A Lesson on Wave Mechanics for the SRians
kenseto
1. There is a source of constant water wave in a large pond.
2. An observer is stationary in the pond and he determines that N waves are
arriving to him per second..
3. The length of each wave is L meters.
4. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L*N meters/sec.
5. Now the observer is swimming toward the source and he determines that (N)
waves are arriving to him per second.
6. The length of each wave remains L meters.
7. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L(N+n) meters/sec.
8. Now the observer is swimming away from the source and he determines that
(N-n) waves are arriving to him per second.
9. The length of each wave remains L meters.
10. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L(N-n) meters/sec.
The above analysis applies to sound waves or light waves.
However in the case of light the SRians make the following bogus claims:
1. when the observer is stationary the arriving speed of the light waves to
him is L*N meters/sec.
2. When the observer is moving towards the light source the wavelength
becomes shorter (L-l) meters and the number of waves arriving at the
observer is (N+n).
3. Therefore the arriving speed of the waves to the observer is = (L-l)(N+n)
meters/sec.
4. In addition they further make the bogus claim that both arriving speeds
of the waves to the observer: L*N meters/second = (L-l)(N+n) meters/second.
5. When the observer is moving away from the light source the wave length
becomes longer (L+l) meters and the number of waves arriving at the observer
is (N-n).
6. Therefore the arriving speed of the waves to the observer is = (L+l)(N-n)
meters/sec.
7. In addition they further make the bogus claim that all three arriving
speed of light is the same as follows: L*N meters/sec = (L-l)(N+n)meters/sec
= (L+l)(N-n) meters/sec.
GO FIGURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eric Gisse
[...]
Try to figure out what SR actually says before making such a post.
bz
news:45dcf97e$0$28150$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> Consider the following scenario:
> 1. There is a source of constant water wave in a large pond.
> 2. An observer is stationary in the pond and he determines that N waves
> are arriving to him per second..
> 3. The length of each wave is L meters.
> 4. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L*N meters/sec.
> 5. Now the observer is swimming toward the source and he determines that
> (N) waves are arriving to him per second.
> 6. The length of each wave remains L meters.
> 7. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L(N+n)
> meters/sec. 8. Now the observer is swimming away from the source and he
> determines that (N-n) waves are arriving to him per second.
> 9. The length of each wave remains L meters.
> 10. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L(N-n)
> meters/sec.
The waves are moving through the water and he is smart enough to subtract
his velocity wrt the water it from the apparent velocity so that he gets
the true velocity of the waves through the water, rather than their
relative velocity wrt him.
There is a boat moving through the water and bouncing up and down (creating
waves, he studies the situation and finds that the velocity of the waves is
independent of the velocity of the boat (but the apparent frequency AND
wavelength DO change with the velocity of the boat).
The same thing applies to sound waves.
With light waves it is a bit different, the is no medium that we can
measure our velocity wrt. But, luckily, the speed of light seems to be
constant anyway.
> The above analysis applies to sound waves or light waves.
>
> However in the case of light the SRians make the following bogus claims:
> 1. when the observer is stationary the arriving speed of the light
> waves to him is L*N meters/sec.
> 2. When the observer is moving towards the light source the wavelength
> becomes shorter (L-l) meters and the number of waves arriving at the
> observer is (N+n).
> 3. Therefore the arriving speed of the waves to the observer is =
> (L-l)(N+n) meters/sec.
> 4. In addition they further make the bogus claim that both arriving
> speeds of the waves to the observer: L*N meters/second = (L-l)(N+n)
> meters/second. 5. When the observer is moving away from the light source
> the wave length becomes longer (L+l) meters and the number of waves
> arriving at the observer is (N-n).
> 6. Therefore the arriving speed of the waves to the observer is =
> (L+l)(N-n) meters/sec.
> 7. In addition they further make the bogus claim that all three arriving
> speed of light is the same as follows: L*N meters/sec =
> (L-l)(N+n)meters/sec = (L+l)(N-n) meters/sec.
>
> GO FIGURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go figure why the speed of sound is independent of the motion of the source
and of the observer.
Go figure why the speed of waves on the water is independent of the motion
of the source and the observer.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Sam Wormley
> GO FIGURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
The *measured* speed of light is a constant for all observers
independent of relative motion between light source and observer.
Ace0f_5pades
that is the greatest misconception that keeps getting propagated over
& over & on..
Put it this way, Is it possible to acceleration a photon to light
speed without it increasing its energy and heat etc?
