>
> On 14 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>
>> On 5/14/2013 7:37 PM, SRdude wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>>>
>>>> so it's no wonder that you get a different measurement of c with improperly
>>>> synchronized clocks.
>>>>
>>>> idiot.
>>>
>>> Now you are Absolutely Horizontal.
>>>
>>> Your statement just leads directly to more quagmires. Since the two
>>> origin clocks were certainly absolutely synchronous at the start of
>>> the experiment, WHY would they NOT be absolutely synchronous after one
>>> moved steadily on down the road?
>>
>> they are not synchronous initially. they are _stopped_ remember? you
>> choose starting events with the passage of a transported clock. if the
>> motion of the transported clock is _slow_ enough that you cannot detect
>> any effects of its motion, then it is a slowly transported clock. if it
>> is not transported slow enough that this is the case, then you have not
>> done slow clock transport.
>
> You still do not even understand the given experiments, and they are
> very simple.
>
> I never said a word about doing "slow clock transport."

you are using a transported clock to synchronize the clocks. the clocks
will not be synchronized unless the transported clock is _slowly_
transported. by your _own_ description, the criterion of slow transport
is violated in the second case.

i don't know why this very obvious thing eludes you.

i've already answered this, if you would kindly pay attention. transport
is slow enough if variations in that transport speed result in effects
that are below the clock's resolution. that is, if the measurement of
the speed of light is _insensitive_ to the motion of the transported
clock, then the transport of that clock is slow enough.

specify a clock precision and a distance of transport, and it's easy to
then specify how slow is slow enough. as i've told you several times
now, it's plain that you do not understand what slow transport means,
and the fact that you are _still_ repeating the same questions about it
underscores that.

as in 'relative motion cannot possibly affect a clock, but absolute
motion most certainly can!'

right.

idiot.

because the clocks are not synchronized!

if you use two clocks to measure the speed of a train and the clocks are
not synchronized, you will not be measuring the speed of the train. or
of anything!

clocks synchronized by a slowly transported clock are only synchronized
if the transported clock moves sufficiently slowly. period. i've said
this, like, nine times, and you _still_ don't get what slow clock
transport means.

>
>>>

answered. several times.
read it.
reread it, if necessary.

[SRdude]

On 15 May 2013, rotchm wrote:

>On May 15, 8:33 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:00:53 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> It is not mine, it is the only one that exists in physics. No need to
>> specify further.
>
>Talking a bout a one way speed measurement (owsm) here. The owsm uses
>two e-synched clocks. Your transport procedure is not an e-synch
>procedure; it does not coordinate the value of the B clock to A's
>iframe. B does not represent time in the A frame.

So what? All my experiments are supposed to show is that SR has no
explanation nor even mentions clocks that were once truly or
absolutely synchronous getting different speeds for light.

>No need of "reasons" nor "causes". You may want causes but SR is
>devoid of such concepts and is not needed in physics. Moreover, SR
>does not predict different OWLS as you present it. If it does, show
>the math. You still havent showed the math of your claim.

SR must state theoretically what happens when two clocks that are
absolutely synchronous depart. SR is a theory about clocks and rulers
and their use in the measurement of events.

>> What do you say is the cause for the different light speeds?
>
>In SR, that notion (cause) is not defined, thus no "cause". Also, SR
>does not predict different lightspeeds. It predicts that all
>lightspeeds is (will be measured as) c.

Right - since SR does not predict different light speeds, it is wrong,
because my experiments definitely show different light speeds per
clocks that were truly or absolutely synchronous at the start.

>> >And I stand by it. Your clock transport is not a valid synch
>> >procedure. If you want to analize SR, use SR's premises. In SR the
>> >synch procedure is the e-sync.
>>
>> Not according to John Wheeler, a relativity expert.
>
>Yes according to Wheeler.
>
>> He claimed that
>> there are two valid clock synchronization methods, namely, E-synch
>
>Yes, as Poincare stated well before 1905.
>
>> and very slow clock transport.
>
>No. You misunderstand what he and that meant. It meant that *if* its
>done sufficiently slow, then the discrepancy will be below the
>precision of the measuring devices. In that case, the slow clock
>transport can be taken to be ~ e-synch. In the case of v-->0, the
>discrepancy -->0 but also is physically impossible: v-->0, the
>transported clock will never reach its destination, even if its 1
>millimeter away!

Since "slowness" (n SR) is relative, your argument is ambiguous at
best.

>> The transported clocks were truly synch'd with the frame's origin
>> clock at the start.
>
>No, not at all. proof:
>
>Let D be the distance between fixed points A and A'. e-synch these
>clocks. Done.
>Let clockB (cB) set itself to zero with A and travels with speed v to
>its destination A'.
>It takes a time of t = D/v for cB to coincide with A', i.e. the value
>on A' is t = D/v. SR says that as cB coincides with A', the value on
>cB is t/g = (D/v)/g = (D/v)s(1-v2/c2), s=sqrt.
>
>OIW, A' = D/v (time in the original frame, or the frame of A), and
>B = (D/v)/g.
>
>IOW, A' <> B. They do not show the same value; B does not represent
>time in A frame.

It was a given that the two passing clocks were set to zero when they
met in passing. This is called absolute synchronization. Your lack of
understanding does not invalidate it.

>> A question: Why would the transported clocks get out-of-synch with the
>> origin clock?
>
>Bad question; you cant compare side-by-side A and B since B is gone
>overthere. You mean to ask if the transported clock will be out of
>synch with *time* in A's frame....or, you mean to ask if the
>transported clock will be out of synch with the A's clock located at
>the destination point (A'). Answer: Yes the transported clock will be
>theoretically out of synch, as shown above. BUT, if v is sufficiently
>small, this out of synch will not be noticed by A' due to its limited
>accuracy. Thats what Wheeler meant.

You simply did not grasp the question's meaning. I shall rephrase it
thusly: We all know that SR's clocks are not truly synchronous, and we
also know that there is no known method for truly synchronizing two
clocks, so the clocks in my little experiments must become
asynchronous (absolutely asynchronous) after they separate.

"If v is sufficiently small" refers to a mere relative speed, and such
speeds cannot have any physical effect upon clocks. You keep
repeating this serious error ad nauseam.

>> I predict that you will merely sidestep.
>
>Wrong again.
>
>> This coming from someone who hasn't even read Wheeler....
>
>Ha! Only if you knew...

I do know because I have read Wheeler for literally decades, so it is
easy to tell who has read him and who has not.

Dr. Cad

[SRdude]

On 16 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>Dr Cad wrote:

>> Tell us why my 2 transported clocks obtain different values for the
>> one-way speed of light. That is the question.
>
>because the clocks are not synchronized!

At last, we are getting somewhere. Not only are the clocks not
synchronized, but they are differently asynchronous in each case. (I
presented two cases.)

However, as was given, the transported clock was truly synchronized
with the frame's origin clock at the start. (Both were set to read
zero when they met in passing.)

Why would these two absolutely synchronous clocks become asynchronous
merely because they separate (sans acceleration)?

