Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition?

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/8/17 6/8/17 10:31 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2017 16:11:32 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
>> Speed is ALWAYS referred to some coordinate system. You are free to
>> construct coordinates in which the medium, the "stationary object", or the
>> "moving object" is at rest.
>
> I disagree.

Your disagreement is merely YOUR problem, and does not change the FACT that what
I said is correct. This _IS_ what these words mean (in this context, i.e.
physics; in casual speech the meaning is not so precise).

That's why your attempt to define "speed" without using coordinates
is so ludicrous -- the word ALREADY has an explicit meaning. But
you do not know enough about the subject to recognize your own
incompetence and ignorance. I have already discussed this....

> The speed of a wave or a massless particle or quasiparticle like a phonon
> has a natural reference, a non-arbitrarily chosen zero.

NONSENSE! You are VERY confused and have missed a basic point of SR.

> Otherwise we couldn't ascribe an absolute value zero and consequently not a
> constant value to it.

NONSENSE! You are VERY confused and have missed a basic point of SR.

We CANNOT ascribe any sort of "absolute zero" to ANY speed/velocity, just like
there is no "absolute rest".

Newton got it wrong, and we have known this for over a century.
Remarkably, the equations Newton derived assuming his absolute
space work equally well using any inertial frame, without any
reference to "absolute space". (The very same thing happened
to Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics.)

For some phenomena there happens to be SET OF COORDINATES to which we normally
refer its speed:
* a wave in a medium is normally referenced to the inertial frame
in which the medium is at rest.
* an automobile is normally referenced to the inertial frame in
which the LOCAL surface of the earth is at rest.

It has become ingrained in our psyche to use inertial frames.
It is also ingrained to use those normal frames for these
specific phenomena. Indeed if one uses anything else it is
incumbent on the author to explicitly mention it.

There is NOTHING "natural" here [#], except humans' natural desire to make the
calculations easier.

[#] I.e. Nature is neither involved nor consulted, and does
not care which choice is made.

But for most phenomena, including light and all massive and massless particles,
there is no such "normal" coordinate system, unless the physical situation
provides one [@]. For instance, we can refer the speed of photons to the
inertial frame in which their source is at rest, or we can reference to the
inertial frame in which the detector is at rest -- the choice is OURS, and we
generally select the coordinates which make the desired calculations easier.

[@] And many experiments do: the inertial frame in which the
laboratory is instantaneously at rest.

Nature does not care which coordinates we use to describe her behavior, because
she clearly does not use any coordinates -- that imposes the constraint on all
physical theories to be independent of coordinates; indeed all of our modern
fundamental theories of physics are so independent (aka "invariant").

Note that in all cases there is NOTHING to prevent us from using some other
coordinates, it's just that in such cases as mentioned above there is a specific
coordinate system relative to which the calculations are easier.

> The movement of a body, e.g. a car has not such absolute zero. We may refer
> it's zero to the ground. However, this is clearly an arbitrary choice.

Yes. ALL such choices are arbitrary, for any phenomenon.

Being humans, and therefore lazy, we generally use this
arbitrariness to select coordinates that make the calculations
easier. Nature has nothing to do with this.

The exceptions you claim above are not really exceptions, it's just that you
don't understand this.

> In case of acoustic waves in air, we needn't construct coordinates in which
> the air is at rest.

Right! See above.



In another post to Poutnik you said:
> You have to admit that you and Roberts are wrong when we consider a stone
> that is thrown from one train to another one moving relative to each other.

Nope. It is YOU who is confused, not Poutnik or me.

> In this case one must arbitrarily decide whether the emitting or the hit
> train are the reference.

Yes. That arbitrariness is INHERENT in the physical situation. One could also
choose the inertial frame of the tracks. Or any other frame....

> However, the speed of sound doesn't depend on any chosen point of view. It is
> not earth-centered, not sun-centered, and not galaxy-centered but does only
> refer to the medium.

One must CHOOSE to which coordinates one references any speed. For sound it is
so ingrained in our psyche that one must explicitly mention using any
coordinates other than the inertial frame in which the medium is at rest. Since
you did not mention any such frame, then "speed of sound" of course refers to
the inertial frame in which the medium is at rest.

You confuse a human convention of speech with physical law.
That's outrageous and merely demonstrates how confused you are.

>> Car speed wrt Earth is convenient and natural, but arbitrary. Sound
>> speed wrt medium is convenient and natural, but arbitrary.
>
> Natural in the sense of non-arbitrary is the opposite of arbitrary.

There is NOTHING "natural" about this, it's just that it is EASIER to use those
coordinates. The choice is indeed ARBITRARY.

Tom Roberts

[Eckard B]

Tom Roberts,

I disagree with you in all essential points. Having addressed many of them within the many equally-named topics "Re: Speed of light in vacuum, what definition?",
I would like you to ask you for your opinion concerning Cramer's explantion of twin paradox. Is it the only correct one? Are you aware of a better one? Is there a commonly agreed one. Did NPA declare their petition a success?


Eckard B

[Ecembre Abin]

Are you NPA affiliated, Stephane?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 10 czerwca 2017 07:08:02 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 6/8/17 6/8/17 10:31 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2017 16:11:32 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
> >> Speed is ALWAYS referred to some coordinate system. You are free to
> >> construct coordinates in which the medium, the "stationary object", or the
> >> "moving object" is at rest.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> Your disagreement is merely YOUR problem, and does not change the FACT that what
> I said is correct.

No, poor idiot, it isn't. Coordinate systems were
invented in XVII century, speed is much older.

> This _IS_ what these words mean (in this context, i.e.
> physics; in casual speech the meaning is not so precise).

Does "ALWAYS" in this context mean "in this context",
poor idiot?

[Ecembre Abin]

mlwozniak wrote:

>> Your disagreement is merely YOUR problem, and does not change the FACT
>> that what I said is correct.
>
> No, poor idiot, it isn't. Coordinate systems were invented in XVII
> century, speed is much older.

So was Radios, stupid, invented allegedly later on, but radio waves were
there in priory. You are fucking stupid. Trying to disprove Relativity by
being stupid, is stupid. Stop being stupid. Be smart.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 17 czerwca 2017 10:41:46 UTC+2 użytkownik Ecembre Abin napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
>
> >> Your disagreement is merely YOUR problem, and does not change the FACT
> >> that what I said is correct.
> >
> > No, poor idiot, it isn't. Coordinate systems were invented in XVII
> > century, speed is much older.
>
> So was Radios, stupid, invented allegedly later on, but radio waves were
> there in priory.

Radio waves were in priory, but radio
couldn't be used before it was invented, poor idiot.
Neither coordinate systems.

[Eckard B]

I have no idea to whom you refer to.

[Ecembre Abin]

That's exactly the point, fool. *_It COULD_*! Finally you learned
something. (I suppose) lol, entertaining.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 17 czerwca 2017 12:13:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Ecembre Abin napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
>
> > W dniu sobota, 17 czerwca 2017 10:41:46 UTC+2 użytkownik Ecembre Abin
> > napisał:
> >> mlwozniak wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Your disagreement is merely YOUR problem, and does not change the
> >> >> FACT that what I said is correct.
> >> >
> >> > No, poor idiot, it isn't. Coordinate systems were invented in XVII
> >> > century, speed is much older.
> >>
> >> So was Radios, stupid, invented allegedly later on, but radio waves
> >> were there in priory.
> >
> > Radio waves were in priory, but radio couldn't be used before it was
> > invented, poor idiot. Neither coordinate systems.
>
> That's exactly the point, fool. *_It COULD_*!

No, poor idiot, it couldn't. And if you
give me some examples of using a radio before
1850, I will be very surprised.

[Ecembre Abin]

mlwozniak wrote:

>> >> >> Your disagreement is merely YOUR problem, and does not change the
>> >> >> FACT that what I said is correct.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, poor idiot, it isn't. Coordinate systems were invented in XVII
>> >> > century, speed is much older.
>> >>
>> >> So was Radios, stupid, invented allegedly later on, but radio waves
>> >> were there in priory.
>> >
>> > Radio waves were in priory, but radio couldn't be used before it was
>> > invented, poor idiot. Neither coordinate systems.
>>
>> That's exactly the point, fool. *_It COULD_*!
>
> No, poor idiot, it couldn't. And if you give me some examples of using a
> radio before 1850, I will be very surprised. Finally you learned

So without examples would not work, because you don't stay in hand with
palpable examples? What are you fucking retarded, what argument is that.
lol.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/17/17 6/17/17 - 3:06 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> Tom Roberts,
> I disagree with you in all essential points.

Yes. YOUR problem, not mine. I merely discuss how modern physics addresses these
issues.

> I would like you to ask you for your opinion concerning Cramer's explantion of twin paradox.

(repeating...)

[https://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html]
Note the context here is SR.

While this article is not wrong, it does use archaic terminology and simple but
potentially misleading phrases intended for non-experts (e.g. "the object's mass
increases").

To me, "the" explanation of the twin paradox is obvious, once one understands
relativity and the underlying mathematics:

The elapsed proper time of a timelike path between points A and B
(which lie upon it) is \integral d\tau, where \tau is the proper
time of the path, and the integral is taken along the path from A
to B. For multiple paths between A and B this obviously depends on
the path. Moreover, the inertial path between A and B has the
largest elapsed proper time of all timelike paths between A and B.

Exercise for the reader: prove that if there is any timelike
path between points A and B, then there is a unique inertial
path between them. (This is SR; in GR there exists at least
one inertial path, but it need not be unique, and in general
they have different elapsed proper times between A and B.)

This is a direct analogy to a triangle ABC in the Euclidean plane: The triangle
has two paths from A to B (AB and ACB) that clearly differ in length. The twin
paradox, with instantaneous accelerations for the traveling twin, is just a
triangle in a space-time plane.

> [...]

The NPA consists of people who do not understand basic physics, or the math
underlying it. Their opinions and attempts to write about physics are worthless.

Tom Roberts

[Nicolaas Vroom]

On Saturday, 10 June 2017 07:08:02 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/8/17 6/8/17 10:31 AM, Eckard B wrote:

>
> NONSENSE! You are VERY confused and have missed a basic point of SR.
>
> We CANNOT ascribe any sort of "absolute zero" to ANY speed/velocity, just
> like there is no "absolute rest".
>
> Newton got it wrong, and we have known this for over a century.
> Remarkably, the equations Newton derived assuming his absolute
> space work equally well using any inertial frame, without any
> reference to "absolute space". (The very same thing happened
> to Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics.)
>
> For some phenomena there happens to be SET OF COORDINATES to which we
> normally refer its speed:
> * a wave in a medium is normally referenced to the inertial frame
> in which the medium is at rest.
> * an automobile is normally referenced to the inertial frame in
> which the LOCAL surface of the earth is at rest.
>
> It has become ingrained in our psyche to use inertial frames.
> It is also ingrained to use those normal frames for these
> specific phenomena. Indeed if one uses anything else it is
> incumbent on the author to explicitly mention it.
>
> There is NOTHING "natural" here [#], except humans' natural desire to

> make thecalculations easier.