NO!
if you gather a bunch of electrons in its metal state, and accelerate
it to light speed, will it also increase its energy, heat etc?
YES!
even at far less speeds than light, when a metal is heated, IT
EXPANDS> Tis obvious to everybody
So I wouldn't go around making such outrageous claims like that, with
that air of infallibility. Plain and simply, you're wrong, and those
professors you got your stuff from have been perpetuating a
misconception since Einstein died.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Ace0f_5pades" <m4d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1172129535.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Yet, the *measured* speed of light is a constant for all observers
independent of relative motion between light source and observer,
whether you like it or not.
Most people try - and manage - to live with that.
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
Ah....wormy but the one-way arriving speed of light is never
measured....in fact it is impossible to do so. The two-way speed of
light is measured with the circular definition for a meter length of
1/299,792,458 light-second.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns98DED7D8BF787WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> news:45dcf97e$0$28150$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> > Consider the following scenario:
> > 1. There is a source of constant water wave in a large pond.
> > 2. An observer is stationary in the pond and he determines that N waves
> > are arriving to him per second..
> > 3. The length of each wave is L meters.
> > 4. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L*N meters/sec.
> > 5. Now the observer is swimming toward the source and he determines that
> > (N) waves are arriving to him per second.
> > 6. The length of each wave remains L meters.
> > 7. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L(N+n)
> > meters/sec. 8. Now the observer is swimming away from the source and he
> > determines that (N-n) waves are arriving to him per second.
> > 9. The length of each wave remains L meters.
> > 10. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L(N-n)
> > meters/sec.
>
> The waves are moving through the water and he is smart enough to subtract
> his velocity wrt the water it from the apparent velocity so that he gets
> the true velocity of the waves through the water, rather than their
> relative velocity wrt him.
So there is a true velocity? Then how come in SR there is no true velocity?
In SR there is only relative velocity.
>
> There is a boat moving through the water and bouncing up and down
(creating
> waves, he studies the situation and finds that the velocity of the waves
is
> independent of the velocity of the boat (but the apparent frequency AND
> wavelength DO change with the velocity of the boat).
You are wrong. The wave length DOES not change.
>
> The same thing applies to sound waves.
>
> With light waves it is a bit different, the is no medium that we can
> measure our velocity wrt. But, luckily, the speed of light seems to be
> constant anyway.
Light wave is constant by the circular defintion of: 1 meter=1/299,792,458
light second. Also the one-way speed of light was never measured. The two
way speed of light uses the above circular definition.
Go figure why the arrival speed of waves on the water is not independent of
the motion of the source and the observer.
Ken Seto
bz
news:45ddae94$0$18898$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
'true velocity of the waves through the water' velocity wrt the water
> In SR there is only relative velocity.
In SR there is no medium.
>>
>> There is a boat moving through the water and bouncing up and down
> (creating
>> waves, he studies the situation and finds that the velocity of the
>> waves
> is
>> independent of the velocity of the boat (but the apparent frequency AND
>> wavelength DO change with the velocity of the boat).
>
> You are wrong. The wave length DOES not change.
It certainly does. The waves advancing ahead of the boat have a shorter
wavelength than the waves traveling away behind the stern of the boat.
It is called 'doppler shift'.
If the boat is traveling fast enough (and many are), the bow will overrun
and outstrip any waves produced by the bouncing of the boat (in the
forward direction). So waves in that direction have a wavelength of ZERO.
Same phenomina with a plane traveling faster than sound.
Stand beside the railroad tracks and listen to the horn of a train as it
approaches and receeds from you. Look at the waves on an oscilliscope.
Use an open ended pipe with adjustable length and slide the pipe until you
hit a half wave length for the horn while the train is approaching. Do the
same as it receeds. You will find that the wavelength is shorter as it
approaches. Use a frequency counter and measure the frequency.
Divide wavelength by frequency to get the velocity of the sound.
You will find that (unless you change the temeperature of the air in your
tube) the velocity is constant. The frequency and wavelength change.
Now, get the train to stop and again measure the frequency and wavelength.
You will now know the 'Ken defined frequency' of the source.
Dig out a grade school[or higher level] physics book.
>>
>> The same thing applies to sound waves.
>>
>> With light waves it is a bit different, the is no medium that we can
>> measure our velocity wrt. But, luckily, the speed of light seems to be
>> constant anyway.
>
> Light wave is constant by the circular defintion of: 1
> meter=1/299,792,458 light second.
That is ok, you can use a meter stick as your standard if you like.
That removes the circularity from the definition.