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

On May 16, 8:17 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
> On 15 May 2013, rotchm wrote:

> >Talking a bout a one way speed measurement (owsm) here. The owsm uses
> >two e-synched clocks. Your transport procedure is not an e-synch
> >procedure; it does not coordinate the value of the B clock to A's
> >iframe. B does not represent time in the A frame.
>
> So what?

Well duh. If you want to measure speed, speed is defined via e-synch
clocks. If you dont use e-synch clocks for the measurement of speed,
then you are not measuring speed.

> All my experiments are supposed to show is that SR has no
> explanation

We all agree on that. SR doesnt "explain"; It makes a prediction, it
tells you what will be indicted on devices &if you indate what you
did/do to them*.

> nor even mentions clocks that were once truly or
> absolutely synchronous getting different speeds for light.

Yes SR does make predictions for that. It prediccts that if you take
the distane and divide it by *your* clock transport procedure, you
will not obtain a value equal to c. Then again, that what you
'measured' was not a speed measurement.

For instance, I leave point A as my watch indicates zero. I travel a
distance 20 meters and stop. As I stop someone there tells me that his
watch indicates 62 seconds. Another person there tells me that his
watch indicates 50 seconds and another tells me 3601 seconds. My speed
was not 20/62 nor 20/50 nor 20/3601 since these watches (your
transported clock) are NOT TIME in the frame of point A.

> SR must state theoretically what happens when two clocks that are
> absolutely synchronous depart.  SR is a theory about clocks and rulers
> and their use in the measurement of events.

And it does tell you. We all showed you the math.

> >In SR, that notion (cause) is not defined, thus no "cause". Also, SR
> >does not predict different lightspeeds. It predicts that all
> >lightspeeds is (will be measured as) c.
>
> Right - since SR does not predict different light speeds,

*when you use the conventional measurement procedures*

> it is wrong,
> because my experiments definitely show different light speeds per
> clocks that were truly or absolutely synchronous at the start.

No, your procedure is NOT a (conventional, valid) speed measurement.
The t in SR, the t in x/t represents *time* as per defrined by the e-
synch procedure. If your clocks are not e-synch then their values are
NOT time; are not t.

> >No. You misunderstand what he and that meant. It meant that *if* its
> >done sufficiently slow, then the discrepancy will be below the
> >precision of the measuring devices. In that case, the slow clock
> >transport can be taken to be ~ e-synch. In the case of v-->0, the
> >discrepancy -->0 but also is physically impossible: v-->0, the
> >transported clock  will never reach its destination, even if its 1
> >millimeter away!
>
> Since "slowness" (n SR) is relative, your argument is ambiguous at
> best.

No. Slow here is well defined. We here have explained to you what it
means. It means "such that it is below he sensitivity of the measuring
devices".

> It was a given that the two passing clocks were set to zero when they
> met in passing. This is called absolute synchronization.

No quite. It is called initially setting (to zero). Absolute synch
means that two clocks (together OR distant) indicate the same value.
But this is just a semantics question. I understand what you meant.

> You simply did not grasp the question's meaning.  I shall rephrase it
> thusly: We all know that SR's clocks are not truly synchronous,

Two distant clocks that are e-synch are not abs-synch, correct.

> and we also know that there is no known method for truly
> synchronizing two clocks,

Correct. No know method to abs-synch two remote distant clocks.

> so the clocks in my little experiments must become
> asynchronous (absolutely asynchronous) after they separate.

Must? Why? According to experiment? Or according to some theory?
According to LET the become abs-asynch. According to SR, the notion
of abs-synch does not exist. According to experiment, we agreed that
no exp can do/detect this.

> "If v is sufficiently small" refers to a mere relative speed, and such
> speeds cannot have any physical effect upon clocks.  You keep
> repeating this serious error ad nauseam.

"sufficiently small" means such that it is smaller than the accuracies
of the instruments involved.
Forget 'sufficiently small'; just take v and do the calculations.

In SR, its irrelevant to consider if speeds have effects on clocks. SR
says, DO THE MATH and the result will be the value indicate on the
instruments.

> I do know because I have read Wheeler for literally decades, so it is
> easy to tell who has read him and who has not.

And you failed to understand it for all these years. I on the other
hand did more than just reading it.

SHOW THE MATH.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
> On 16 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>
>> Dr Cad wrote:
>
>>> Tell us why my 2 transported clocks obtain different values for the
>>> one-way speed of light. That is the question.
>>
>> because the clocks are not synchronized!
>
> At last, we are getting somewhere. Not only are the clocks not
> synchronized, but they are differently asynchronous in each case. (I
> presented two cases.)

I presented an infinity of them:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/JonesSpeed.png

>
> However, as was given, the transported clock was truly synchronized
> with the frame's origin clock at the start. (Both were set to read
> zero when they met in passing.)
>
> Why would these two absolutely synchronous clocks become asynchronous
> merely because they separate (sans acceleration)?

Why SHould these two "absolutely synchronous" clocks remain
synchronous when they separate (sans acceleration)? Because
you can't wrap your tiny mind around what everyone can see
for themselves? Blame your parents, Brian.

Dirk Vdm

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/16/2013 7:30 PM, SRdude wrote:
> On 16 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>
>> Dr Cad wrote:
>
>>> Tell us why my 2 transported clocks obtain different values for the
>>> one-way speed of light. That is the question.
>>
>> because the clocks are not synchronized!
>
> At last, we are getting somewhere. Not only are the clocks not
> synchronized, but they are differently asynchronous in each case. (I
> presented two cases.)

yes, of course. that's precisely what i've been telling you for several
posts now.

>
> However, as was given, the transported clock was truly synchronized
> with the frame's origin clock at the start. (Both were set to read
> zero when they met in passing.)

so? the transported clock is not transported _slowly enough_ to the
other clock. therefore it cannot be used to synchronize the other two
clocks.

> Why would these two absolutely synchronous clocks become asynchronous
> merely because they separate (sans acceleration)?

because they are in relative motion and therefore do not _stay_ in
synchronization. only clocks that are at rest relative to each other
_stay_ in synchronization, or clocks that are in _slow enough_ relative
motion that the difference is below clock resolution.

duh.

that's why using a transported clock to synchronize two other clocks
requires the transport to be _slow_. that's the point of _slow
transport_. this is what i've been trying to press into your forehead,
but i clearly did not appreciate the thickness and the density of the
bone there.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/13/13 5/13/13 - 6:58 PM, SRdude wrote:
> [...]

> Although special relativity theory agree that the one-way light speeds
> are different, the paradox lies in the fact that the theory has no
> physical explanation for these different one-way light speeds.

Nonsense. The only "paradox" here is why you think you can discuss SR when you
so clearly don't understand it.

There is no need for any "physical explanation" here, because the explanation is
GEOMETRICAL: the differently moving transported clocks have different
orientations in spacetime, and thus different projections onto the inertial
frame in which clocks A and B are at rest. Using them for clock synchronization
necessarily introduces errors; in many cases those errors can be neglected, but
not here where you are attempting to discuss them.

BTW it is not the "one-way light speeds" that are different, it is the FAULTY
MEASUREMENTS of one-way light speed that are different.

> The immediate cause of the different light speeds is the difference in
> time readings on the transported clocks at the end.

Yes. Caused by differing geometrical relationships among the clocks involved.

> The only possible
> cause for these different time readings is the difference in absolute
> speeds of the transported clocks.