>
> [#] I.e. Nature is neither involved nor consulted, and does
> not care which choice is made.
>
> But for most phenomena, including light and all massive and massless

> particles,there is no such "normal" coordinate system, unless the
> physical situationprovides one [@]. For instance, we can refer the
> speed of photons to theinertial frame in which their source is at
> rest, or we can reference to theinertial frame in which the detector
> is at rest -- the choice is OURS, and wegenerally select the

> coordinates which make the desired calculations easier.
>
> [@] And many experiments do: the inertial frame in which the
> laboratory is instantaneously at rest.
>
> Nature does not care which coordinates we use to describe her behavior,

> becauseshe clearly does not use any coordinates -- that imposes the

> constraint on all physical theories to be independent of coordinates;
> indeed all of our modern fundamental theories of physics are so
> independent (aka "invariant").
>
> Note that in all cases there is NOTHING to prevent us from using some
> other coordinates, it's just that in such cases as mentioned above
> there is a specific coordinate system relative to which the
> calculations are easier.
>

I agree Nature has nothing to do with coordinates, however still there is
an issue if you want to describe certain physical phenomena.

Consider a super nova in star A of Galaxy A.
The light of this SN will propagate in a sphere through space.

Consider a different super nova (almost "simultaneous") but now
in star B of Galaxy B.
Light of this SN will also propagate in a sphere through space.

At a certain moment both spheres will meet each other.
If "you" are at that moment at that specific position "you"
will observe both SN's'.

Starting from that moment the points were you can observe
both SN's will propagate as a circle through space.

Suppose that the result of the super nova A event is a neutron star A.
After the event the neutron star will move in a large circle
around the center of galaxy A
(like all the other stars in its surroundings).
The same for super nova B, which becomes neutron star B and which
will move in a large circle through galaxy B.

My question is will neutron star A be positioned (and stay) at the
center of its sphere. The same for neutron star B.

IMO both will not stay at the center of their respectivily spheres.
They are only at the center a short time after the SN.

This raises an issue related to SR (if I understand correctly)
SR claims that the speed of light is the same in both directions.
That may be true for a certain reference frame, but IMO
that same reference frame cannot be used to describe both SN.

If this is correct then it is very important to select a one and only
reference frame to describe this whole "experiment".

Nicolaas Vroom.

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

The Twins will be Imbalanced in "momentum or Kinetic Energy or temperature" when compared

[Eckard B]

Am Montag, 19. Juni 2017 18:26:47 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:

> > I would like you to ask you for your opinion concerning Cramer's explantion of twin paradox.

> While this article is not wrong, it does use archaic terminology and simple

> but potentially misleading phrases intended for non-experts.

>
> To me, "the" explanation of the twin paradox is obvious, once one understands
> relativity and the underlying mathematics:

I read again Minkowski's "Raum und Zeit" and didn't find arguments against my one-way definition of c. So I don't understand SR as justified. Nonetheless, I appreciate your of course not unbiased and a bit incomplete but rather large collection of literature.

>
> The elapsed proper time of a timelike path between points A and B
> (which lie upon it) is \integral d\tau, where \tau is the proper
> time of the path,

The translation of "Eigenzeit" as "proper time" is a bit misleading because proper means real and satisfactory rather than inadequate.

> and the integral is taken along the path from A
> to B. For multiple paths between A and B this obviously depends on
> the path. Moreover, the inertial path between A and B has the
> largest elapsed proper time of all timelike paths between A and B.

Wikipedia "proper time" illustrates proper time AB as obviously larger than the
belonging "coordinate time" but calculates it as smaller. This might confuse.
Anyway, SR is perhaps difficult to teach to any critical mind.
I don't see questions of mine answered.

> This is a direct analogy to a triangle ABC in the Euclidean plane:
> The triangle
> has two paths from A to B (AB and ACB) that clearly differ in length. The twin
> paradox, with instantaneous accelerations for the traveling twin, is just a
> triangle in a space-time plane.

Hmm. Isn't AC + CB shorter than AB?

> The NPA consists of people who do not understand basic physics, or the math
> underlying it. Their opinions and attempts to write about physics are
> worthless.

Perhaps, SR is about as basic to physics as was Cantor's naive set theory and is the hyperreal line to mathematics.

[Eckard B]

Yes, as an electrical engineer, I support your idea that the far field of a wave isn't bound to the emitter but to space in the sense of actual mutual distances.

[Nicolaas Vroom]

I'am also an electrical engineer (measurement and control) but that has
nothing to do with this subject. But maybe it has.

The point is that measurements (observations) are highly subjective
to human activities.
The control part (in a broader sense) tries to unravel the laws of nature

completely independent of human activities and opinions.
The laws of nature are highly mathematical. It should be possible to
verify its predictions by observations and it should be realised that

mathematics (a description) in itself explains nothing.

SR belongs in the measurement part. Its basic concept or tool is light
to make observations.

The control part starts from the concept that all the positions and
speeds of the objects we try to study are known (measured).
Newton's Law and GR belong in the control part.
Light (photons) only have a very limited use in the control part.
The biggest problem with the evolution of the universe is that the present
is influenced (often invisible) by the past. To describe these influences
mathematically, build around what is physical happening, is tricky.
The basic concept to explain the forces that 'control' the objects of
the universe are gravitons.
Newton's Law is incomplete in the sense that it assumes that these forces
act instantaneous. This is not the case.

We only use one basic clock for time keeping. The clock is used for both

measurements and control. Its primary purpose is for save keeping of all
our measurements. All the events (measurements) happening with the same
clock reading are called simultaneous. The behaviour of a clock
(a mechanical process) is in itself a control issue.
The moving "picture" I painted in my previous posting with the two SN's
belongs to the control part.

Just some thoughts.

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 29 czerwca 2017 12:50:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Nicolaas Vroom napisał:

> The point is that measurements (observations) are highly subjective
> to human activities.
> The control part (in a broader sense) tries to unravel the laws of nature
> completely independent of human activities and opinions.
> The laws of nature are highly mathematical. It should be possible to
> verify its predictions by observations and it should be realised that
> mathematics (a description) in itself explains nothing.

Wishful thinking. You should realize it yourself.
The reality is a logical loop: you observe/
measure what your theory told you, because you
believe that theory is right and different results
would be erroneous.
And the purpose of science is not explaining you
The Great Mystical Essence. The purpose of science
is putting into your head some info giving you
new, strange abilities... i.e programming you.

[Paparios]

El jueves, 29 de junio de 2017, 6:50:58 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 19:39:27 UTC+2, Eckard B wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 17:41:38 UTC+2 schrieb Nicolaas Vroom:
> >
> > > My question is will neutron star A be positioned (and stay) at the
> > > center of its sphere. The same for neutron star B.
> > >
> > > IMO both will not stay at the center of their respectivily spheres.
> > > They are only at the center a short time after the SN.
> >
> > Yes, as an electrical engineer, I support your idea that the far field
> > of a wave isn't bound to the emitter but to space in the sense of
> > actual mutual distances.
>
> I'am also an electrical engineer (measurement and control) but that has
> nothing to do with this subject. But maybe it has.
>

Why is that electrical engineers consider themselves above physicists?
I'm an electrical engineer, with a PhD in electrical engineering but I
do not presume to have any knowledge above of what physicists and/or
mathematicians have.

Even more, some of my colleagues at the Department of Electrical Engineering
all of them electrical engineers) do collaborate with astrophysicists and
physicists from the Faculty of Physics. We are doing research in adaptive
optics for large telescopes (such as the ELT and GMT) and also collaborating
in the Linear Collider Collaboration. A good number of our electrical
engineering graduates go into getting MSc and PhD degrees in physics.

To work in those projects, we electrical engineers do have to study physics
to a level we can talk with our fellow physicists. There is no free lunch
in this topic.

[Jim Petroff]

Paparios wrote:

> Why is that electrical engineers consider themselves above physicists?
> I'm an electrical engineer, with a PhD in electrical engineering but I
> do not presume to have any knowledge above of what physicists and/or
> mathematicians have.

Bullshit, we have no picture of your diploma to prove that.

[Nicolaas Vroom]

On Thursday, 29 June 2017 16:42:37 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 29 de junio de 2017, 6:50:58 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > I'am also an electrical engineer (measurement and control) but that has
> > nothing to do with this subject. But maybe it has.
> >
>
> Why is that electrical engineers consider themselves above physicists?

Sorry I do not consider myself above physicists. I try to understand
them, mainly by raising questions.

> I'm an electrical engineer, with a PhD in electrical engineering but I
> do not presume to have any knowledge above of what physicists and/or
> mathematicians have.

The only thing I silently do is, I sometimes assume that certain scientists
have it wrong (this can be both ways) or don't express themself clearly.

> To work in those projects, we electrical engineers do have to study physics
> to a level we can talk with our fellow physicists. There is no free lunch
> in this topic.

When you study my home page: maybe its a free lunch.
Good luck

Nicolaas Vroom

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 29 czerwca 2017 16:42:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał:

> Why is that electrical engineers consider themselves above physicists?

Because they are, poor idiot.
You're providing data structures and procedures for them.
You're liable for their quality and usability before them.

BTW, you didn't answer my last question. Is geocentrism
the proper point of view of a relativistic moron?

[Eckard B]

Am Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2017 12:50:58 UTC+2 schrieb Nicolaas Vroom:
> On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 19:39:27 UTC+2, Eckard B wrote:

> > Yes, as an electrical engineer, I support your idea that the far field
> > of a wave isn't bound to the emitter but to space in the sense of
> > actual mutual distances.
>

> The point is that measurements (observations) are highly subjective
> to human activities.

Mathematicians and physicists need philosophy more directly than do engineers.
I felt forced to question some philosophy and interpretation-related issues when experts admitted being unable to answer my questions.

From FQXi I got the impression that there is still no clear meaning for what is an "observer". What does the speed of light wrt an observer mean? According to my definition, c relates to the two only involved locations, emitter at the moment of emission and receiver at the moment of arrival.

I interprete the Sagnac effect as due to changed length of path, not changed timescale.

[Poutnik]

Dne 30.6.2017 v 11:27 Eckard B napsal(a):

>
> From FQXi I got the impression that there is still no clear meaning for what is an "observer". What does the speed of light wrt an observer mean? According to my definition, c relates to the two only involved locations, emitter at the moment of emission and receiver at the moment of arrival.
>

It was told to you multiple times by multiple people
what an observer means
and what speed of light wrt an observer means.

One can bring a horse to water,
but cannot force a horse to drink.

You confuse physical quantity and its value.
You refer to vacuum light speed as the quantity
by c as its value.

Your definition does not apply
in space between a satellite and a receiver,
and therefore GPS cannot work.

But if GPS system works or not
does not depend on definitions.

Either you use term definitions physics uses, talking physics,
either you cannot talk physics.

Either you use word definitions German uses, talking German,
either you cannot talk German.


--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 30 czerwca 2017 11:43:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> Dne 30.6.2017 v 11:27 Eckard B napsal(a):
> >
> > From FQXi I got the impression that there is still no clear meaning for what is an "observer". What does the speed of light wrt an observer mean? According to my definition, c relates to the two only involved locations, emitter at the moment of emission and receiver at the moment of arrival.
> >
>
> It was told to you multiple times by multiple people
> what an observer means
> and what speed of light wrt an observer means.
>
> One can bring a horse to water,
> but cannot force a horse to drink.
>
> You confuse physical quantity and its value.
> You refer to vacuum light speed as the quantity
> by c as its value.
>
> Your definition does not apply
> in space between a satellite and a receiver,
> and therefore GPS cannot work.
>
> But if GPS system works or not
> does not depend on definitions.
>
> Either you use term definitions physics uses, talking physics,
> either you cannot talk physics.
> Either you use word definitions German uses, talking German,
> either you cannot talk German.