Just don't cut your stick and you will be all right.
Also the one-way speed of light was never measured.
Tell that to the moons of Jupiter. The only light velocity of interest in
that measurement is the velocity of the light from Jove's moons to the
earth. As long as you know the position of the moons when the light was
emitted and where Jup and earth were at the time, you know the ONE WAY
velocity of light.
And that velocity was determined using an old fashioned meter stick so
there is no circularity in the determination.
> The two
> way speed of light uses the above circular definition.
Incorrect. The two way speed of light has been measured with a meter
stick, many times. This was done BEFORE light was used to standardize
distance. So the fact that NOW distance measuring devices are standardized
against a light standard is an irrelevant 'straw man' argument.
But it is. Look at the waves the next time you take a bath. The SPEED of
the waves as they travel on the water IS independent of the velocity of the
source or the observer.
Hint, to measure the speed, you must use a measuring device that is
STATIONARY WRT the water.
Float a couple of rubber ducks in the tub, 1 foot apart.
You will notice that even if you move your head, while watching the waves,
the velocity of the waves does not change.
Now move your hand as you make waves with it.
You will notice that the waves move at the same velocity, irrespecitive of
the velocity of your hand.
If you go into a physics lab and use a wave tank, the waves will be created
by a vibrating object and you can actually see the standing waves, measure
their wave length, calculate their velocity, move the source and see how
the wavelength changes BUT NOT THE VELOCITY.
You can do the same thing in your bath tub but you might need a video
camera so that you can 'stop the action' and see exactly what the waves do.
>
> Ken Seto
Igor
Fish can swim, therefore a vest has no sleeves.
Igor
> "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns98DED7D8BF787WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:45dcf97e$0$28150$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> > > Consider the following scenario:
> > > 1. There is a source of constant water wave in a large pond.
> > > 2. An observer is stationary in the pond and he determines that N waves
> > > are arriving to him per second..
> > > 3. The length of each wave is L meters.
> > > 4. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L*N meters/sec.
> > > 5. Now the observer is swimming toward the source and he determines that
> > > (N) waves are arriving to him per second.
> > > 6. The length of each wave remains L meters.
> > > 7. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L(N+n)
> > > meters/sec. 8. Now the observer is swimming away from the source and he
> > > determines that (N-n) waves are arriving to him per second.
> > > 9. The length of each wave remains L meters.
> > > 10. Therefore the arriving speed of the water wave is = L(N-n)
> > > meters/sec.
>
> > The waves are moving through the water and he is smart enough to subtract
> > his velocity wrt the water it from the apparent velocity so that he gets
> > the true velocity of the waves through the water, rather than their
> > relative velocity wrt him.
>
> So there is a true velocity? Then how come in SR there is no true velocity?
> In SR there is only relative velocity.
>
Define a "true velocity" without using a reference.
>
> > There is a boat moving through the water and bouncing up and down
> (creating
> > waves, he studies the situation and finds that the velocity of the waves
> is
> > independent of the velocity of the boat (but the apparent frequency AND
> > wavelength DO change with the velocity of the boat).
>
> You are wrong. The wave length DOES not change.
>
Apparently, you've never heard of the Doppler effect.
>
> > The same thing applies to sound waves.
>
> > With light waves it is a bit different, the is no medium that we can
> > measure our velocity wrt. But, luckily, the speed of light seems to be
> > constant anyway.
>
> Light wave is constant by the circular defintion of: 1 meter=1/299,792,458
> light second. Also the one-way speed of light was never measured. The two
> way speed of light uses the above circular definition.
>
Well, if you can provide evidence that empty space is anisotropic,
you're welcome to it. Indeed, if you were able to do this, Stockholm
would probably be your next stop. But I'll give you a clue. All the
math in the universe won't be able to do it. It has to done
experimentally.
What the hell does that mean?
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:1172152680....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There is nothing circular here:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
"The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second"
I think it is the shape of your head that is a bit circular.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1172163918.0...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
My aunt is likely, therefore five it is.
Dirk Vdm
Igor
You seem to have this problem with the definitions of standards.
First it was a clock second, which apparently, you still haven't
resolved. Now it's the meter. The point that you don't seem to be
getting is that standards can be set any way we choose. And the
underlying observable physics will not be affected in any way. How
can our giving something a name affect how nature works?
Ace0f_5pades
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is that it?, some randomly constructed parable, and the rest carry on
with the same silly billy arguments? No one to challenge the
statement made, or shift position if you realised that you're wrong?
lol, ok igor, of course fish can swim!! but what about jetsam?
light refraction shows primary composition, therefore the mathematic
community is a separate light hearted joke.