No. All you have shown here is your own personal ignorance. As always happens
around here, attempts to argue by exhaustive enumeration fail, because the
person attempting the argument does not understand modern physics and the full
range of possible phenomena.

Knowledgeable people are aware of their own limits, and never
attempt such arguments, knowing there can be things they don't
know.


> Special relativity not only denies the just-proved facts[..]

You have "proven" NOTHING. And your claims are not "facts". You have merely
displayed an astoundingly naive usage of basic words like "proved" and "fact",
and repeated your personal MISCONCEPTIONS about relativity.

Which makes your chosen nym particularly ironic. And silly.


Tom Roberts

[SRdude]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:52:43 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In SR, its irrelevant to consider if speeds have effects on clocks. SR
>says, DO THE MATH and the result will be the value indicate on the
>instruments.

That is your problem, the SR math, because it is based on absolutely
asynchronous clocks.

There is no basis for the SR math.

Also, the math is incorrect because it is based on the use of
admittedly asynchronous clocks.(They cannot measure the actual
relative speeds of the transported clocks. much less their absolute
speeds, which are the only speeds that count.)

Epicycles all over again.

My simple experiments prove that clocks that were once absolutely
synchronous become asynchronous because of their motion through space,
as evidenced by the fact that clocks moving at different speeds
through space get different values for the speed of light.

SR is physically irrelevant at best.

Dr. Cad

[SRdude]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 06:43:19 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
<absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Why would these two absolutely synchronous clocks become asynchronous
>> merely because they separate (sans acceleration)?
>
>because they are in relative motion and therefore do not _stay_ in
>synchronization. only clocks that are at rest relative to each other
>_stay_ in synchronization, or clocks that are in _slow enough_ relative
>motion that the difference is below clock resolution.

So how do clocks that are in relative motion become absolutely
asynchronous after they were absolutely synchronous? Do monkeys do
it?

Dr. Cad

[SRdude]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:17:38 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>BTW it is not the "one-way light speeds" that are different, it is the FAULTY
>MEASUREMENTS of one-way light speed that are different.

So tell us all how math can make clocks faulty, we're dying to know.

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

On May 17, 10:04 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:52:43 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In SR, its irrelevant to consider if speeds have effects on clocks. SR
> >says, DO THE MATH and the result will be the value indicate on the
> >instruments.
>
> That is your problem, the SR math, because it is based on absolutely
> asynchronous clocks.

So what, It works! SR's math will correctly predict what will be on
the "abs async clocks"; it will correctly predict what we can observe.

> There is no basis for the SR math.

The math is interesting. The math correctly predicts outcomes of
experiments.

> Also, the math is incorrect because it is based on the use of
> admittedly asynchronous clocks.

The variables of SR's math are represented by observables in physics.
It so happen that the prediction of SR's math correctly predicts
observables, so we use its math!

> (They cannot measure the actual
> relative speeds of the transported clocks.

So what.

> much less their absolute
> speeds, which are the only speeds that count.)

So what.


> Epicycles all over again.

Contrary to the epicycles, SR *does* make correct predictions.

> My simple experiments prove that clocks that were once absolutely
> synchronous become asynchronous because of their motion through space,
> as evidenced by the fact that clocks moving at different speeds

Thats what SR predicts.

> through space get different values for the speed of light.

No they dont get different speeds for light because those clocks are
not valid instruments; they do not adhere to the measurement
procedure.

Comment this that you avoided:

[rotchm]

On May 17, 10:11 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
>
> So how do clocks that are in relative motion become absolutely
> asynchronous after they were absolutely synchronous?  Do monkeys do
> it?

We told you, it is irrelevant "how". The "causes" are irrelevant.
"causes" are not part of physics but of philosophy/metaphysics. Even
if we would give causes, that will not change the math of SR and
will not change the outcome of experiments.

[rotchm]

On May 17, 10:13 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:17:38 -0500, Tom Roberts
>

> <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >BTW it is not the "one-way light speeds" that are different, it is the FAULTY
> >MEASUREMENTS of one-way light speed that are different.
>
> So tell us all how math can make clocks faulty, we're dying to know.

Thats not what he meant. He meant that YOUR measurement procedure is
faulty, in the sense that it does not adhere to the definition of
time.

It is one thing to not understand SR, but now you are also
misunderstanding simple english language.

[Absolutely Vertical]

they were never 'absolutely synchronous'.

setting two clocks at the same time at one moment does not make them
synchronous. even in the _ordinary_ world, if i have one well-oiled
clock and one rusty clock, getting them to both start at the same time
and therefore read the same time at that instant is easy. the trick is
getting them to read the same time at any time later. doing the first
does not make them synchronized. they are only synchronized if you can
go back and check them later and see that they are _still_ synchronized.

good lord, you are denser that a triple whopper at burger king.

[Absolutely Vertical]

math didn't make them faulty. your procedure for synchronizing them
using a non-slowly-transported clock is what's faulty.

[SRdude]

On 17 May 2013, Tom Roberts wrote:

>On 5/13/13, SRdude wrote:
<<snip>>

>There is no need for any "physical explanation" here, because the explanation is
>GEOMETRICAL: the differently moving transported clocks have different
>orientations in spacetime, and thus different projections onto the inertial
>frame in which clocks A and B are at rest. Using them for clock synchronization
>necessarily introduces errors; in many cases those errors can be neglected, but
>not here where you are attempting to discuss them.

>Tom Roberts

There is no math involved in cases of proper time.

During proper time cases, a single clock has two readings that are
agreed upon by all observers in all frames WITHOUT doing any math at
all.

To repeat: There are no projections onto any frame. There are merely
direct clock readings of the transported clocks. No math.

Therefore, the simple experiments given by me DO require a physical
explanation, and the only one is the fact that clocks that move faster
through space really run slower. Why you cannot see this is way
beyond my comprehension.

Dr. Cad

[SRdude]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:02:37 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

Since the time reading at any is taking instantaneously, all that is
needed is instantaneous absolutely synch, and we both agree that that
is the case in my clock transport experiments.

Trying to weasel out only tightens the noose.

Dr. Cad

[SRdude]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:33:58 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>

You missed the point again; the point is that clocks that were once
truly synchronous became truly asynchronous. This is not covered by
any math, much less SR's.

Dr, Cad

[rotchm]

On May 19, 3:31 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:

> the point is that clocks that were once
> truly synchronous became truly asynchronous.

Of course. So what? If you have two truly synch clocks and you tamper
with one of them you get two asynch clocks. In your setup, you
tampered with one of them so you cant expect them to be truly abs.
synch anymore.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

SRdude S...@Not.net
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka Ron-boy
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth

Don't lose any sleep of *that*, Brian.
EVERYTHING is beyond your comprehension.
You are just a CAD-designer, remember?

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

For Brian, showing the same time is a synonym for synchronous.
Arguing about furniture with someone who calls a table a chair is
a waste of their time.

Dirk Vdm

[Absolutely Vertical]

don't be an idiot. you transported a clock over time. that is not
instantaneous. during that time, the transported clock became
desynchronized with the first stationary clock.

i have no idea why you are pretending this simple and obvious fact is
beyond you.