Either you use term definitions physics uses and English uses
talking physics in English, either you cannot talk physicc
in English.
Very unfortunately, however, physicists screwed it and
their definitions are inconsistent with English definitions,
so whenever you try to talk physics in English you get
an inconsistent mumble.
And trying to talk physics in other languages doesn't
make it better.

[Jim Petroff]

mlwozniak wrote:

> Very unfortunately, however, physicists screwed it and their definitions
> are inconsistent with English definitions, so whenever you try to talk
> physics in English you get an inconsistent mumble.
> And trying to talk physics in other languages doesn't make it better.

You are off by many lengths. It reveals you are not an academia. In
academia is not the fucking english which is important, but understanding.
Now piss off.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Too bad for your fucking academia.

> Now piss off.

Now command some glowing worms.

[Lord Kronos Prime]

Eckard B

The Resolution to the issue of "Speed of light wrt the observer" is solved by utilizing "Bulk Modulus & Wave speed formulas".

The observer is Embedded in the Medium
The Medium a Density Pressure Volume & Distance specifications.

The Event Horizon is simply where the wave speed has been exceeded.

https://youtu.be/2DIl3Hfh9tY

https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg

https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/-space-time-as-a-frictionless-superfluid

[Eckard B]

Am Freitag, 30. Juni 2017 14:56:50 UTC+2 schrieb Lord Kronos Prime:
> Eckard B
> Am Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2017 12:50:58 UTC+2 schrieb Nicolaas Vroom:
> > On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 19:39:27 UTC+2, Eckard B wrote:
>
> > > Yes, as an electrical engineer, I support your idea that the far field
> > > of a wave isn't bound to the emitter but to space in the sense of
> > > actual mutual distances.
> >
>
> > The point is that measurements (observations) are highly subjective
> > to human activities.
>
> Mathematicians and physicists need philosophy more directly than do engineers.
> I felt forced to question some philosophy and interpretation-related issues when experts admitted being unable to answer my questions.
>
> From FQXi I got the impression that there is still no clear meaning for what is an "observer". What does the speed of light wrt an observer mean? According to my definition, c relates to the two only involved locations, emitter at the moment of emission and receiver at the moment of arrival.
>
> I interprete the Sagnac effect as due to changed length of path, not changed timescale.

This was what I wrote. You replied:

> The Resolution to the issue of "Speed of light wrt the observer" is solved by > utilizing "Bulk Modulus & Wave speed formulas".
> The observer is Embedded in the Medium

While I agree with the role of bulk modulus in case of propagating waves or photons, I don't see how it relates to an observer except for the case the receiver is the observer at the moment of arrival. My definition doesn't need a light-carrying medium.
It refers to just the two only involved positions I pinpointed, not to an aether or the like.

> The Event Horizon is simply where the wave speed has been exceeded.
> https://youtu.be/2DIl3Hfh9tY

Susskind's lecture deals with Black Holes. Did he refer to an observer? I didn't completely listen to his speech.
Incidentally, I am not aware of BHs in acoustics.

[Paparios]

El viernes, 30 de junio de 2017, 5:27:34 (UTC-4), Eckard B escribió:
> Am Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2017 12:50:58 UTC+2 schrieb Nicolaas Vroom:
> > On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 19:39:27 UTC+2, Eckard B wrote:
>
> > > Yes, as an electrical engineer, I support your idea that the far field
> > > of a wave isn't bound to the emitter but to space in the sense of
> > > actual mutual distances.
> >
>
> > The point is that measurements (observations) are highly subjective
> > to human activities.
>
> Mathematicians and physicists need philosophy more directly than do engineers.
> I felt forced to question some philosophy and interpretation-related issues when experts admitted being unable to answer my questions.
>

For sure mathematics and physics are closely related to philosophy (just check
some of Decartes writings). What does not relate to those subjects is the
ignorance of believing that only through philosophy you can get all the needed
answers.

> From FQXi I got the impression that there is still no clear meaning for what is an "observer". What does the speed of light wrt an observer mean? According to my definition, c relates to the two only involved locations, emitter at the moment of emission and receiver at the moment of arrival.
>

For a physicist (and for engineers working with them) "observers" mean measurements devices (like clocks and rulers).

[Lord Kronos Prime]

10:45 AMEckard B

Yes ... the observers in Susskind's lecture are named Bob & Alice

Anything that utilizes Wave speed will devolve to Acoustics.... which is Inertial Elastic Bulk Modulus
Space Time would need to have a Zero Viscosity...

[Poutnik]

Dne 28/06/2017 v 19:30 Eckard B napsal(a):> Am Montag, 19. Juni 2017

>
> I read again Minkowski's "Raum und Zeit" and didn't find arguments
> against my one-way definition of c. So I don't understand SR as
> justified. Nonetheless, I appreciate your of course not unbiased and a
> bit incomplete but rather large collection of literature.

There are neither arguments against unicorns in that work.
So I don't understand your definition of c as justified.
Nonsensical implication ? YES ! The same as yours.

Arguments against your definition of c are in physics and metrology.

SR is justified by
its formal internal consistency that is mathematically proven
and by agreement of its predictions with observations.
That cannot be said about the common sense.
You ignore that.

There is no two-way definition of c,
so using one-way adjective is redundant.

c is defined as 299 792 458 m/s.
Do you have other number ?

Prerequisite to evaluate SR justification
is SR understanding. For now,
you have troubles to answer
"How to maintain supposed but not verified absolute simultaneity
with the verified invariant vacuum light speed ?"

What you do is like repeating of a historical claim
"Jupiter moons cannot exist."
without simple verifying their existence.

> The translation of "Eigenzeit" as "proper time" is a bit misleading
> because proper means real and satisfactory rather than inadequate.

> People use proper time ( even if not calling it like that )
> since portable watches were invented.
> They usually consider it real, satisfactory and adequate.

The fact that difference between coordinate time interval
and proper time interval is negligible for everyday use
is lucky circumstance.

>
> Wikipedia "proper time" illustrates proper time AB as obviously larger
> than the belonging "coordinate time" but calculates it as smaller.
> This might confuse.

No, you have confused length of drawn curve of the object world-line
with the length of proper time interval. The space-time interval,
defined by 2 events, is independent on passed worldline.

As space-like component of space-time interval is minimal
for inertial motion, then for this motion
the proper time interval is the longest.

> Anyway, SR is perhaps difficult to teach to any critical mind.
> I don't see questions of mine answered.

Teaching critical minds SR is in fact easier.

They critically assess they own knowledge, skills and abilities.
They do not consider themselves superior out of their area of experience.
They do not put their conclusions above experimental evidence.
They know common sense often fails out of its experience.

Not seeing answers means just that.
Not seeing answers does not mean absence of answers.>

>> This is a direct analogy to a triangle ABC in the Euclidean plane:
>> The triangle
>> has two paths from A to B (AB and ACB) that clearly differ in length.
>> The twin paradox, with instantaneous accelerations
>> for the traveling twin, is just a triangle in a space-time plane.
>
> Hmm. Isn't AC + CB shorter than AB?

You must be joking...

The point of this triangle analogy is,
that while both twins pass the same space-time interval between events,
the accelerating twin passes
the bigger space interval ACB of space-time interval Event1-Event2
and smaller proper time interval.

> Perhaps, SR is about as basic to physics as was Cantor's naive set
> theory and is the hyperreal line to mathematics.

If subatomic particles form Cantor-like sets
and move along hyperreal-like trajectories, that yes.

[Eckard B]

Am Freitag, 30. Juni 2017 17:56:10 UTC+2 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller:




> Susskind's lecture deals with Black Holes. Did he refer to an observer? I didn't completely listen to his speech.
> Incidentally, I am not aware of BHs in acoustics.
>
>
> Yes ... the observers in Susskind's lecture are named Bob & Alice

If I recall correctly, Bob is outside the BH, Alice is inside. Bob cannot observe Alice. Isn't the observer in SR someone godlike who sees bob and Alice?

>
> Anything that utilizes Wave speed will devolve to Acoustics.... which is Inertial Elastic Bulk Modulus
> Space Time would need to have a Zero Viscosity...

I don't subscribe to Minkowski's vanity which did perhaps kill his appendix. Instead, I agree with Shannon's and Popper's common sense: In contrast to models, in reality the future is quite different from the past because the world is open.

Michelson's experiments 1881 without and 1887 with co-worker Morley effectively disproved the possibility to absolutely refer velocities to a medium aether.

My definition lets room for the central point of rotation as reference for the Sagnac effect (and Michelson Gale). Why not considering empty space just the momentaneous plurality of mutual distances? Just ascribe your fluid not to space or spacetime but to the energy propagating in this space.

[Eckard B]

P. has still nothing relevant to say. He lost me perhaps for good.

[Poutnik]

Dne 01/07/2017 v 00:26 Eckard B napsal(a):

> P. has still nothing relevant to say. He lost me perhaps for good.
>

There is nothing relevant to say left for you to understand,
until you learn at least basics about SR.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Dne 01/07/2017 v 00:23 Eckard B napsal(a):

> Am Freitag, 30. Juni 2017 17:56:10 UTC+2 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>
>
>> Susskind's lecture deals with Black Holes. Did he refer to an observer? I didn't completely listen to his speech.
>> Incidentally, I am not aware of BHs in acoustics.
>
>> Yes ... the observers in Susskind's lecture are named Bob & Alice
>
> If I recall correctly, Bob is outside the BH, Alice is inside. Bob cannot observe Alice. Isn't the observer in SR someone godlike who sees bob and Alice?

You cannot put BH and SR into single sentence
and expect valid SR prediction,
unless you really think BH has negligible gravity.

It is matter of GR, far from SR scope.

[Poutnik]

> P. has still nothing relevant to say. He lost me perhaps for good.

E. considers everything what he does understand as irrelevant.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Poutnik

Dne 01/07/2017 v 00:23 Eckard B napsal(a):
> Am Freitag, 30. Juni 2017 17:56:10 UTC+2 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>
>
>> Susskind's lecture deals with Black Holes. Did he refer to an observer? I didn't completely listen to his speech.
>> Incidentally, I am not aware of BHs in acoustics.
>
>> Yes ... the observers in Susskind's lecture are named Bob & Alice
>
> If I recall correctly, Bob is outside the BH, Alice is inside. Bob cannot observe Alice. Isn't the observer in SR someone godlike who sees bob and Alice?

You cannot put BH and SR into single sentence
and expect valid SR prediction,
unless you really think BH has negligible gravity.

But Our Universe is already part of the Black Hole.....

That is Exactly what makes c 299792458 m/s

https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg

Making SR is a Subset of GR


(((6.666666666e-11 / 2) * (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.7037037037037e-28 * (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 300000000 m/s

(((6.666666666e-11 / 2) * pascals) / (3.7037037037037e-28 * (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 300000000 m / s


Pressure & Mass = Volume & c

[Gibutsi Fumihazu]

Poutnik wrote:


>> P. has still nothing relevant to say. He lost me perhaps for good.
>
> E. considers everything what he does understand as irrelevant.