Ace0f_5pades
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in messagenews:1172163918.0...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
therefore five it is.
The Ghost In The Machine
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:15:21 GMT
<JckDh.22819$ch5.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
What??? No ketchup? How can one have a latte without ketchup?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
while(bit&BITMASK) ;
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Androcles
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1172170839.5...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 22, 8:58 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 11:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> > kenseto wrote:
>> > > GO FIGURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> > The *measured* speed of light is a constant for all observers
>> > independent of relative motion between light source and observer.
>>
>> Ah....wormy but the one-way arriving speed of light is never
>> measured....in fact it is impossible to do so. The two-way speed of
>> light is measured with the circular definition for a meter length of
>> 1/299,792,458 light-second.
>>
>> Ken Seto
>
> You seem to have this problem with the definitions of standards.
So do you.
You and Seto should get along well together, you are both morons.
kenseto
Hey idiot....wormy keep on regurgitating the statement that the speed of
light is a *measured constant* I was merely pointing out that the OWLS was
never measured and the two-way speed of light is a measured constant by
definition (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second).
kenseto
So water wave have to have water. What about light?
>
> > In SR there is only relative velocity.
>
> In SR there is no medium.
Where does SR say that? If there is no medium what is waving?
>
> >>
> >> There is a boat moving through the water and bouncing up and down
> > (creating
> >> waves, he studies the situation and finds that the velocity of the
> >> waves
> > is
> >> independent of the velocity of the boat (but the apparent frequency AND
> >> wavelength DO change with the velocity of the boat).
> >
> > You are wrong. The wave length DOES not change.
>
> It certainly does. The waves advancing ahead of the boat have a shorter
> wavelength than the waves traveling away behind the stern of the boat.
>
> It is called 'doppler shift'.
No....the wavelength does not change. The apparent change is the result of
the observer's motion wrt the wave.
>
> If the boat is traveling fast enough (and many are), the bow will overrun
> and outstrip any waves produced by the bouncing of the boat (in the
> forward direction). So waves in that direction have a wavelength of ZERO.
We were talking about the wave already exist in the water.
>
> Same phenomina with a plane traveling faster than sound.
>
> Stand beside the railroad tracks and listen to the horn of a train as it
> approaches and receeds from you. Look at the waves on an oscilliscope.
The wavelength remains the same in approaching as in receding. The arriving
speed of the wave is increase when the source is approaching and the arrivng
speed of the wave is decreased when the source is receding.
Ken Seto
The Ghost In The Machine
<ken...@woh.rr.com>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:36:03 -0500
<45defa9a$0$28079$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
Water and air.
>>
>> > In SR there is only relative velocity.
>>
>> In SR there is no medium.
>
> Where does SR say that? If there is no medium what is waving?
Good question. SR does not speculate AFAIK.
>>
>> >>
>> >> There is a boat moving through the water and bouncing up and down
>> > (creating
>> >> waves, he studies the situation and finds that the velocity of the
>> >> waves
>> > is
>> >> independent of the velocity of the boat (but the apparent frequency AND
>> >> wavelength DO change with the velocity of the boat).
>> >
>> > You are wrong. The wave length DOES not change.
>>
>> It certainly does. The waves advancing ahead of the boat have a shorter
>> wavelength than the waves traveling away behind the stern of the boat.
>>
>> It is called 'doppler shift'.
>
> No....the wavelength does not change. The apparent change is the result of
> the observer's motion wrt the wave.
The apparent change in that case would be (1 - v/c), not
sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c).
>>
>> If the boat is traveling fast enough (and many are), the bow will overrun
>> and outstrip any waves produced by the bouncing of the boat (in the
>> forward direction). So waves in that direction have a wavelength of ZERO.
>
> We were talking about the wave already exist in the water.
>>
>> Same phenomina with a plane traveling faster than sound.
>>
>> Stand beside the railroad tracks and listen to the horn of a train as it
>> approaches and receeds from you. Look at the waves on an oscilliscope.
>
> The wavelength remains the same in approaching as in receding. The arriving
> speed of the wave is increase when the source is approaching and the arrivng
> speed of the wave is decreased when the source is receding.
Yes, sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) instead of sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c).
>
> Ken Seto
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!
The Ghost In The Machine
<45def5ff$0$28106$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
Speed of light was a measured constant, plus or minus a certain error,
in 1983; the scientific community basically threw in the towel and it is
now *defined* as constant.