[rotchm]

On May 19, 6:17 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:

> For Brian, showing the same time is a synonym for synchronous.

I know...just as seto, brian is misusing the words and is confused
about their meanings.

[SRdude]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:32:19 -0500, Absolutely Vertical

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

>On 5/19/2013 2:27 PM, SRdude wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:02:37 -0500, Absolutely Vertical
>>

>> Since the time reading at any is taking [taken] instantaneously, all that is

>> needed is instantaneous absolutely synch, and we both agree that that
>> is the case in my clock transport experiments.
>
>don't be an idiot. you transported a clock over time. that is not
>instantaneous. during that time, the transported clock became
>desynchronized with the first stationary clock.

My initial post in this thread was more than sufficient.

However, I will say this re your above:
Reread my above, trying for understanding

Dr. Cad

[Absolutely Vertical]

i understood what you wrote above, which is precisely why i asked you
not to be an idiot.

reread what _i've_ written. this time for understanding.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

In Brian Jones lingo a meterstick and a yardstick "have the same length"
because they both have a zero marker.
As I said, arguing about furniture with someone who calls a table a chair is

[Nick Strawberry]

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> In Brian Jones lingo a meterstick and a yardstick "have the same length"
> because they both have a zero marker.
> As I said, arguing about furniture with someone who calls a table a chair
> is a waste of their time.

Exactly, as a paradox that is not a paradox. In relativity
words have not meaning. Nor distances, time, speeds and
everything else. Relativity is an Alice in Wonderland.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/20/2013 3:59 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> In Brian Jones lingo a meterstick and a yardstick "have the same length"
> because they both have a zero marker.
> As I said, arguing about furniture with someone who calls a table a
> chair is
> a waste of their time.
>

for some people there is the horror of realization that they've made a
really, really simple error. in brian's case, this is the point of
unacceptability. he simply refuses to acknowledge that he could have
made such a simple mistake or misunderstood something so simple, and so
he says it cannot be that way, period.

[SRdude]

On 20 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>... he [Dr. Cad] simply refuses to acknowledge that he could have

>made such a simple mistake or misunderstood something so simple,
>and so he says it cannot be that way, period.

I think I see the problem -- I have been talking over your head.

Let's back off to the bare basics so you can get it.

Special relativity says that relative speeds can be measured.

Your mission is to show us how this can happen.

An object is moving steadily along the x axis of inertial coordinate
system A.

Starting with unstarted clocks, tell us in detail how the observers of
A can measure the relative speed of the given object. (Each step must
be justified.)

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

On May 20, 7:54 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:

> Let's back off to the bare basics so you can get it.
>
> Special relativity says that relative speeds can be measured.

No, SR does not say that. Physicist using common language say that.

> Your mission is to show us how this can happen.

In physics, observables have operational definitions. Thats how.

> An object is moving steadily along the x axis of inertial coordinate
> system A.
>
> Starting with unstarted clocks, tell us in detail how the observers of
> A can measure the relative speed of the given object.  (Each step must
> be justified.)

It is called simply "speed". It is the speed wrt A (iframe of A).
Sometimes called 'speed relative to A' or 'relative speed'. But down
to it, its simply 'speed wrt A'. Physically, it it the speed as
measured by A.

Speed has an operational definition. From this definition you can
devise many ways to measure its speed.
One way follows: Measure a distance between to fixed points, A and B,
say. E-synch the clocks there. Let the traveling object go from A to
B. Its speed is v = D/T where T = t2 - t1 the time marked by B at
arrival - time marked by A at departure. (technically, this is the
average speed, but we are considering nly constants speeds in our
discussion). Simple, no?!

>
> Dr. Cad

[SRdude]

On 20 May 2013, rotchm wrote:

>Speed has an operational definition. From this definition you can
>devise many ways to measure its speed.
>One way follows: Measure a distance between to fixed points, A and B,
>say. E-synch the clocks there. Let the traveling object go from A to
>B. Its speed is v = D/T where T = t2 - t1 the time marked by B at
>arrival - time marked by A at departure. (technically, this is the
>average speed, but we are considering nly constants speeds in our
>discussion). Simple, no?!

Good start, Mr. rotchm! But the part that you didn't justify was the
key part, namely, "E-synch."

E-synch must be done *prior* to any speed measurement.

But E-synch uses c as light's (one-way, two-clock) relative speed.

Do you see the problem?

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

On May 20, 8:34 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:

> Good start, Mr. rotchm!  But the part that you didn't justify was the
> key part, namely, "E-synch."

It is justified: it is part of the operational definition of speed
( actually, of time, and speed is then D/T)

> E-synch must be done *prior* to any speed measurement.

And it was in my procedure.

> But E-synch uses c as light's (one-way, two-clock) relative speed.

Irrelevant. e-synch does not use the SoL per se; it uses light, no
matter its behavior. The SoL may be even variable but the
*op.defintion* of e-synch does not change.

> Do you see the problem?

yes I have... it is you that doesnt understand the concept of an
operational definition.

[SRdude]

On 20 May 2013, rotchm wrote:

>Dr Cad wrote:
>> But E-synch uses c as light's (one-way, two-clock) relative speed.
>
>Irrelevant. e-synch does not use the SoL per se; it uses light, no
>matter its behavior. The SoL may be even variable but the
>*op.defintion* of e-synch does not change.

Objection overruled by expert (John A. Wheeler).

The following is from Wheeler & Taylor's book
_Spacetime Physics_, 1963 edition, page 18:

[Wheeler's "latticework" = standard coordinate system]
"... We assume that every clock in the latticework,
whatever its construction, has been calibrated
in meters of light-travel time."
"How are the different clocks in the lattice to be
synchronized with one another? As follows: Pick one
of the clocks in the lattice as the standard of time
and take it to be the origin of an x, y, z coordinate
system, Start this reference clock with its pointer
at t = 0. At this instant let it send out a flash of
light that spreads in all directions. Call this flash
of light the reference flash. When the reference flash
gets to a clock 5 meters away, we want that clock to
read 5 meters of light-travel time. So an assistant
sets that clock to 5 meters of time long before the
experiment begins, holds it at 5 meters, and releases
it only when the reference flash arrives. When [the]
assistants at all the clocks in the lattice have
followed this procedure (each setting his clock to
a time in meters equal to his own distance from the
reference clock and starting it when the light flash
arrives), the clocks in the lattice are said to be
synchronized."

It is clear that E-synch somehow assumes that light's one-way speed
wrt a frame is c, but with zero justification.

Therefore, the problem that I mentioned earlier is still here.

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

On May 20, 9:47 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:

> Objection overruled by expert (John A. Wheeler).

Ha! Only if you knew...
John's book supports my claims...

> The following is from Wheeler & Taylor's book
> _Spacetime Physics_, 1963 edition, page 18:
>
> [Wheeler's "latticework" = standard coordinate system]
> "... We assume that every clock in the latticework,
> whatever its construction, has been calibrated
> in meters of light-travel time."

Yes, that is (equivalent to) e-synch.

>   "How are the different clocks in the lattice to be

>...

>the clocks in the lattice are said to be synchronized."

Yes, that passage is ok. But you need to understand it.

> It is clear that E-synch somehow assumes that light's one-way speed
> wrt a frame is c, but with zero justification.