What an idiotic thing to say.

[Gibutsi Fumihazu]

I read several places that you do not.

[Poutnik]

Dne 01/07/2017 v 00:23 Eckard B napsal(a):

> Am Freitag, 30. Juni 2017 17:56:10 UTC+2 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller:
>
>
>>
>> Anything that utilizes Wave speed will devolve to Acoustics.... which is Inertial Elastic Bulk Modulus
>> Space Time would need to have a Zero Viscosity...
>
> I don't subscribe to Minkowski's vanity which did perhaps kill his appendix. Instead, I agree with Shannon's and Popper's common sense: In contrast to models, in reality the future is quite different from the past because the world is open.

So your major objection to Minkowski contribution is his appendix.
Perhaps you try to analyze SR by the appendix as well,
as you like to focus on details irrelevant to the theory.

Common sense is very bad model.

In reality, the distant future has
propagation delay < ( observation time - local present ),
the distant past has
propagation delay > ( observation time - local present ).

The common sense may disagree, may violently protest,
but that is all it can do with that.

SR does not mess with local past, present nor future.

[Gibutsi Fumihazu]

Poutnik wrote:

> Common sense is very bad model.
> In reality, the distant future has propagation delay < ( observation
> time - local present ), the distant past has propagation delay >
> ( observation time - local present ).

Completely nonsense.

[Gibutsi Fumihazu]

Poutnik wrote:

> Common sense is very bad model.

Common Sense is EXCELLENT, potty boy. Not bad, and much less "very".
That's exactly how the world turns around, by APPLIED common sense.

That's what happens to morons reading nonsense around here, taking it as
true, without using their brains. If you come, for instance, to an exam
not using your common sense, you'll never pass, potty.

[Gibutsi Fumihazu]

David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:

> But Our Universe is already part of the Black Hole.....

bullshit, and black holes are part of this universe, micro black holes,
micro big bangs, lol. Absurdities adlibitum.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Gibutsi Fumihazu

FUCK OFF FUCKTARDED NYM-SHYFTING LITTERING SPAMMING VANDALIZING TROLL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gibutsi Fumihazu]

You are an imbecile, I'm not kidding. Take a look at what you do. Not only
at the absurdities you emit intermittently, but at what you do. Go away,
physics is not for you.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 30 czerwca 2017 20:58:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:


> SR is justified by
> its formal internal consistency that is mathematically proven

Godel has proven, that if a theory is proves consistency
it's inconsistent.

> and by agreement of its predictions with observations.

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.

[Buck Millard]

W dniu piątek, 30 czerwca 2017 10:52:05 UTC-4 użytkownik mlwozniak
napisał:

>> and by agreement of its predictions with observations.
>
> A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.

Nice catch. I suspect it is exactly the opposite. First the observations,
then the predictions made based on that.

[Tom Roberts]

[I respond to several of your posts in this thread.]

On 6/27/17 6/27/17 10:41 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> I agree Nature has nothing to do with coordinates, however still there is
> an issue if you want to describe certain physical phenomena.
>
> [Two supernovas, each orbiting a different galaxy, and discussion
> of their "light spheres"]
> My question is will neutron star A be positioned (and stay) at the
> center of its sphere. The same for neutron star B > IMO both will not stay at the center of their respectivily spheres.
> They are only at the center a short time after the SN.

This is really too complicated to discuss, as it inherently requires GR, and
ambiguities arise due to the presence of gravitation. For example, nether source
actually has a light SPHERE, because the light paths are distorted by the
gravitation.

Let me simplify the scenario so it can be analyzed in SR.

Consider two pulsed omnidirectional light sources, A and B, each mounted on the
rim of a circular table. The two tables are identical, and they rotate in the
X-Y plane of an inertial frame S, with centers at rest in S. They are separated
by more than their diameter, and are counter-rotating at identical speeds
relative to S; they are synchronized such that A and B cross the line between
their centers simultaneously in S, and that is when they both emit a light pulse
(once per rotation). At the instant of each emission, A and B are both at rest
in inertial frame S' -- let us only discuss one such emission and use it to
define Minkowski coordinates in S and S', with the x and x' axes along their
velocity relative to S, and with the emission happening at (x,t)=(0,0) and
(x',t')=(0,0). Everything is in vacuum; spacetime is flat throughout the region
of interest. Ignore shadows from the apparatus.

This is a more precise description than yours, but I think
it captures the situation you had in mind.

Relative to S, A and B each have a light sphere that expands at c, but
observations of them at points with x>>0 will see the light blueshifted, and
observations at points with x<<0 will see the light redshifted.

Relative to S', A and B each have a light sphere that expands at c, and all
observations of either see no redshift or blueshift.

Note that after the light pulses are emitted, neither A nor B remains at the
center of its light sphere, relative to either S or S'. As expected -- once
emitted, light has no connection to its source.

> This raises an issue related to SR (if I understand correctly)
> SR claims that the speed of light is the same in both directions.
> That may be true for a certain reference frame, but IMO
> that same reference frame cannot be used to describe both SN.

But either S or S' can be used to describe light sources A and B. The speed of
light is isotropically c in S, and isotropically c in S'. You could choose any
other inertial frame as well, and the light from each source would expand in a
sphere relative to it.

The same would apply to your supernovas, ignoring the
effects of gravity.

> If this is correct then it is very important to select a one and only
> reference frame to describe this whole "experiment".

To perform an analysis, one must indeed select coordinates. But for the
situation I described one can select ANY inertial frame. It's just that S and S'
will make the analysis simpler than any of the others, because these are
directly related to the physical situation.

> The point is that measurements (observations) are highly subjective
> to human activities.

Some are, some aren't. But to test a physical theory one must ensure that
external actions/activities, human or otherwise, do not affect the result.

> The laws of nature are highly mathematical.

What God whispered in your ear and told you this?

Our MODELS of nature are indeed highly mathematical. But it seems HIGHLY
doubtful that nature actually uses mathematics, she just does her thing
(whatever that is).

See: Wigner, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
Natural Sciences", Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics,
vol. 13, No. I (February 1960)

> [excessively simplistic attempt to discuss "measurement and control"]

Tom Roberts

[Nicolaas Vroom]

On Sunday, 2 July 2017 06:06:14 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 6/27/17 6/27/17 10:41 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > IMO both will not stay at the center of their respectivily spheres.
>

> This is really too complicated to discuss, as it inherently requires GR,
> and ambiguities arise due to the presence of gravitation. For example,
> nether source actually has a light SPHERE, because the light paths are
> distorted by the gravitation.

I agree with you.

> Let me simplify the scenario so it can be analyzed in SR.

> This is a more precise description than yours, but I think
> it captures the situation you had in mind.

It is much more precise, but maybe too.

In some sense I have in mind a binary star system (at large distance) which
both explode and become a neutron star.

> Note that after the light pulses are emitted, neither A nor B remains at
> the center of its light sphere, relative to either S or S'.
> As expected -- once emitted, light has no connection to its source.

That is correct. What is even more there is IMO no way that "nsA" can
establish its position within his sphere nor can "nsB".
"nsA" can not establish where the center is of the sphere nor in which
direction "nsA" moves relative to his sphere.

> > This raises an issue related to SR (if I understand correctly)
> > SR claims that the speed of light is the same in both directions.
> > That may be true for a certain reference frame, but IMO
> > that same reference frame cannot be used to describe both SN.
>
> But either S or S' can be used to describe light sources A and B.
> The speed of light is isotropically c in S, and isotropically c in S'.

The problem IMO is that it is impossible, assuming we are speaking of one
sphere for each SN what the speed of light is.

> You could choose any other inertial frame as well, and the light
> from each source would expand in a sphere relative to it.

IMO we can only speak of one inertial frame for each sphere with the
origin in the center of the sphere. However the neutron star (ns) will
not stay in the origin and move to a different location.

> The same would apply to your supernovas, ignoring the
> effects of gravity.
>
> > If this is correct then it is very important to select a one and only
> > reference frame to describe this whole "experiment".
>
> To perform an analysis, one must indeed select coordinates. But for the
> situation I described one can select ANY inertial frame. It's just that
> S and S' will make the analysis simpler than any of the others,
> because these are directly related to the physical situation.

The problem IMO is in principle identical as when I turn a light ON and OFF
outside in the open air.
This signal will also be propageted in a sphere around me.
IMO there is only one frame which origin coincides with the center of this
sphere. When I turn on the light my position will be at the origin of this
frame, there after I move to a different position.

It is important to state that the speed of light is the same in all directions.
The problem is that it is not possible to establish (with as a reference point
the ns) where this sphere is at any one moment,
nor to establish what the speed of this sphere is
or to establish what my own speed (the ns) is relatif to speed of this sphere.

> Tom Roberts

Thanks.

Nicolaas Vroom

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/2/17 7/2/17 - 7:24 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Sunday, 2 July 2017 06:06:14 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> [...]

>> Note that after the light pulses are emitted, neither A nor B remains at
>> the center of its light sphere, relative to either S or S'.
>> As expected -- once emitted, light has no connection to its source.
>
> That is correct. What is even more there is IMO no way that "nsA" can
> establish its position within his sphere nor can "nsB".
> "nsA" can not establish where the center is of the sphere nor in which
> direction "nsA" moves relative to his sphere.

Hmmm. You seem to think that each source has "one" light sphere. This is incorrect.

Note that whenever I mentioned a "light sphere" I ALSO mentioned to which
inertial frame it was referenced. This is because EACH inertial frame sees a
DIFFERENT light sphere for a given source. Relative to any inertial frame the
pulsed omindirectional source's light expands outward in a sphere; because
simultaneity is different in the different frames, and the sphere is a locus
that is SIMULTANEOUS in the frame, these spheres are DIFFERENT in different
frames; each expands at c relative to their frame.

> The problem IMO is that it is impossible, assuming we are speaking of one
> sphere for each SN what the speed of light is.

YOU discussed "SN", while I discussed pulsed omindirectional
light sources. I'll ignore the difference, still using SR.

First, your assumption is WRONG, and there is not "one sphere" -- each inertial
frame sees a DIFFERENT light sphere for a given source.

Second, if you want to measure the speed of light, you must have TWO
observations of the light (along with a known distance between the measurements,
and synchronized clocks to measure the time of flight). So there is nothing
special here, if all you have is the pulsed light source (SN), you cannot
measure the speed of its light.

> The problem IMO is in principle identical as when I turn a light ON and OFF
> outside in the open air.
> This signal will also be propageted in a sphere around me.
> IMO there is only one frame which origin coincides with the center of this
> sphere. When I turn on the light my position will be at the origin of this
> frame, there after I move to a different position.

EVERY inertial frame will observe a light sphere, and the source AT THE TIME OF
EMISSION is at the center of each frame's sphere. Of course after the emission
the source can move away from the center; a non-inertial source will move away
from the center of every sphere; an inertial source will move away from the
center of every sphere except one:

There is one unique inertial frame in which there is no Doppler shift anywhere
in the light sphere -- this is the inertial frame in which the source was at
rest at the moment of emission.

> It is important to state that the speed of light is the same in all directions.

OK. But it is important to qualify this, as it is only valid relative to an
inertial frame, and in vacuum.