OWLS is difficult to measure directly. The main problem
of course is getting the signal back from the remote clock
without introducing an additional delay measurement in the
process, completing a round trip and thereby converting
OWLS to TWLS.
Igor
C'mon lighten up! I was making fun of your half-assed proof. Lack of
an understanding of basic physics is no excuse. Ignorance is curable,
but stupidity is not. Which category do you fall into?
Igor
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
Let's try this again, and without all your nonsense this time. How
can our giving something a name affect how nature works? Until you
can answer that, nothing you say will mean anything to anyone. You're
the one with issues about standards.
Igor
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> <kens...@woh.rr.com>
> wrote
> on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:16:23 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
That's true, but it's not what Seto seems to have a problem with. He
doesn't understand the idea of how the standards of physical
measurement work in the first place. He seems to think that by
defining the meter in terms of the speed of light, it's circular. But
it's not, since the standard for the second is independently defined.
What the difference between OWLS and TWLS, even if actually exists,
has to do with the definition of the meter (which can be defined
anyway we wish to) is completely beyond me.
bz
news:45defa9a$0$28079$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
Light waves have to have light, of course.
>> > In SR there is only relative velocity.
>>
>> In SR there is no medium.
>
> Where does SR say that?
[quote from AE's 1905 paper on the electro dynamics of moving bodies]
We will raise this conjecture (the purport
of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the
status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for
the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies.
[empahasis mine]
The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous
[end emphasis]
inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely
stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-
vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place.
The theory to be developed is based—like all electrodynamics—on the
kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to
do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates),
clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this
circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics
of moving bodies at present encounters.
[endquote from Einstein's SR paper.]
> If there is no medium what is waving?
The moving electric field excites a moving magnetic field.
The moving magnetic field excites a moving electric field.
Nothing is 'waving'. Interdependent fields are moving together.
>>
>> >>
>> >> There is a boat moving through the water and bouncing up and down
>> > (creating
>> >> waves, he studies the situation and finds that the velocity of the
>> >> waves
>> > is
>> >> independent of the velocity of the boat (but the apparent frequency
>> >> AND wavelength DO change with the velocity of the boat).
>> >
>> > You are wrong. The wave length DOES not change.
>>
>> It certainly does. The waves advancing ahead of the boat have a shorter
>> wavelength than the waves traveling away behind the stern of the boat.
>>
>> It is called 'doppler shift'.
>
> No....the wavelength does not change. The apparent change is the result
> of the observer's motion wrt the wave.
Get on a boat that is moving. MEasure the 'wavelength' of the disturbance
caused by the bow of the boat. You will find that the 'wave length' of the
bow wave' goes from close to zero ahead of the boat to close to infinite
directly behind the boat.
Reality disproves your claim. Go and LOOK. Don't take my word for it.
>> If the boat is traveling fast enough (and many are), the bow will
>> overrun and outstrip any waves produced by the bouncing of the boat (in
>> the forward direction). So waves in that direction have a wavelength of
>> ZERO.
>
> We were talking about the wave already exist in the water.
Sorry. No such restriction can be imposed on waves. The boat is a valid
source of waves. In fact it is a valid MOVING source of waves.
It DISPROVES your contention that the wavelength does not change.
>>
>> Same phenomina with a plane traveling faster than sound.
>>
>> Stand beside the railroad tracks and listen to the horn of a train as
>> it approaches and receeds from you. Look at the waves on an
>> oscilliscope.
>
> The wavelength remains the same in approaching as in receding.
You didn't measure it. You are wrong. Both frequency and wavelength change.
Go and do the experiment. It does NOT take expensive equipment.
Here is another experiment with sound that you can do:
You can go to radio shack and buy a small 'sound source' (like is used to
make beeps or used to generate tones for an alarm or a code practice
oscillator)
Hook it to a battery. Put them on the end of a string and swing it around
your head.
Use a couple of mikes a few feet apart, some distance from you, and look at
the signals from the mikes. Feed them into the audio input jacks on your
computer.
As the tone source goes around your head, you will notice that the tone
picked up by the mikes will vary (doppler shift). You will also be able to
measure the wave length of the sound by comparing the signals from the two
mikes and knowing their distance apart.
When you calculate the speed of sound from the wavelength and frequency, you
will see that it does NOT change even though the frequency of the source is
showing doppler shift.
I suggest that you put the sound source on a rotating table so that your arm
doesn't get too tired.