It *seems* to make such an assumption, but it does not. Do not judge
on appearances; Do not mis-imply. Let the math imply.

> Therefore, the problem that I mentioned earlier is still here.

Yes, your misunderstanding is still here.

A definition is to be taken face down, as is. The op.def. of e-synch
simply requires to sent a light pulse 'over there', no matter how/why/
speed light does it. When the pulse arrives at the "5 light meter", it
is time "5 meter second" there, no matter the properties of light.
Very simple concept.

[SRdude]

On 20 May 2013, rotchm wrote:

>When the pulse arrives at the "5 light meter", it
>is time "5 meter second" there, no matter the
>properties of light.

Why not 4 meters or 6? Why 5?

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

It was their choice.

The gridpoint indicates 5 meters. Why then call it 4 seconds? The
simplest would be to call it 5 seconds. Grindpoint x meters will be
set to x seconds. What can be simpler!?

Based on that choice of theirs, this choice satisfies then the LT's
and then correctly predicts the outcomes of exp's. so they kept their
choice, their convention, their op.def's .

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/20/2013 6:54 PM, SRdude wrote:
> On 20 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>
>> ... he [Dr. Cad] simply refuses to acknowledge that he could have
>> made such a simple mistake or misunderstood something so simple,
>> and so he says it cannot be that way, period.
>
> I think I see the problem -- I have been talking over your head.

:)

>
> Let's back off to the bare basics so you can get it.

ah, you mean change the subject to something else you have a problem
with....

>
> Special relativity says that relative speeds can be measured.
>
> Your mission is to show us how this can happen.
>
> An object is moving steadily along the x axis of inertial coordinate
> system A.
>
> Starting with unstarted clocks, tell us in detail how the observers of
> A can measure the relative speed of the given object. (Each step must
> be justified.)

sure.
1. use synchronized, spatially separated clocks at rest to measure the
length of the moving object in that frame.
2. let the object pass by a third, synchronized, spatially separated,
at-rest clock. measure the times for the front of the object and the
back of the object to pass the clock.
3. the relative velocity of the passing object is then L/(t_back - t_front).

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/20/2013 8:47 PM, SRdude wrote:
> It is clear that E-synch somehow assumes that light's one-way speed
> wrt a frame is c, but with zero justification.

e-synch only requires an isotropic signal of _any_ kind. light happens
to satisfy that, but others could be used. walking, if necessary.

the isotropy of the speed of light is established in experiments that do
not require synchronized clocks. that is, there is an experimental basis
for using light as a signal to be used in an e-synching procedure, in a
manner that is not circular.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/17/13 5/17/13 - 9:13 PM, SRdude wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:17:38 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> BTW it is not the "one-way light speeds" that are different, it is the FAULTY
>> MEASUREMENTS of one-way light speed that are different.
>
> So tell us all how math can make clocks faulty, we're dying to know.

I repeat: you are VERY confused.

The math is part of the MODEL, not the world, and so can have no effect on the
clocks. But GR does accurately MODEL how real clocks behave in the world we inhabit.

The clocks are NOT "faulty", they are what they are. What is faulty is your
preconceived notion of how you imagine clocks "ought to behave" -- in the world
we inhabit, clocks most definitely do NOT behave as you wish them to.

Your dreams and fantasies are NOT binding on nature. And, as it happens, they
are flat-out WRONG.


Tom Roberts

[SRdude]

Dear Mr. Rotchm:

We need some common ground.

Do you agree that light-like events have an absolute before-and-after?

Dr. Cad

[SRdude]

Dear Vert:

See my latest question for Mr. Rotchm.


Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

Not sure what you mean and seems to be irrelevant. e-synch and speeds
are op. defined. SR predicts the results of such definitions. Those
predictions, which agree with exp's btw, will not change, no matter
how one defines "before-and-after" or "causality" or "light-like"
events.

[SRdude]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Not sure what you mean and seems to be irrelevant.

I mean this: Do you agree that all observers will agree on the time
order of light-like events?

(Its relevancy will soon become apparent.)

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

On May 21, 9:50 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:

> I mean this: Do you agree that all observers will agree on the time
> order of light-like events?

yes.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/21/2013 6:57 PM, SRdude wrote:
> Dear Vert:
>
> See my latest question for Mr. Rotchm.
>
>

in answer to that question, absolute sequencing of events holds true for
timelike-separated or lightlike-separated events.

[SRdude]

To Mr. rotchm:

Let's talk about a couple of light-like events that have a lot to do
with E-synch.

Let 2 inertial frames A & B pass a light source S.

Each frame has a couple of clocks. Neither frame's clocks move wrt it.

Observers in Frame A, using light's round-trip time per one clock,
find that their particular clocks are 5 light-minutes apart.

Observers in Frame B, using light's round-trip time per one clock,
find that their two clocks are 5 light-minutes apart.

Using John A. Wheeler's version of E-synch, each set of observers must
place the time 5 minutes on their distant clock before the observers
use light to start the clocks (given that the other clock is set to
zero).

Here is a picture of the frames passing the light source S as it emits
a light ray when both origin clocks start on zero:

Frame A
[0]--------------------[5] -->
S~~>
[0]--------------------[5] --->
Frame B

(it is not critical that the frames' distant clocks be perfectly
aligned on paper at this step)

At this point, neither frame actually has its own time. Observers in
both frames are going to use the experiment to give each his own time,
whatever that may be. Therefore, we cannot simply declare
automatically that each frame will end up in "a different time zone,"
as special relativity declares. Reality (via experiment) MUST decide,
not SR.

Frame A
------[0]--------------------[5] -->
S------------------------------>
--------------[0]--------------------[5] --->
Frame B

At this point, all observers in all frames see A's distant clock being
started by the light ray. Although there is actually ZERO
justification for this clock's start time being 5-lm, we will be kind
to Einstein and let this slide.

Frame A
---------[0]--------------------[5] -->
S------------------------------------------->
-------------------[0]--------------------[5] --->
Frame B

But we cannot let this slide. That is, we cannot allow B's distant
clock to read the same start time as did A's because the clocks
actually were started at absolutely different times (since the two
clock-starting events were light-like).

Not only did the distant clocks start at absolutely different times,
but we also know that A's started before B's.

Therefore, according to reality (or experiment), B's distant clock
must have a start time that is greater than A's.

Of course, not having truly or absolutely synchronous clocks at hand,
we really have no idea what the actual one-way light travel time was
for either A or B. But it turns out that we do not need to know these
actual times in order to judge E-synch.

All we really need to know is that A's one-way time was not equal to
B's. And, just for fun, we can add the simple fact that B's time was
greater than A's.

As we said above, we were giving Einstein (undo) credit by allowing
his A time of 5 light-minutes. and we will be kind enough to retain
this value for A. But reality has forced us to use a B time of >5
minutes, say 7 minutes.

At a minimum, at least *this* correction MUST be made to E-synch
before either frame's clocks can be used. (We should also correct for
Einstein's baseless assumption that A's distant clock should have a
start time of 5, and we should further correct for the fact that
clocks run slower the faster they travel through space.)