> The problem is that it is not possible to establish (with as a reference point
> the ns) where this sphere is at any one moment,
> nor to establish what the speed of this sphere is
> or to establish what my own speed (the ns) is relatif to speed of this sphere.

Given the requisite measuring apparatus, it would be easy to measure where the
sphere is and how fast it is moving. This apparatus must be distributed
throughout spacetime and communicate results to a single observer for analysis.
And of course, given sufficient knowledge of physics, one can calculate where it
is....

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/28/17 6/28/17 - 12:30 PM, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Montag, 19. Juni 2017 18:26:47 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
>> The elapsed proper time of a timelike path between points A and B
>> (which lie upon it) is \integral d\tau, where \tau is the proper
>> time of the path,

>
> The translation of "Eigenzeit" as "proper time" is a bit misleading because proper means real and satisfactory rather than inadequate.

"Proper time" is not a translation from German, it is a technical term in
English, specific to physics. I believe the corresponding "Fachwort" in German
is indeed "die Eigenzeit". Note that "proper time" does mean "a clock's
(person's) own time", which is a not unreasonable translation of "die Eigenzeit".

> I don't see questions of mine answered.

Because you have not phrased them well enough to have answers.

>> This is a direct analogy to a triangle ABC in the Euclidean plane:
>> The triangle
>> has two paths from A to B (AB and ACB) that clearly differ in length. The twin
>> paradox, with instantaneous accelerations for the traveling twin, is just a
>> triangle in a space-time plane.
>
> Hmm. Isn't AC + CB shorter than AB?

Yes ("shorter" = "less elapsed proper time") -- this is an ANALOGY to a triangle
in the Euclidean plane. The geometry in a space-time plane is hyperbolic, not
Euclidean. That is:
d\tau^2 = dt^2 - dx^2
where t and x are the Minkowski coordinates on the plane, and \tau is the proper
time. Note the minus sign (where Euclidean geometry has a plus sign in its
equation for distance).

Tom Roberts

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 3 lipca 2017 17:06:59 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> Note that whenever I mentioned a "light sphere" I ALSO mentioned to which
> inertial frame it was referenced. This is because EACH inertial frame sees a
> DIFFERENT light sphere for a given source.

Note also, that walking on a street EACH observer
sees buildings and trees running around him. A
relativistic moron imagined! So whoever doesn't
see them is a stupid relativity denying crank.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 3 lipca 2017 17:29:06 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> "Proper time" is not a translation from German, it is a technical term in
> English, specific to physics.

And "best system" is a tehnical term
specific to communist's newspeak.

[Oveho Anými Trofyzikovu]

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> The translation of "Eigenzeit" as "proper time" is a bit misleading
>> because proper means real and satisfactory rather than inadequate.

EigenZeit is merely Own Time, not proper time. Go to school, young man.

> "Proper time" is not a translation from German, it is a technical term
> in English, specific to physics. I believe the corresponding "Fachwort"
> in German is indeed "die Eigenzeit". Note that "proper time" does mean

No, you don't know germ, I'm disappointed.

> "a clock's (person's) own time", which is a not unreasonable translation
> of "die Eigenzeit".

Eigen -> Own
Zeit -> Time.

What on Earth is so difficult.

[Eckard B]

Am Montag, 3. Juli 2017 17:29:06 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
> On 6/28/17 6/28/17 - 12:30 PM, Eckard B wrote:
> > Am Montag, 19. Juni 2017 18:26:47 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
> >> The elapsed proper time of a timelike path between points A and B
> >> (which lie upon it) is \integral d\tau, where \tau is the proper
> >> time of the path,
> >
> > The translation of "Eigenzeit" as "proper time" is a bit misleading because proper means real and satisfactory rather than inadequate.
>
> "Proper time" is not a translation from German,

Wiki tells us that the term "proper time" goes back to Minkowski 1908. His speech was written in German and wrote "Eigenzeit".

> > Hmm. Isn't AC + CB shorter than AB?
>
> Yes ("shorter" = "less elapsed proper time") -- this is an ANALOGY to a
> triangle
> in the Euclidean plane. The geometry in a space-time plane is hyperbolic, not
> Euclidean. That is:
> d\tau^2 = dt^2 - dx^2
> where t and x are the Minkowski coordinates on the plane, and \tau is the
> proper time. Note the minus sign (where Euclidean geometry has a plus sign in > its equation for distance).

Of course. Minkowski applied hyperbolic geometry which is formally correct while one more reason to distrust SR. I guess, Minkowski died from appendix rupture because he felt possibly wrong.

[Odd Bodkin]

You yourself said that whether the trees and buildings are moving shifts
with context.
Remember?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 3:07:14 PM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:
>
> Wiki tells us that the term "proper time" goes back to Minkowski 1908. His
> speech was written in German and wrote "Eigenzeit".

So your modus operandi is to strain at gnats and swallow camels?

> Of course. Minkowski applied hyperbolic geometry which is formally correct
> while one more reason to distrust SR.

Minkowski hyperbolic geometry is embedded in the LT. Didn't you know that?

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Gary Harnagel wrote

Minkowski hyperbolic geometry is embedded in the LT.

https://goo.gl/photos/4ZbQXezcf4ryPUTo8

[Poutnik]

Dne 04/07/2017 v 00:35 Gary Harnagel napsal(a):

It will not help.
He distrusts anything that smells like LT.

[Poutnik]

Dne 03/07/2017 v 23:34 Odd Bodkin napsal(a):

He may have forgotten the Earth is not static and flat,
but rotates and orbits at several levels
( at least Sun, Galaxy and Galaxy group ).

So what is moving or not depends on
what coordinate system we arbitrarily choose.

[Poutnik]

Dne 3.7.2017 v 23:07 Eckard B napsal(a):

SR is formally correct and its predictions fit.
That is what counts, not your dreams of what is possible or not.

You should focus your distrust
to hypothesis with predictions that do not fit,
if they have ever any.

You repeat yourself by distracting with irrelevant details,
what is indirect mark of having no better arguments.

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 10:39:27 AM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
>
> Yes, as an electrical engineer, I support your idea that the far field of a wave isn't bound to the emitter but to space in the sense of actual mutual distances.

Electrical engineers tend to be total imbeciles when it comes to relativity. You are living proof.

[Dono,]

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 3:50:58 AM UTC-7, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>
> I'am also an electrical engineer (measurement and control)

This explains your total inability to ever understand relativity.

[Tom Roberts]

On 6/30/17 6/30/17 4:27 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> I got the impression that there is still no clear meaning for what is an
> "observer".

Hmmmm. This depends strongly on one's theoretical context. In QM the answer is
MUCH different than in SR and GR.

In SR and GR the meaning of "observer" can usually be determined from context,
at least in a well-written description. Normally it means a pointlike, timelike
object that can record observations of its immediate vicinity; often the object
is given human qualities and can also perform calculations, write reports, etc.

Describing "observer" in QM would take a book....

> What does the speed of light wrt an observer mean?

Nothing, by itself. This is a verbal shortcut, and means the speed of light
relative to the coordinates in which the observer is at rest (invariably a
locally-inertial frame).

> According to my definition, c relates to the two only involved locations,
> emitter at the moment of emission and receiver at the moment of arrival.

That is incomplete, and utterly unable to measure a speed. To actually make such
a measurement, the "two locations" need to have a known distance between them
(at the instants of their measurements), and clocks that are SYNCHRONIZED --
this is equivalent to constructing coordinates.

As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, "velocity" and "speed"
are ONLY defined relative to a given set of coordinates. THIS
IS WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN. Both are inherently coordinate
dependent. Moreover, unless explicitly mentioned, the
coordinates are presumed to be a (locally) inertial frame.

Note that "4-velocity", while superficially similar, is quite
different; it is a geometrical quantity that is independent
of coordinates.

> I interprete the Sagnac effect as due to changed length of path, not changed
> timescale.

Except, of course, in a Sagnac interferometer the light path DOES NOT CHANGE. So
your "interpretation" is contrary to observed facts.

The Sagnac effect is simply due to the fact that the vacuum speed of light is
isotropically c ONLY relative to a locally inertial frame, and the rotating
interferometer is not at rest in such a frame. From this basic fact one can
quantitatively calculate the fringe shift, and such predictions are in agreement
with observations. So this is an excellent example of the importance of
COORDINATES in measuring speed, and especially the importance of (locally)
inertial frames. You have failed to understand this, and need to go STUDY --
nobody ever learned anything by writing nonsense to the 'net....

Tom Roberts

[Oveho Trofyzikovu]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 6/30/17 6/30/17 4:27 AM, Eckard B wrote:
>> I got the impression that there is still no clear meaning for what is
>> an "observer".
>
> Hmmmm. This depends strongly on one's theoretical context. In QM the
> answer is MUCH different than in SR and GR.

Idiot. An observer is an Observer.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Of course.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 4 lipca 2017 07:25:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> So what is moving or not depends on
> what coordinate system we arbitrarily choose.

And your moronic screams that "experiments
confirm" are nothing more than moronic screams.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 4 lipca 2017 10:47:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> SR is formally correct and its predictions fit.

Its predictions fit your gedanken, poor idiot.

[Odd Bodkin]

<mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 3 lipca 2017 23:34:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 3 lipca 2017 17:06:59 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>>>
>>>> Note that whenever I mentioned a "light sphere" I ALSO mentioned to which
>>>> inertial frame it was referenced. This is because EACH inertial frame sees a
>>>> DIFFERENT light sphere for a given source.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note also, that walking on a street EACH observer
>>> sees buildings and trees running around him. A
>>> relativistic moron imagined! So whoever doesn't
>>> see them is a stupid relativity denying crank.
>>>
>>
>> You yourself said that whether the trees and buildings are moving shifts
>> with context.
>> Remember?
>
> Of course.
>
>

And those who say that in this context the trees and buildings are moving,
are they being relativistic morons?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 5 lipca 2017 02:04:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 3 lipca 2017 23:34:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 3 lipca 2017 17:06:59 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> >>>
> >>>> Note that whenever I mentioned a "light sphere" I ALSO mentioned to which
> >>>> inertial frame it was referenced. This is because EACH inertial frame sees a
> >>>> DIFFERENT light sphere for a given source.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Note also, that walking on a street EACH observer
> >>> sees buildings and trees running around him. A
> >>> relativistic moron imagined! So whoever doesn't
> >>> see them is a stupid relativity denying crank.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You yourself said that whether the trees and buildings are moving shifts
> >> with context.
> >> Remember?
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> >
>
> And those who say that in this context the trees and buildings are moving,
> are they being relativistic morons?

But they never do. Your brains are too small to deal
with "context" stuff. You expect the observers
to mechanically say the same simple things in the
same circimstances.
You're so naive.

[Eckard B]

A serious reason for me to distrust SR was already that LT was based on length contraction which was fabricated as to rescue the untenable aether hypothesis.
I would like to better understand the electromagnetic mechanism behind what Fuller
seems to cryptically illustrate. Lorentz' formula seems to explain what was observed with accelerators. I don't deny this. However, I distrust Poincaré who iIrc is characterized like a butterfly jumping from one flower to the next one instead of consequently thinking to the end.