> The
> arriving speed of the wave is increase when the source is approaching
> and the arrivng speed of the wave is decreased when the source is
> receding.
Do the experiment.
It should not cost more than about 50 dollars to put together. You already
have a computer.
A couple of cheap mikes feeding into the left/right channels of your sound
card. A tone source. An old record player turntable (rotating table). 25 to
100 feet of yard space to set these things up. Download a free demo program
to look at the frequencies of the source such as Spectogram (google for
spectrogram free download).
Then go for that boat ride.
Watch the waves created by that moving source.
Or look at
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/services/demos/demosg4/g4-03.htm
Build your own wave tank. You will get the same results.
Get out of your 'arm chair' and learn some physics!
Sam Wormley
>
> Hey idiot....wormy keep on regurgitating the statement that the speed of
> light is a *measured constant* I was merely pointing out that the OWLS was
> never measured and the two-way speed of light is a measured constant by
> definition (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second).
>
>
Are you mentally deficient Seto? You said "that the OWLS has never been
measured experimentally" and I provide you with a listing of OWLS experiments
with references and summaries! OWLS *has* been measured experimentally!
Historically there is a body of OWLS experiments
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").
Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21 km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them.
They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s.
Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8]
Igor
The problem is that neither OWLS nor TWLS have anything to do with
Seto's original objection to using the speed of light as a standard
for the meter. The standard could easily be any arbitrary number
relating to any well-documented physical measurement. It just
happened to be c. Seto just seems to have a problem with standards in
general. Any debate regarding OWLS versus TWLS is irrelevant here.
Ace0f_5pades
>
> - Show quoted text -
you're right, you are incurable.
it is obvious to me that in order to accelerate A to lightspeed, A
must undergo a massive energy transformation that will obviously cause
it composition to expand.
How long have you been a Physicist? Too long if you ask me. Too hard
to change a way of looking when those are the only glasses you wear.
Einstein has been misinterpreted. And because all the physicists
never questioned the postulate, they bounced the ideas around
themselves gather that much momentum, anything that seeks to correct
it looks quite preposterous even when it is as plain as the nosed
face.
When you stop assuming you're infallible, you might make a break
through.
Igor
Speak english! Better yet, speak the language of physics.
Apparently, you don't understand either.
> How long have you been a Physicist? Too long if you ask me.
Probably about as long as you've been completely in the dark.
>Too hard
> to change a way of looking when those are the only glasses you wear.
> Einstein has been misinterpreted. And because all the physicists
> never questioned the postulate, they bounced the ideas around
> themselves gather that much momentum, anything that seeks to correct
> it looks quite preposterous even when it is as plain as the nosed
> face.
Physicists question everything and all the time. New theories are
being born every day. Unfortunately, most of them are a dime a half
million and they easily crumble under tough scrutiny. And even if you
are able to put together a working theory that mathematically makes
sense, nature will eventually tell you whether it's treasure or
trash. But you're smarter than me, so you apparently already know
this. Right? And if you were half as knowledgable as you claim to
be, you'd be well on your way. But how can you be when you don't even
speak the language?
> When you stop assuming you're infallible, you might make a break
> through.
Maybe you should take your own advice, and learn some real physics
while you're at it. Till then, you're just spouting nonsensical
jibberish. And there's plenty of room for flexibility in science.
But only if know what the hell you're talking about in the first
place.
Ace0f_5pades
Though I might not be the best typist, and in line for the highest
writing order of merit, it is no reflection of my Ideas.
The only thing you demonstrate is the incapacity to argue with the so
called physics understanding you claim to wield.
> > How long have you been a Physicist? Too long if you ask me.
>
> Probably about as long as you've been completely in the dark.
>
> >Too hard
> > to change a way of looking when those are the only glasses you wear.
> > Einstein has been misinterpreted. And because all the physicists
> > never questioned the postulate, they bounced the ideas around
> > themselves gather that much momentum, anything that seeks to correct
> > it looks quite preposterous even when it is as plain as the nosed
> > face.
>
> Physicists question everything and all the time. New theories are
> being born every day. Unfortunately, most of them are a dime a half
> million and they easily crumble under tough scrutiny. And even if you
> are able to put together a working theory that mathematically makes
> sense, nature will eventually tell you whether it's treasure or
> trash. But you're smarter than me, so you apparently already know
> this. Right? And if you were half as knowledgable as you claim to
Damn right I'm smarter than you, Why? because I don't get bogged down
by the millions of crude theory. why? cause I have a source
understanding, which is what you keep seeking from me when you dance
around with your crappy positions. The one that is really in the dark
is you. Why, because you're a slave to your position. -i.e. you can
only be a physicist if you are a Dr of the discipline
> be, you'd be well on your way. But how can you be when you don't even
> speak the language?