We will now use each frame's clocks to "measure" light's one-way
speed:

speed = measured distance / 2-clock time

Frame A's one-way light speed = 5 light-minutes/5 minutes = c

Frame B's one-way light speed = 5 light-minutes/7 minutes /= c

In conclusion:

1. E-synch conflicts with reality by forcing two clocks that are
started at absolutely different times to read the same start time.
E-synch cannot be allowed.

2. It is wrong to assume or to postulate something that is both
physically and logically impossible. For example, it is wrong to
postulate that one can go back in time and kill his own
great-great-grandpa. Thus, it is wrong to postulate or to assume that
light's one-way speed can or must be measured as c in all inertial
frames.

3. Since light does indeed pass different frames differently, its
speed relative to each frame does indeed vary even if this variance
cannot be directly measured currently. (Of course, the above simple
experiment proves this variance without the need for direct
quantification.)

4. The simple fact about light is that it is ---- as far as its
relative movement is concerned ---- NO different from any other
passing entity, such as an asteroid. (Yes, light moves faster than
anything else, but a child should realize that the speed of motion of
any given entity has nothing to with a measurement of its relative
speed.)

5. Since E-synch is bogus, it must be replaced by a valid synch, and
the only valid synch is absolute synch.

6. Given absolute synchronization, we can then detect our absolute
motion through space by simply measuring the relative speed of any
passing light ray.

7. This would allow us to correct for intrinsic clock slowing and
intrinsic ruler contraction, thereby giving us both absolute time and
absolute measurement.

Class is dismissed.

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

On May 22, 8:49 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:

> Here is a picture of the frames passing the light source S as it emits
> a light ray when both origin clocks start on zero:
>
> Frame A
> [0]--------------------[5] -->
> S~~>
> [0]--------------------[5] --->
> Frame B
>
> (it is not critical that the frames' distant clocks be perfectly
> aligned on paper at this step)

So, up to now, they only have set up their 5 meter mark via the
definition of meter. Ok.

> At this point, neither frame actually has its own time.

Ok, they have not coordinated 'time' in thir own frame nor distance,
except for their 5 meter mark.

> Observers in

> both frames are going to use the experiment to give each his own time,

Hmmm...

> whatever that may be.  Therefore, we cannot simply declare
> automatically that each frame will end up in "a different time zone,"
> as special relativity declares.

It declares it if you use the conventional coordination procedure.

> Frame A
> ------[0]--------------------[5] -->
> S------------------------------>
> --------------[0]--------------------[5] --->
> Frame B
>
> At this point, all observers in all frames see A's distant clock being
> started by the light ray.

Ok. But they dont need to 'see'. They all know that the system was set
up that way.

> Although there is actually ZERO
> justification for this clock's start time being 5-lm,

its a convention. It needs to be set to something.

> we will be kind to Einstein and let this slide.
>
> Frame A
> ---------[0]--------------------[5] -->
> S------------------------------------------->
> -------------------[0]--------------------[5] --->
> Frame B
>
> But we cannot let this slide. That is, we cannot allow B's distant
> clock to read the same start time as did A's because the clocks
> actually were started at absolutely different times

So? You can choose your own op.def of time. We can choose our own.

> (since the two clock-starting events were light-like).

And they remain lightlike in both frames:

E1: S flashes.
E2: A5 receives his flash
E3: A'5 receives his flash

Consider the two events E1 and E2. They are LL in A. They are also LL
in A'.

> Not only did the distant clocks start at absolutely different times,
> but we also know that A's started before B's.

Wrt S observer (the way you drew it)

I stop here. You rantings are too long to read and boring.

[SRdude]

On 22 May 2013, rotchm wrote [in part]:

>So? You can choose your own op.def of time. We can choose our own.

You don't merely choose how to correctly measure time; it is not
something that man can dictate.

But this is certain: SR cannot validly measure time because of the
following 4 simple reasons:

1. SR has no basis for its clock "synchronization" procedure.

2. In fact, Einstein admitted that his clocks are not truly
synchronous, so they cannot correctly measure time. (see PS below)

3. SR has no evidence that its clocks are not slowed physically or
intrinsically. (By "intrinsically," I mean this: One twin aged
intrinsically slower than the other.)

4. SR has zero evidence that its rulers are not intrinsically
contracted.

Choosing your own definition of time can be disastrous if you are
stupid.

Dr. Cad
PS quoting Albert: "[In classical physics] [t]he simultaneity of two
definite events with reference to one inertial system involves the
simultaneity of these events in reference to all [other] inertial
systems. This is what is meant when we say that the time of classical
physics is absolute." [Einstein's book _Relativity_, p. 149]
http://hep.fi.infn.it/calvetti/A.Einstein-Relativity.pdf

[rotchm]

On May 23, 8:11 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:

> You don't merely choose how to correctly measure time; it is not
> something that man can dictate.

Yes. It is a convention. They can define the word "time" as they wish
and more importantly, they cn define its op.def as they wish (esynch)

> But this is certain: SR cannot validly measure time because of the
> following 4 simple reasons:
>
> 1. SR has no basis for its clock "synchronization" procedure.

The synch has been chosen over the other synch procedures for many
many reasons. Read Poincare's works.
It is not SR's procedure but physicist procedure. Taking a different
synch procedure would no longer adhere to SR and the eqs of physics
would be more convoluted.

> 2. In fact, Einstein admitted that his clocks are not truly
> synchronous, so they cannot correctly measure time. (see PS below)

esynch *defines* time in a reference frame.

> 3. SR has no evidence that its clocks are not slowed physically or
> intrinsically.

To verify this, one must perform a test. SR correctly predicts the
outcomes of these test.

> (By "intrinsically," I mean this: One twin aged
> intrinsically slower than the other.)

That word will not change the outcome of the tests nor SR's
predictions.

> 4. SR has zero evidence that its rulers are not intrinsically
> contracted.

Same as above.

> Choosing your own definition of time can be disastrous if you are
> stupid.

Correct. They chose esynch so as to make the eqs of physic 'simple'
and to correctly predict the results of exp's. Poincare went through
all this already (even before 1905). Have you read them?

> Dr.  Cad
> PS quoting Albert: "[In classical physics] [t]he simultaneity of two
> definite events with reference to one inertial system involves the
> simultaneity of these events in reference to all [other] inertial
> systems.  This is what is meant when we say that the time of classical
> physics is absolute." [Einstein's book _Relativity_, p. 149]
>  http://hep.fi.infn.it/calvetti/A.Einstein-Relativity.pdf

Yes, that is a different definition of time and does not (fully)
permit us to predict the otucome of exp's.

[SRdude]

On 23 May 2013, rotchm wrote:

>They chose esynch so as to make the eqs of physic 'simple'
>and to correctly predict the results of exp's.

Speaking of predicting the results of experiments, my claim is that
SR's one-way, two-clock light speed invariance is not only a wrong
prediction, but is physically impossible.

And the only way for you to refute my claim is to show how one-way,
two-clock light speed invariance can happen experimentally.

Dr. Cad

[rotchm]

On May 26, 8:54 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
> On 23 May 2013, rotchm wrote:
>
> >They chose esynch so as to make the eqs of physic 'simple'
> >and to correctly predict the results  of exp's.
>
> Speaking of predicting the results of experiments, my claim is that
> SR's one-way, two-clock light speed invariance is not only a wrong

We told you already that it is wrong. Slow clock transport is only an
*approximation* to esynch.