[Poutnik]

Dne 05/07/2017 v 09:27 Eckard B napsal(a):

> Am Dienstag, 4. Juli 2017 00:35:59 UTC+2 schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 3:07:14 PM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:
>
>>> Of course. Minkowski applied hyperbolic geometry which is formally correct
>>> while one more reason to distrust SR.
>>
>> Minkowski hyperbolic geometry is embedded in the LT. Didn't you know that?
>
> A serious reason for me to distrust SR was already that LT was based on length contraction which was fabricated as to rescue the untenable aether hypothesis.

All LC, TD, RoS and LT are based
on experimentally confirmed invariant vacuum light speed.

The fact LT and TD also works for saving the aether does not matter.
LT in SR was derived independently of Lorentz aether hypothesis,
by different path.

> I would like to better understand the electromagnetic mechanism behind what Fuller
> seems to cryptically illustrate. Lorentz' formula seems to explain what was observed with accelerators. I don't deny this. However, I distrust Poincaré who iIrc is characterized like a butterfly jumping from one flower to the next one instead of consequently thinking to the end.

Theories are not based on trust,
but on analysis of consistence
and agreements with experiments.

Personal likes or dislikes do not matter.

Poincaré is sometimes considered as one of last polyglots,
as switching between topics,
he made significant achievements
in many domains of knowledge.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 5 lipca 2017 10:16:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> All LC, TD, RoS and LT are based
> on experimentally confirmed invariant vacuum light speed.

:)
Your Shit can never decide, whether its rules
are undeniable because they are results of
experiments or they are undeniable because they
are immutable mathematical truth.

But the truth is what you said some posts above
yourself. Quoting: "depends on what coordinate
system we arbitrarily choose."
All these moronic wonders are nothing but
consequences of your idiotic choices.

[Poutnik]

Dne 05/07/2017 v 09:27 Eckard B napsal(a):

> Am Dienstag, 4. Juli 2017 00:35:59 UTC+2 schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>> Minkowski hyperbolic geometry is embedded in the LT. Didn't you know that?
>
> A serious reason for me to distrust SR was already that LT was based on length contraction which was fabricated as to rescue the untenable aether hypothesis.
> I would like to better understand the electromagnetic mechanism behind what Fuller

> seems to cryptically illustrate. Lorentz' formula seems to explain what was observed with accelerators. ....

There is no electromagnetic mechanism behind that.
Nothing happens to objects.

If nine observers start moving around an object,
the object does not magically shrink,
even by nine different ways.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 1:27:29 AM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, 4. Juli 2017 00:35:59 UTC+2 schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 3:07:14 PM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course. Minkowski applied hyperbolic geometry which is formally correct
> > > while one more reason to distrust SR.
> >
> > Minkowski hyperbolic geometry is embedded in the LT. Didn't you know that?
>
> A serious reason for me to distrust SR was already that LT was based on
> length contraction which was fabricated as to rescue the untenable aether
> hypothesis.

Irrelevant. Einstein based the LT on the Principle of Relativity and the
invariance of the speed of light, both of which are experimentally verified.

> I would like to better understand the electromagnetic mechanism behind
> what Fuller seems to cryptically illustrate. Lorentz' formula seems to
> explain what was observed with accelerators.

Fuller? Didn't he sell brushes?

> I don't deny this. However, I distrust Poincaré who iIrc is characterized
> like a butterfly jumping from one flower to the next one instead of
> consequently thinking to the end.

So why don't YOU follow the mathematical logic for the derivation of the
Lorentz transform equations?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 5 lipca 2017 12:13:38 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> Irrelevant. Einstein based the LT on the Principle of Relativity and the
> invariance of the speed of light, both of which are experimentally verified.

:)
Your Shit can never decide, whether its rules
are undeniable because they are results of
experiments or they are undeniable because they
are immutable mathematical truth.

But the truth is what your fellow idiot said some
posts above. Quoting: "depends on what coordinate

[Oveho Trofyzikovu]

mlwozniak wrote:

> W dniu środa, 5 lipca 2017 12:13:38 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> napisał:
>
>> Irrelevant. Einstein based the LT on the Principle of Relativity and
>> the invariance of the speed of light, both of which are experimentally
>> verified.
>

> But the truth is what your fellow idiot said some posts above. Quoting:
> "depends on what coordinate system we arbitrarily choose." All these
> moronic wonders are nothing but consequences of your idiotic choices.

You have to choose a coordinate system, once you intend to make an
Observation, wozy boy. Don't be a fool, Dr. Gary is perfectly consistent.
You have to make sure you understand where something is consistent and
where is it not.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 5 lipca 2017 13:11:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Oveho Trofyzikovu napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
>
> > W dniu środa, 5 lipca 2017 12:13:38 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> > napisał:
> >
> >> Irrelevant. Einstein based the LT on the Principle of Relativity and
> >> the invariance of the speed of light, both of which are experimentally
> >> verified.
> >
> > But the truth is what your fellow idiot said some posts above. Quoting:
> > "depends on what coordinate system we arbitrarily choose." All these
> > moronic wonders are nothing but consequences of your idiotic choices.
>
> You have to choose a coordinate system, once you intend to make an
> Observation, wozy boy.

No, I don't, though it's often helpful, noname boy.
And, anyway, the result of this observation
depends on my choices. The difference is -
you're too stupid to make such complicated choices
consciously.

[Oveho Trofyzikovu]

Name one, wozy boy. Think again, Observations are meant to return Info.
Info demands Coordinates. No Coordinate implies no Info, no Info implies
no Observation. I implore you to reconsider. Por favor.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 5 lipca 2017 14:10:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Oveho Trofyzikovu napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
>
> > W dniu środa, 5 lipca 2017 13:11:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Oveho Trofyzikovu
> > napisał:
> >> mlwozniak wrote:
> >> > But the truth is what your fellow idiot said some posts above.
> >> > Quoting: "depends on what coordinate system we arbitrarily choose."
> >> > All these moronic wonders are nothing but consequences of your
> >> > idiotic choices.
> >>
> >> You have to choose a coordinate system, once you intend to make an
> >> Observation, wozy boy.
> >
> > No, I don't, though it's often helpful, noname boy.
> > And, anyway, the result of this observation depends on my choices. The
> > difference is - you're too stupid to make such complicated choices
> > consciously.
>
> Name one, wozy boy. Think again, Observations are meant to return Info.
> Info demands Coordinates.

No, noname boy, info doesn't demand coordinates.
They are often helpful, but optional.

[Eckard B]

Am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2017 12:13:38 UTC+2 schrieb Gary Harnagel:

> Einstein based the LT on the Principle of Relativity and the
> invariance of the speed of light

In order to arrive at LT and length contraction, Einstein claimed that
one needs a two-way "synchronization" which is actually an ad hoc
"conventional" Poincaré re-definition to the speed of light.

, both of which are experimentally verified.
>
> > I would like to better understand the electromagnetic mechanism behind
> > what Fuller seems to cryptically illustrate. Lorentz' formula seems to
> > explain what was observed with accelerators.
>





>

> > I don't deny this. However, I distrust Poincaré who iIrc is characterized
> > like a butterfly jumping from one flower to the next one instead of
> > consequently thinking to the end.
>
> So why don't YOU follow the mathematical logic for the derivation of the
> Lorentz transform equations?

I am aware of several not convincing derivations. Which one do you prefer?

[Poutnik]

Dne 05/07/2017 v 15:37 Eckard B napsal(a):

> Am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2017 12:13:38 UTC+2 schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>
>> Einstein based the LT on the Principle of Relativity and the
>> invariance of the speed of light
>
> In order to arrive at LT and length contraction, Einstein claimed that
> one needs a two-way "synchronization" which is actually an ad hoc
> "conventional" Poincaré re-definition to the speed of light.

It is equation, not definition.
Learn it again, while you can.
You keep this your fixed idea with stubbornness of high age.

>>> I don't deny this. However, I distrust Poincaré who iIrc is characterized
>>> like a butterfly jumping from one flower to the next one instead of
>>> consequently thinking to the end.
>>
>> So why don't YOU follow the mathematical logic for the derivation of the
>> Lorentz transform equations?
>
> I am aware of several not convincing derivations. Which one do you prefer?
>

Derivations are not to be convincing.
They are correct or not.
It is math.
You understand it or not.

Choose the one that seems to you easy to understand.

[Eckard B]

Am Dienstag, 4. Juli 2017 16:46:54 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
> On 6/30/17 6/30/17 4:27 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> > I got the impression that there is still no clear meaning for what is an
> > "observer".
>
> Hmmmm. This depends strongly on one's theoretical context. In QM the answer is
> MUCH different than in SR and GR.
>
> In SR and GR the meaning of "observer" can usually be determined from context,
> at least in a well-written description. Normally it means a pointlike,
> timelike object that can record observations of its immediate vicinity;

Isn't anything timelike (r<ct) in the sense that it takes just sufficient time to observe any remote event? You seem to require observation at zero duration.

> often the object is given human qualities and can also perform calculations,
> write reports, etc.

Well, the so called bird's (or God's) view combines a lot.

>
> Describing "observer" in QM would take a book....

Yes, beginning with so called observables.

>
> > What does the speed of light wrt an observer mean?
>
> Nothing, by itself. This is a verbal shortcut, and means the speed of light
> relative to the coordinates in which the observer is at rest (invariably a
> locally-inertial frame).

My one-way definition doesn't refer to a coordinate system, not to coordinates
of the emiiter, not to those of receiver, not to any third object. It refers to a difference between two locations at different points of time.

>
> > According to my definition, c relates to the two only involved locations,
> > emitter at the moment of emission and receiver at the moment of arrival.
>
> That is incomplete,

Well you might miss the absolute reference point.

> and utterly unable to measure a speed.

I see it tho only reasonable definition.

> To actually make such
> a measurement, the "two locations" need to have a known distance between them
> (at the instants of their measurements),

Yes. This is not impossible in case the distance doesn't change or the change is of known size.

> and clocks that are SYNCHRONIZED --
> this is equivalent to constructing coordinates.

I several times explained how clocks can be synchronized even if they are moving relative to each other.

> As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, "velocity" and "speed"
> are ONLY defined relative to a given set of coordinates. THIS
> IS WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN. Both are inherently coordinate
> dependent.

Coordinates imply the origin of a scale. My definition doesn't need it because
it refers to a difference. Hence, the origin doen't matter.

>
> > I interprete the Sagnac effect as due to changed length of path, not changed
> > timescale.
>
> Except, of course, in a Sagnac interferometer the light path DOES NOT CHANGE. > So your "interpretation" is contrary to observed facts.

Really? I consider space as mutual distances. Rotation may change the length of path.

>
> The Sagnac effect is simply due to the fact that the vacuum speed of light is
> isotropically c ONLY relative to a locally inertial frame, and the rotating
> interferometer is not at rest in such a frame. From this basic fact one can
> quantitatively calculate the fringe shift, and such predictions are in
> agreement with observations.

While the effects of rotation compensate each other in case of Michelson's 1881 and 1887 experiments, this is not the case in case of Sagnac effect and Michelson's 1923 experiment with Gale. I am not sure whether or not one needs coordinates in this case as to understand the effect. The center of rotation may serve as absolute reference point.