>
I might not have support I need yet, that doesn't defer or detract
away from the solidarity of my Ideas. It is more a reflection of
circumstance, and the continual misunderstandings than of what I am
capable of. I have great capacity, and even if I stand alone it is
still the case.
> > When you stop assuming you're infallible, you might make a break
> > through.
>
> Maybe you should take your own advice, and learn some real physics
> while you're at it. Till then, you're just spouting nonsensical
> jibberish. And there's plenty of room for flexibility in science.
> But only if know what the hell you're talking about in the first
> place.
There you go, assuming you're an ass again. Unless that's you
permanent makeup? Do the ladies flock to that look?
I know what I'm talking about. If you're the so-called keeper of
Physics you tout yourself to be, why can't you use physics to counter
my positions, or even understand why they are even given. i.e. my
formula. I've place enough around the place for you to get a good
idea of what I'm talking about. Surely, you being the supposedly
learn exponent of physics you say you are, you would be able to show
me up as a kook in one swift and accurate retort against any formula
and position I submit.
But you can't, and why? Because the physics you claim as so superior
isn't, its full of holes and that's where I can challenge and redirect
the thought to a better line of reasoning. So don't come down on me
with you misguided reasoning.
I learn and continue to learn physics according to my directions and
purposes, And I'm keen. So what that I learn according to an order
that all you physicist seem to demote as kooky just because it dares
to stand against and challenge the so called accepted view. Outside
the box is why I'm so freely placed.
If you have anything of real value other than pointing out that same
old retarded retort, then please see through to seeing that help be
given to me in the true spirit of real help.
kenseto
But it is circular. Also if the speed of light is a defined constant you
runts of the SRians can't keep on claiming that it is a measured constant
>But
> it's not, since the standard for the second is independently defined.
The problem with the second definition is that a second does not represent
the same duration in different frames. Even an SR observer will say that a
second in the observer's frame is worth 1/gamma second in the observed
frame. What that mean is that the defined constant speed of light based on
the second is not a true constant.
> What the difference between OWLS and TWLS, even if actually exists,
> has to do with the definition of the meter (which can be defined
> anyway we wish to) is completely beyond me.
Of course it is beyond you. You are a runt of the SRians.
Ken Seto
kenseto
How does nature work in SR? In SR you give a circular definition for the
speed of light based on a clock second that has different duration in
different frames. You think that's how nature is working????????????
kenseto
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:seFDh.1282$u93.1270@attbi_s21...
> kenseto wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey idiot....wormy keep on regurgitating the statement that the speed
of
> > light is a *measured constant* I was merely pointing out that the OWLS
was
> > never measured and the two-way speed of light is a measured constant by
> > definition (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second).
> >
> >
>
> Are you mentally deficient Seto? You said "that the OWLS has never
been
> measured experimentally" and I provide you with a listing of OWLS
experiments
> with references and summaries! OWLS *has* been measured
experimentally!
Hey idiot runt that's not a direct measurement of the OWLS. That's isotropy
measurements. TWLS can be isotropic c and OWLS can be isotropic c'. The only
way to confirm that OWLS=TWLS=c is by doing the direct measurements OWLS and
TWLS over the same physical distance. The proposed experiments in the
following link will settle this question:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
>
> Hey idiot runt that's not a direct measurement of the OWLS. That's isotropy
> measurements. TWLS can be isotropic c and OWLS can be isotropic c'. The only
> way to confirm that OWLS=TWLS=c is by doing the direct measurements OWLS and
> TWLS over the same physical distance. The proposed experiments in the
> following link will settle this question:
> http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
>
So you say, Seto. Of course the scientists that measured OWLS would
perhaps think you were the idiot runt.
Sam Wormley
>
> How does nature work in SR? In SR you give a circular definition for the
> speed of light based on a clock second that has different duration in
> different frames. You think that's how nature is working????????????
>
>
Nature is the way she is. So far SR correctly predicts measurable
effects resulting from relative velocity. A very fruitful theory
in deed... and doesn't require any unnecessary assumptions of any
*absolute* woo haw.
Because SR is simpler that IRT, it is superior.
kenseto
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:ite3b4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
The TWLS was measured directly but the value is not a constant c as defined.