> prediction, but is physically impossible.

You never brought your watch 'overthere'?

[SRdude]

On 26 May 2013, rotchm wrote:

>On May 26, 8:54 pm, SRdude <S...@Not.net> wrote:
>> On 23 May 2013, rotchm wrote:
>>
>> >They chose esynch so as to make the eqs of physic 'simple'
>> >and to correctly predict the results of exp's.
>>
>> Speaking of predicting the results of experiments, my claim is that
>> SR's one-way, two-clock light speed invariance is not only a wrong

>> but is physically impossible.

>
>We told you already that it is wrong. Slow clock transport is only an
>*approximation* to esynch.

So what kind of drugs are you on?

Dr. Cad

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/26/2013 7:54 PM, SRdude wrote:
> Speaking of predicting the results of experiments, my claim is that
> SR's one-way, two-clock light speed invariance is not only a wrong
> prediction, but is physically impossible.

why do you say it is impossible?

be careful about declaring what is possible and impossible, and how you
would go about proving impossibility.

[SRdude]

On 28 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>SRdude wrote:
>> my claim is that SR's one-way, two-clock light speed invariance
>> is not only a wrong prediction, but is physically impossible.
>
>why do you say it is impossible?

The quick answer is When it comes to *relative motion, there is no
physical difference between that of a passing light ray and that of a
passing asteroid. (*I am speaking here of relative motion per se, a
phenomenon that has nothing to do with the speed of any entity; so,
even though light's speed is greater than that of any asteroid, this
is irrelevant here.)

Since light does in fact move differently past each frame, this makes
it impossible to show or to experimentally obtain one-way, two-clock
light speed invariance unless the clocks are forced to lie (or to
conflict with reality).

Here is a simple (1-frame) example of a clock that is forced to lie:

Frame A (moves to right wrt light source S)
[0]---------1 LY-----------[1 Yr] -->v
S~>light ray

Frame A
----------[0]---------1 LY-----------[1 Yr] -->v
S----------------------------------------->light ray

According to John A. Wheeler (who wrote _Spacetime Physics_),
Einsteinian "synchronization" calls for the "distant" clock to read
the time '1 year' even before the light ray is emitted by source S.
And the two clocks are "properly synchronized" if and only if the
distant clock starts on the time '1 year' when the light ray hits it
(after having left the origin clock when it read zero, as shown
above).

However, the A-frame observers know that the light ray's travel time
was different from 1 year because as soon as the light ray was
emitted, Frame A's origin separated from S.

Therefore, the observers cannot justify placing the time '1 year' on
the distant clock.

Here is a simple (2-frame) example of a clock that is forced to lie:

Frame A (does not move wrt light source S)
[0]---------1 LY-----------[1 Yr]
S~>light ray
[0]---------1 LY-----------[1 Yr] -->v
Frame B (moves to right wrt light source S)


Frame A
[0]---------1 LY-----------[1 Yr] -->v
S------------------------------>light ray
----------------[0]---------1 LY-----------[1 Yr] -->v
Frame B

Let's assume that it took 1 year (per A's clocks) for the light ray to
reach A's distant clock. That is, we simply accept SR's claim that
this clock should start on '1 year' when hit by the light ray, as
shown above. However, whenever the ray reaches and starts B's distant
clock, we know that this will take longer than 1 year (because
light-like events have an absolute before-and-after order). Therefore,
it is wrong to place the start time '1 year' on B's distant clock.
The correct time to use is '1 year+' or 'greater than 1 year.'

Given these simple experiments, we see that only one frame (in any set
of parallel frames) can get c for light's one-way speed, and all other
such frames must get different values.

As I said, this is due to the simple fact that light's motion relative
to a group of frames differs just as that of an asteroid.

Dr. Cad

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/28/2013 7:52 PM, SRdude wrote:
> On 28 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>> SRdude wrote:
>>> my claim is that SR's one-way, two-clock light speed invariance
>>> is not only a wrong prediction, but is physically impossible.
>>
>> why do you say it is impossible?
>
> The quick answer is When it comes to *relative motion, there is no
> physical difference between that of a passing light ray and that of a
> passing asteroid. (*I am speaking here of relative motion per se, a
> phenomenon that has nothing to do with the speed of any entity; so,
> even though light's speed is greater than that of any asteroid, this
> is irrelevant here.)

and there isn't any difference.
i'm ignoring the rest of what you've said below, where you falsely
'correct' clocks that you claim are 'lying', and instead taking the
clocks to read as they do.
this _still_ makes it the case that there is no physical difference
between the relative motion of light and relative motion of a passing
light ray. the rule that governs the transformation of the speed of
either object from one observer to another is exactly the same rule for
light and for passing asteroids.

[SRdude]

On 29 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>i'm ignoring the rest of what you've said below, where you falsely
>'correct' clocks that you claim are 'lying', and instead taking the
>clocks to read as they do.

The given clocks have to start before they can read any time. The
problem is, clocks started at absolutely different times must not be
forced to read the same start time.

Which part of this do you not grasp?

>this _still_ makes it the case that there is no physical difference
>between the relative motion of light and relative motion of a passing
>light ray. the rule that governs the transformation of the speed of
>either object from one observer to another is exactly the same rule for
>light and for passing asteroids.

I did not say anything about transforming anything. I was talking
about relative movement per se. If an asteroid passes different frames
differently, then so does anything else, including a light ray.

The only way to reflect this reality is to use truly synchronous
clocks to measure light's passing speed.

And this fact was given by Einstein long before I gave it.

[Quoting Einstein:]
"w is the required velocity of light with respect to
the carriage, and we have

w = c - v.

The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative
to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c.

But this result comes into conflict with the principle
of relativity.... For, like every other general law of
nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo
must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when
the rails are the body of reference."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

(There are NO closing velocities here because such velocities CANNOT
even apparently conflict with the principle of relativity. So don't
try to claim that Einstein was talking about closing velocities.)

Which part of Einstein's "smaller than c" do you fail to comprehend?

Anyway, you were brave enough to reply, and I thank you for that.

Dr. Cad

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/29/2013 6:30 PM, SRdude wrote:
> On 29 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>
> I did not say anything about transforming anything. I was talking
> about relative movement per se. If an asteroid passes different frames
> differently, then so does anything else, including a light ray.

'passes different frames differently' is talking about transforming the
velocity, do you not see that? it's rather obvious.

the problem is the law that is common between these things is not what
you thought it was. you think the law is 'when you change frames, the
velocity changes.' that's not the law. the law is the transformation
rule, and it is common to all things. however, it is not a consequence
of that transformation law that 'when you change frames, the velocity
changes'. that's simply an incorrect conclusion.

[SRdude]

On 30 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>On 5/29/2013, SRdude wrote:

>> I did not say anything about transforming anything. I was talking
>> about relative movement per se. If an asteroid passes different frames
>> differently, then so does anything else, including a light ray.
>
>'passes different frames differently' is talking about transforming the
>velocity, do you not see that? it's rather obvious.