[Eckard B]

Poutnik stubbornly denies what Einstein wrote:

Am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2017 16:33:16 UTC+2 schrieb Poutnik:

> > In order to arrive at LT and length contraction, Einstein claimed that
> > one needs a two-way "synchronization" which is actually an ad hoc
> > "conventional" Poincaré re-definition to the speed of light.
>
> It is equation, not definition.

Einstein wrote: "Definition von 'gleichzeitig' und 'Zeit' gewonnen" and
"Wir setzen noch der Erfahrung gemäß fest, daß die Größe
2AB/(t'-A - t_A) = V
eine universelle Konstante (die Lichtgeschwindigkeit im leeren Raume) sei."
Einstein didn't reveal which Erfahrung he referred to.

[Poutnik]

Dne 05/07/2017 v 17:04 Eckard B napsal(a):

> Poutnik stubbornly denies what Einstein wrote:

No, you stubbornly misunderstand what is meant by that.

>>
>> It is equation, not definition.

Use generally accepted English translation on English group.
Or I will use Czech version.

>
> Einstein wrote: "Definition von 'gleichzeitig' und 'Zeit' gewonnen" and
> "Wir setzen noch der Erfahrung gemäß fest, daß die Größe
> 2AB/(t'-A - t_A) = V
> eine universelle Konstante (die Lichtgeschwindigkeit im leeren Raume) sei."
> Einstein didn't reveal which Erfahrung he referred to.

Learn to understand what you read.

It is equation valid for invariant vacuum light speed c,
without an extra light speed definition.

2AB/(t'-A - t_A) is equal to c

As for any constant speed v of anything,
v = total_path/total_time.

Again, it is equation, not definition.

[Poutnik]

Dne 05/07/2017 v 17:19 Poutnik napsal(a):

> Dne 05/07/2017 v 17:04 Eckard B napsal(a):

>>

>> Einstein wrote: "Definition von 'gleichzeitig' und 'Zeit' gewonnen" and
>> "Wir setzen noch der Erfahrung gemäß fest, daß die Größe
>> 2AB/(t'-A - t_A) = V
>> eine universelle Konstante (die Lichtgeschwindigkeit im leeren Raume) sei."
>> Einstein didn't reveal which Erfahrung he referred to.
>
> Learn to understand what you read.
>
> It is equation valid for invariant vacuum light speed c,
> without an extra light speed definition.
>
> 2AB/(t'-A - t_A) is equal to c
>
> As for any constant speed v of anything,
> v = total_path/total_time.
>
> Again, it is equation, not definition.
>

Analogically, if I consider air in rest,
and constant speed of sound
equation
2AB/(t'-A - t_A) = v_sound

is not redefinition of the speed of sound.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/5/17 7/5/17 - 2:27 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> A serious reason for me to distrust SR was already that LT was based on
> length contraction which was fabricated as to rescue the untenable aether
> hypothesis.

This is just plain not true. "Length contraction" is a CONCLUSION of the Lorentz
transform, not any basis of it.

Yes, Lorentz and Fitzgerald each considered "length contraction"
before 1904. But go READ Lorentz's 1904 paper that derived the
LT and you'll see it is not used in the derivation.

TODAY we derive the equations of SR, including the Lorentz transform, from
basic geometrical principles, without any reference to light at all.

Einstein historically intermixed two quite different theories
which we now keep separate: SR as a theory of geometry (only),
and electrodynamics (both classical and quantum versions). A
primary reason to separate them is so the transition SR -> GR
remains purely geometrical, independent of electrodynamics.

> I would like to better understand the electromagnetic mechanism [...]

A modern derivation of the LT uses no electromagnetism at all:

From the basic definition of inertial frames, elementary group theory shows that
there can be only three transformation groups among them: Euclid, Galilei, and
Lorentz. Only the last survives confrontation with experiment (which also
determines its free parameter, c, to be equal to the vacuum speed of light).

Tom Roberts

[Oveho Trofyzikovu]

mlwozniak wrote:

>> >> You have to choose a coordinate system, once you intend to make an
>> >> Observation, wozy boy.
>> >
>> > No, I don't, though it's often helpful, noname boy.
>> > And, anyway, the result of this observation depends on my choices.
>> > The difference is - you're too stupid to make such complicated
>> > choices consciously.
>>
>> Name one, wozy boy. Think again, Observations are meant to return Info.
>> Info demands Coordinates.
>
> No, noname boy, info doesn't demand coordinates.
> They are often helpful, but optional.

You are so stupid, you can be arrested in my country. Info without well
defined reference coordinates, implicit or explicit, is not Info but
*_Noise_*. The first rule in the book. Ie '5Kg', '5⁰C', position xyz in
meters or whatever, all comes by WELL DEFINED reference coordinate. How on
earth you've been able to pass your electrical half-engineer exams?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 7:37:43 AM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2017 12:13:38 UTC+2 schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > Einstein based the LT on the Principle of Relativity and the
> > invariance of the speed of light
>
> In order to arrive at LT and length contraction, Einstein claimed that
> one needs a two-way "synchronization" which is actually an ad hoc
> "conventional" Poincaré re-definition to the speed of light.

Actually, it's a PRACTICAL convention since one-way has difficulties
synchronizing clocks.

> > both of which are experimentally verified.
> >
> > > I would like to better understand the electromagnetic mechanism behind
> > > what Fuller seems to cryptically illustrate. Lorentz' formula seems to
> > > explain what was observed with accelerators.

Removing the Fuller Brush Man doesn't tell anyone who Fuller is.

> > > I don't deny this. However, I distrust Poincaré who iIrc is characterized
> > > like a butterfly jumping from one flower to the next one instead of
> > > consequently thinking to the end.
> >
> > So why don't YOU follow the mathematical logic for the derivation of the
> > Lorentz transform equations?
>
> I am aware of several not convincing derivations. Which one do you prefer?

I gave it to you, but you never bothered to reply. Why should I give it
again? If it was "unconvincing" then the fault lies with YOU.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Eckard B wrote

Am Dienstag, 4. Juli 2017 00:35:59 UTC+2 schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 3:07:14 PM UTC-6, Eckard B wrote:

> > Of course. Minkowski applied hyperbolic geometry which is formally correct
> > while one more reason to distrust SR.
>
> Minkowski hyperbolic geometry is embedded in the LT. Didn't you know that?

A serious reason for me to distrust SR was already that LT was based on length contraction which was fabricated as to rescue the untenable aether hypothesis.
I would like to better understand the electromagnetic mechanism behind what Fuller
seems to cryptically illustrate.

It isn't cryptic.

It is like Pinching a watermelon seed & having it shoot out from between your fingers.

Once in motion, In order to stop its motion, it must hit another seed, depositing Its momentum into something else.

It is explained by the physics of Bubble Pulsation a Medium & wave speed in a medium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_(physics)#Pulsation

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html



https://goo.gl/photos/4ZbQXezcf4ryPUTo8

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Pulsation Edit
When bubbles are disturbed, they pulsate (that is, they oscillate in size) at their natural frequency. Large bubbles (negligible surface tension and thermal conductivity) undergo adiabatic pulsations, which means that no heat is transferred either from the liquid to the gas or vice versa. The natural frequency of such bubbles is determined by the equation

(((3.33333333e-11 pascals) / (3.7037e-28 (kg / (m^3))))^0.5) = 3e+8 Hz

[Odd Bodkin]

<mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
> W dniu środa, 5 lipca 2017 02:04:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 3 lipca 2017 23:34:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>>> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 3 lipca 2017 17:06:59 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that whenever I mentioned a "light sphere" I ALSO mentioned to which
>>>>>> inertial frame it was referenced. This is because EACH inertial frame sees a
>>>>>> DIFFERENT light sphere for a given source.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also, that walking on a street EACH observer
>>>>> sees buildings and trees running around him. A
>>>>> relativistic moron imagined! So whoever doesn't
>>>>> see them is a stupid relativity denying crank.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You yourself said that whether the trees and buildings are moving shifts
>>>> with context.
>>>> Remember?
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And those who say that in this context the trees and buildings are moving,
>> are they being relativistic morons?
>
> But they never do.

That's not what you said earlier. Recall that people will acknowledge that
the trees and buildings are tied to the surface of the earth, and the
surface of the earth is clearly moving as the earth rotates. This motion is
traceable via centrifugal effects and the fact that the sun is observed to
rise over the horizon even though nobody believes the sun orbits the earth.
So you remember that people do sometimes say that the buildings and the
trees are moving.

So when you say they never say such things you are oversimplifying.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 6 lipca 2017 02:24:50 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 5 lipca 2017 02:04:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> W dniu poniedziałek, 3 lipca 2017 23:34:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>>> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>>>> W dniu poniedziałek, 3 lipca 2017 17:06:59 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that whenever I mentioned a "light sphere" I ALSO mentioned to which
> >>>>>> inertial frame it was referenced. This is because EACH inertial frame sees a
> >>>>>> DIFFERENT light sphere for a given source.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note also, that walking on a street EACH observer
> >>>>> sees buildings and trees running around him. A
> >>>>> relativistic moron imagined! So whoever doesn't
> >>>>> see them is a stupid relativity denying crank.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You yourself said that whether the trees and buildings are moving shifts
> >>>> with context.
> >>>> Remember?
> >>>
> >>> Of course.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> And those who say that in this context the trees and buildings are moving,
> >> are they being relativistic morons?
> >
> > But they never do.
>
> That's not what you said earlier. Recall that people will acknowledge that
> the trees and buildings are tied to the surface of the earth, and the
> surface of the earth is clearly moving as the earth rotates.

Context of planets doesn't require trees. And
oppositely. Of course, exceptions can happen.

This motion is
> traceable via centrifugal effects and the fact that the sun is observed to
> rise over the horizon even though nobody believes the sun orbits the earth.
> So you remember that people do sometimes say that the buildings and the
> trees are moving.

Odd, poor idiot.
You can assign coordinates to Sun (or, the center
of solar system - it's useful when you talk about
space objects in SS. You can assign coordinates
to Earth (you have 2 important ways of doing it -
ECI and geocentrism, both useful). And you can also
assign coordinates to an observer, like you gurus
said you should. But nobody does. It's an extreme
stupidity and it's totally useless. An observer
is simply too unstable to use such coordinates for
anything. That's why - even if trees move (it's rare,
as context of planets doesn't usually require trees)
they don't move the way descripted by your gurus.

[Upech Bezradne]

Poutnik wrote:

> SR is formally correct and its predictions fit.
> That is what counts, not your dreams of what is possible or not.

Not at all. Harshly dependent on the structure of the domain.

[Eckard B]

Am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2017 19:08:40 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
> On 7/5/17 7/5/17 - 2:27 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> > A serious reason for me to distrust SR was already that LT was based on
> > length contraction which was fabricated as to rescue the untenable aether
> > hypothesis.
>
> This is just plain not true. "Length contraction" is a CONCLUSION of the Lorentz
> transform, not any basis of it.
>
> Yes, Lorentz and Fitzgerald each considered "length contraction"
> before 1904. But go READ Lorentz's 1904 paper that derived the
> LT and you'll see it is not used in the derivation.
>
> TODAY we derive the equations of SR, including the Lorentz transform, from
> basic geometrical principles, without any reference to light at all.

When FitzGerald and Lorentz independent from each other fabricated the idea of length contraction, they intended to explain Michelson's failure to explain his unexpected null result. This led much later to what Poincaré called LT.

The history of G. Cantor's untenable but up to now not yet abandoned naive definition of an infinite set also exhibits numerous maneuvers to rescue something even by means of complicated systems of highly abstract axioms without any reference to numbers at all.

>
> Einstein historically intermixed two quite different theories
> which we now keep separate: SR as a theory of geometry (only),
> and electrodynamics (both classical and quantum versions). A
> primary reason to separate them is so the transition SR -> GR
> remains purely geometrical, independent of electrodynamics.

Cantor claimed: The essence of mathematics is its freedom.
I am not aware of a mathematical reason to prefer e.g. Riemannian geometry in physics. On the other hand, there are often unseen possibilities of interpretation.

>
> > I would like to better understand the electromagnetic mechanism [...]
>
> A modern derivation of the LT uses no electromagnetism at all:
>
> From the basic definition of inertial frames, elementary group theory shows
> that
> there can be only three transformation groups among them: Euclid, Galilei, and
> Lorentz. Only the last survives confrontation with experiment (which also
> determines its free parameter, c, to be equal to the vacuum speed of light).

Which basic definition of inertial frames do you refer to?
Does group theory obey reality? Does it distinguish between past and future?

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/5/17 7/5/17 9:48 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 4. Juli 2017 16:46:54 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
>> On 6/30/17 6/30/17 4:27 AM, Eckard B wrote:
>>> I got the impression that there is still no clear meaning for what is an
>>> "observer".
>> Hmmmm. This depends strongly on one's theoretical context. In QM the
>> answer is MUCH different than in SR and GR.
>>
>> In SR and GR the meaning of "observer" can usually be determined from
>> context, at least in a well-written description. Normally it means a
>> pointlike, timelike object that can record observations of its immediate
>> vicinity;
>
> Isn't anything timelike (r<ct) in the sense that it takes just sufficient
> time to observe any remote event? You seem to require observation at zero
> duration.

No. An observer has a worldline and so can observe over time along that
worldline. But it does require zero DISTANCE: An observer can only observe right
where he/she/it is located -- for distant happenings it requires SIGNALS from
the happening to the observer, who observes the SIGNALS, not the happening
itself. (All too many people around here forget this, and omit analyzing effects
on those signals.)

I use "happening" rather than "event", because the latter is
a technical word with a quite different meaning. A "happening"
is some physical phenomenon that happens, while an event is a
point in the spacetime manifold.

>> often the object is given human qualities and can also perform
>> calculations, write reports, etc.
>
> Well, the so called bird's (or God's) view combines a lot.

That actually requires a set of observers distributed throughout the region of
interest, so there is one co-located with any happening of interest. They must
all communicate to some single location where the results can be analyzed.

>>> What does the speed of light wrt an observer mean?
>> Nothing, by itself. This is a verbal shortcut, and means the speed of light
>> relative to the coordinates in which the observer is at rest (invariably a
>> locally-inertial frame).
>
> My one-way definition doesn't refer to a coordinate system, not to
> coordinates of the emiiter, not to those of receiver, not to any third
> object. It refers to a difference between two locations at different points
> of time.

But you need to SYNCHRONIZE THE CLOCKS, and that is effectively constructing a
coordinate system. You just don't call it that. What is in a name?

> I several times explained how clocks can be synchronized even if they are
> moving relative to each other.

Hopeless, in general. Because "synchronization" is eternal -- once synchronized,
clocks must REMAIN in synch, or they are not really synchronized. Except under
very special circumstances, clocks moving relative to each other do not remain
in sync, and thus cannot be synchronized.

>> As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, "velocity" and "speed" are ONLY
>> defined relative to a given set of coordinates. THIS IS WHAT THESE WORDS
>> MEAN. Both are inherently coordinate dependent.
>
> Coordinates imply the origin of a scale.

Not just that. You need to LEARN what coordinates actually are. And how they are
used.

>>> I interprete the Sagnac effect as due to changed length of path, not
>>> changed timescale.
>>
>> Except, of course, in a Sagnac interferometer the light path DOES NOT
>> CHANGE. So your "interpretation" is contrary to observed facts.
>
> Really? I consider space as mutual distances. Rotation may change the length
> of path.

Just LOOK at the Sagnac interferometer. Except for the rotation nothing moves,
and it rotates rigidly. So the light paths remain unchanged relative to the
instrument, which is what matters.

Tom Roberts

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu niedziela, 9 lipca 2017 18:49:17 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> Hopeless, in general. Because "synchronization" is eternal -- once synchronized,
> clocks must REMAIN in synch, or they are not really synchronized. Except under
> very special circumstances, clocks moving relative to each other do not remain
> in sync, and thus cannot be synchronized.

And heavier than air planes can never fly.
Take a look at GPS, poor idiot.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/8/17 7/8/17 - 12:11 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2017 19:08:40 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
>> On 7/5/17 7/5/17 - 2:27 AM, Eckard B wrote:
>>> A serious reason for me to distrust SR was already that LT was based on
>>> length contraction which was fabricated as to rescue the untenable
>>> aether hypothesis.
>>
>> This is just plain not true. "Length contraction" is a CONCLUSION of the
>> Lorentz transform, not any basis of it.
>>
>> Yes, Lorentz and Fitzgerald each considered "length contraction" before
>> 1904. But go READ Lorentz's 1904 paper that derived the LT and you'll see
>> it is not used in the derivation.
>>
>> TODAY we derive the equations of SR, including the Lorentz transform, from
>> basic geometrical principles, without any reference to light at all.
>
> When FitzGerald and Lorentz independent from each other fabricated the idea
> of length contraction, they intended to explain Michelson's failure to
> explain his unexpected null result. This led much later to what Poincaré
> called LT.

Physicists also considered caloric, phlogiston, and aether -- that does NOT mean
that modern physics is "based upon" them.

Similarly, in deriving the Lorentz group, Poincare' considered the invariance
group of the Maxwell's equations, not "length contraction" or "time dilation" --
GO READ HIS PAPERS, and you will find no mention of them in the derivations.
Just like Lorentz and Einstein.

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy that you must learn to avoid.

> [... further baseless ranting and raving unrelated to the subject]

Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:08:02 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/8/17 6/8/17 10:31 AM, Eckard B wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2017 16:11:32 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
> >> Speed is ALWAYS referred to some coordinate system. You are free to
> >> construct coordinates in which the medium, the "stationary object", or the
> >> "moving object" is at rest.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> Your disagreement is merely YOUR problem, and does not change the FACT that what
> I said is correct. This _IS_ what these words mean (in this context, i.e.
> physics; in casual speech the meaning is not so precise).
>
> That's why your attempt to define "speed" without using coordinates
> is so ludicrous -- the word ALREADY has an explicit meaning. But
> you do not know enough about the subject to recognize your own
> incompetence and ignorance. I have already discussed this....
>
> > The speed of a wave or a massless particle or quasiparticle like a phonon
> > has a natural reference, a non-arbitrarily chosen zero.
>
> NONSENSE! You are VERY confused and have missed a basic point of SR.
>
> > Otherwise we couldn't ascribe an absolute value zero and consequently not a
> > constant value to it.
>
> NONSENSE! You are VERY confused and have missed a basic point of SR.
>
> We CANNOT ascribe any sort of "absolute zero" to ANY speed/velocity, just like
> there is no "absolute rest".
>
> Newton got it wrong, and we have known this for over a century.
> Remarkably, the equations Newton derived assuming his absolute
> space work equally well using any inertial frame, without any
> reference to "absolute space". (The very same thing happened
> to Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics.)
>
> For some phenomena there happens to be SET OF COORDINATES to which we normally
> refer its speed:
> * a wave in a medium is normally referenced to the inertial frame
> in which the medium is at rest.
> * an automobile is normally referenced to the inertial frame in
> which the LOCAL surface of the earth is at rest.
>
> It has become ingrained in our psyche to use inertial frames.
> It is also ingrained to use those normal frames for these
> specific phenomena. Indeed if one uses anything else it is
> incumbent on the author to explicitly mention it.
>
> There is NOTHING "natural" here [#], except humans' natural desire to make the
> calculations easier.
>
> [#] I.e. Nature is neither involved nor consulted, and does
> not care which choice is made.
>
> But for most phenomena, including light and all massive and massless particles,
> there is no such "normal" coordinate system, unless the physical situation
> provides one [@]. For instance, we can refer the speed of photons to the
> inertial frame in which their source is at rest, or we can reference to the
> inertial frame in which the detector is at rest -- the choice is OURS, and we
> generally select the coordinates which make the desired calculations easier.
>
> [@] And many experiments do: the inertial frame in which the
> laboratory is instantaneously at rest.
>
> Nature does not care which coordinates we use to describe her behavior, because
> she clearly does not use any coordinates -- that imposes the constraint on all
> physical theories to be independent of coordinates; indeed all of our modern
> fundamental theories of physics are so independent (aka "invariant").
>
> Note that in all cases there is NOTHING to prevent us from using some other
> coordinates, it's just that in such cases as mentioned above there is a specific
> coordinate system relative to which the calculations are easier.
>
> > The movement of a body, e.g. a car has not such absolute zero. We may refer
> > it's zero to the ground. However, this is clearly an arbitrary choice.
>
> Yes. ALL such choices are arbitrary, for any phenomenon.

That’s why using the delta form of the transform is preferred. Such transform eliminates the constraint imposed by the normal coordinate transforms.


>
> Being humans, and therefore lazy, we generally use this
> arbitrariness to select coordinates that make the calculations
> easier. Nature has nothing to do with this.
>
> The exceptions you claim above are not really exceptions, it's just that you
> don't understand this.
>
> > In case of acoustic waves in air, we needn't construct coordinates in which
> > the air is at rest.
>
> Right! See above.
>
>
>
> In another post to Poutnik you said:
> > You have to admit that you and Roberts are wrong when we consider a stone
> > that is thrown from one train to another one moving relative to each other.
>
> Nope. It is YOU who is confused, not Poutnik or me.
>
> > In this case one must arbitrarily decide whether the emitting or the hit
> > train are the reference.
>
> Yes. That arbitrariness is INHERENT in the physical situation. One could also
> choose the inertial frame of the tracks. Or any other frame....
>
> > However, the speed of sound doesn't depend on any chosen point of view. It is
> > not earth-centered, not sun-centered, and not galaxy-centered but does only
> > refer to the medium.
>
> One must CHOOSE to which coordinates one references any speed. For sound it is
> so ingrained in our psyche that one must explicitly mention using any
> coordinates other than the inertial frame in which the medium is at rest. Since
> you did not mention any such frame, then "speed of sound" of course refers to
> the inertial frame in which the medium is at rest.
>
> You confuse a human convention of speech with physical law.
> That's outrageous and merely demonstrates how confused you are.
>
> >> Car speed wrt Earth is convenient and natural, but arbitrary. Sound
> >> speed wrt medium is convenient and natural, but arbitrary.
> >
> > Natural in the sense of non-arbitrary is the opposite of arbitrary.
>
> There is NOTHING "natural" about this, it's just that it is EASIER to use those
> coordinates. The choice is indeed ARBITRARY.
>
> Tom Roberts

[Vern Garriott]

kenseto wrote:

> That’s why using the delta form of the transform is preferred. Such
> transform eliminates the constraint imposed by the normal coordinate
> transforms.

This is correct.