The *difference* is what is obvious, and that difference is the fact
that my claim could pertain to only one frame, whereas your claim
needs at least two. I am doing NO transformations between frames. I
am letting ONE frame's observers look at a passing light ray and try
to at least think about measuring its passing speed (relative speed).

>the problem is the law that is common between these things is not what
>you thought it was. you think the law is 'when you change frames, the
>velocity changes.' that's not the law. the law is the transformation
>rule, and it is common to all things. however, it is not a consequence
>of that transformation law that 'when you change frames, the velocity
>changes'. that's simply an incorrect conclusion.

You are facing two major problems here, viz., (i) there is no basis
for SR's law, and (ii) no one has shown that the classical law is
incorrect. That is, there is no basis for Einstein's
"synchronization," and no one has shown that using truly synchronous
clocks is an invalid operation.

(Of course, you will certainly come up with another inane, irrelevant
reply.)

(This thread was actually complete with the first post. It was born
fully grown.)

Dr. Cad

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/30/2013 7:17 PM, SRdude wrote:
> On 30 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2013, SRdude wrote:
>
>>> I did not say anything about transforming anything. I was talking
>>> about relative movement per se. If an asteroid passes different frames
>>> differently, then so does anything else, including a light ray.
>>
>> 'passes different frames differently' is talking about transforming the
>> velocity, do you not see that? it's rather obvious.
>
> The *difference* is what is obvious, and that difference is the fact
> that my claim could pertain to only one frame, whereas your claim
> needs at least two. I am doing NO transformations between frames.

it's funny how you manage to parse 'passes _different_ frames' to
include the possibility of one frame. to me, and maybe this is my grasp
of the english language here, when you say 'passes _different_ frames'
you're talking about more than one frame, and when you say 'passes
_different_ frames _differently_' you're talking about comparing two
rates of passage, one in each of those different frames. which is
precisely what is meant by a transformation between frames.

> I
> am letting ONE frame's observers look at a passing light ray and try
> to at least think about measuring its passing speed (relative speed).
>
>> the problem is the law that is common between these things is not what
>> you thought it was. you think the law is 'when you change frames, the
>> velocity changes.' that's not the law. the law is the transformation
>> rule, and it is common to all things. however, it is not a consequence
>> of that transformation law that 'when you change frames, the velocity
>> changes'. that's simply an incorrect conclusion.
>
> You are facing two major problems here, viz., (i) there is no basis
> for SR's law, and (ii) no one has shown that the classical law is
> incorrect.

the basis for sr's laws is precisely what i've told you before -- that
maxwell's equations apply in the inertial reference frame of interest;
and that maxwell's equations apply in all inertial reference frames.

secondly, there is ample experimental evidence that the classical
velocity transformation law does not work. if you are completely unaware
of such experimental evidence, or if you are insisting that that
evidence is not to be believed because they're 'not using clocks
correctly' then i can't help you.

> That is, there is no basis for Einstein's
> "synchronization," and no one has shown that using truly synchronous
> clocks is an invalid operation.
>
> (Of course, you will certainly come up with another inane, irrelevant
> reply.)

naturally.

>
> (This thread was actually complete with the first post. It was born
> fully grown.)

aha. so it may come of interest to you that posting to a discussion
group is an expressed invitation to discussion. if you place no value on
the resulting comments because you consider your op complete and
inviolable, then you are posting just to hear yourself talk. in that
case, posting your thoughts to a blog or on a flyer stapled to a pole
might be the better choice for your ego.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Absolutely Vertical <absolutel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/2013 7:17 PM, SRdude wrote:

[snip]

>> (This thread was actually complete with the first post. It was born
>> fully grown.)
>
> aha. so it may come of interest to you that posting to a discussion
> group is an expressed invitation to discussion. if you place no value
> on the resulting comments because you consider your op complete and
> inviolable, then you are posting just to hear yourself talk. in that
> case, posting your thoughts to a blog or on a flyer stapled to a pole
> might be the better choice for your ego.

You don't get it.
Posting on a blog would result in silence (read loneliness).
Posting here results in interaction, even if it is of the getting
kicked all over the place kind.

Dirk Vdm

[SRdude]

On 31 May 2013, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>On 5/30/2013, SRdude wrote:
>>
>>>> I did not say anything about transforming anything. I was talking
>>>> about relative movement per se. If an asteroid passes different frames
>>>> differently, then so does anything else, including a light ray.
>>>
>>> 'passes different frames differently' is talking about transforming the
>>> velocity, do you not see that? it's rather obvious.
>>
>> The *difference* is what is obvious, and that difference is the fact
>> that my claim could pertain to only one frame, whereas your claim
>> needs at least two. I am doing NO transformations between frames.
>
>it's funny how you manage to parse 'passes _different_ frames' to
>include the possibility of one frame. to me, and maybe this is my grasp
>of the english language here, when you say 'passes _different_ frames'
>you're talking about more than one frame, and when you say 'passes
>_different_ frames _differently_' you're talking about comparing two
>rates of passage, one in each of those different frames. which is
>precisely what is meant by a transformation between frames.

It is not funny how I parse my own stuff, dummy. I know what I said,
and I know what it meant, and it is your problem if you cannot
understand it. Here it is again, so try to get it this time:

If light physically passes each frame differently, as it certainly
does because even Einstein fully admitted it (with his w = c - v),
then it certainly will allow ONE frame's observers detect their
absolute motion.

This --- __clearly__, at least to ***me*** --- has ZILCH to do with
transformations.

>>> the problem is the law that is common between these things is not what
>>> you thought it was. you think the law is 'when you change frames, the
>>> velocity changes.' that's not the law. the law is the transformation
>>> rule, and it is common to all things. however, it is not a consequence
>>> of that transformation law that 'when you change frames, the velocity
>>> changes'. that's simply an incorrect conclusion.
>>
>> You are facing two major problems here, viz., (i) there is no basis
>> for SR's law, and (ii) no one has shown that the classical law is
>> incorrect.
>
>the basis for sr's laws is precisely what i've told you before -- that
>maxwell's equations apply in the inertial reference frame of interest;
>and that maxwell's equations apply in all inertial reference frames.

You know nothing about SR. The basis for the relativistic
transformation equations is Einstein synchronization, and the basis
for that is the invalid assumption of an invariant one-way, two-clock
speed for light. (Nothing in Maxwell pertains to either light's
one-way speed or its round-trip speed.)

>secondly, there is ample experimental evidence that the classical
>velocity transformation law does not work. if you are completely unaware
>of such experimental evidence, or if you are insisting that that
>evidence is not to be believed because they're 'not using clocks
>correctly' then i can't help you.

Pay attention:

Lorentz invariance is NOT special relativity except in the case of
light's one-way speed. (Galileo had it for mechanics, and MMx had it
for light's round-trip)

But one-way invariance is NOT a hypothesis, it's only a definition
(and therefore untestable).

A challenge:
List one testable prediction made by SR per se.

>> (This thread was actually complete with the first post. It was born
>> fully grown.)
>
>aha. so it may come of interest to you that posting to a discussion
>group is an expressed invitation to discussion.

My point, which both you and Dr. Dirk missed completely. was simply
that if all those here fully understood both my first post here and
SR, then no further discussion would be needed, period.

Dr. Dirk