The OWLS was never measured. Why? Probaly because the direct measurement of
the OWLS is not c. This led physicists to invent the current circular
definition for the speed of light so that the speed of light is guaranteed
to be c.
>
> OWLS is difficult to measure directly.
Not at all. The proposed experiments in the following link will measure OWLS
and compared to TWLS directly over the same distrance.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
>The main problem
> of course is getting the signal back from the remote clock
> without introducing an additional delay measurement in the
> process, completing a round trip and thereby converting
> OWLS to TWLS.
Why do you need to get the signal back from the remote clock when you want
to do an OWLS measurement?
Ken Seto
kenseto
> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> news:45defa9a$0$28079$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> >
> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Xns98DF63F553C4DWQ...@130.39.198.139...
> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >> news:45ddae94$0$18898$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >
> > So water wave have to have water. What about light?
>
> Light waves have to have light, of course.
LOL......another circular logic invented by this SRian.
>
> >> > In SR there is only relative velocity.
> >>
> >> In SR there is no medium.
> >
> > Where does SR say that?
>
> [quote from AE's 1905 paper on the electro dynamics of moving bodies]
> We will raise this conjecture (the purport
> of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the
> status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only
> apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent
of
> the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for
> the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies.
>
> [empahasis mine]
> The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous
> [end emphasis]
>
> inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely
> stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-
> vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic
> processes take place.
If SR doesn't require an "absolutely stationary space" why then an SR
observer assumes that he is in such a space....as he assumes that he sees
all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rod moving wrt
him are contracted? Surely you know that that means that the SR observer is
in a perferred state of rest in the "absolutely stationary space"
>
> > If there is no medium what is waving?
> The moving electric field excites a moving magnetic field.
> The moving magnetic field excites a moving electric field.
>
> Nothing is 'waving'. Interdependent fields are moving together.
So what are the magnetic and electric fields? If the fields are math
constructs how does math constructs move? Is it because the charge particle
is moving absolutely and carries the filed with it?
>
> >>
> >> > You are wrong. The wave length DOES not change.
> >>
> >> It certainly does. The waves advancing ahead of the boat have a shorter
> >> wavelength than the waves traveling away behind the stern of the boat.
> >>
> >> It is called 'doppler shift'.
> >
> > No....the wavelength does not change. The apparent change is the result
> > of the observer's motion wrt the wave.
>
> Get on a boat that is moving. MEasure the 'wavelength' of the disturbance
> caused by the bow of the boat. You will find that the 'wave length' of the
> bow wave' goes from close to zero ahead of the boat to close to infinite
> directly behind the boat.
You are talking nonsense. We were talking about every observer measures his
sodium source to have a wavelength of 589 nm and thus 589 nm is the
universal wavelength for sodium. If you know the source of the incoming
light is sodium then you must use the universal wavelength of 589 nm and the
measure frequency to determine its arriving speed to the observer.
>
Ken Seto
The Ghost In The Machine
<45e04d2e$0$28089$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
You'd be surprised how hard a perfect vacuum is to get here on warm,
moist, air-laden Earth. :-) Air introduces a 0.08% error in the speed
measurement because of its refractive index.
Evanson et al got a measurement in 1973 of 299792.4574 +/- 0.001 km/s,
using the krypton-defined meter standard. I'm assuming this is
what you're referring to. Beyond using lasers the details of this
experiment are lacking; I'm not even sure Evanson's name is spelled
correctly.
> The OWLS was never measured. Why? Probaly because the direct measurement of
> the OWLS is not c. This led physicists to invent the current circular
> definition for the speed of light so that the speed of light is guaranteed
> to be c.
>>
>> OWLS is difficult to measure directly.
>
> Not at all. The proposed experiments in the following link will measure OWLS
> and compared to TWLS directly over the same distrance.
> http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
OK. And your data from this experiment is located ... where?
>
>>The main problem
>> of course is getting the signal back from the remote clock
>> without introducing an additional delay measurement in the
>> process, completing a round trip and thereby converting
>> OWLS to TWLS.
>
> Why do you need to get the signal back from the remote clock when you want
> to do an OWLS measurement?
To compare to the local clock, of course. How else does one do a time
measurement?
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: No such file or directory
bz
news:45e056f7$0$28084$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E066E863883WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:45defa9a$0$28079$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns98DF63F553C4DWQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>> >> news:45ddae94$0$18898$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> 'true velocity of the waves through the water' velocity wrt the
>> >> water
>> >
>> > So water wave have to have water. What about light?
>>
>> Light waves have to have light, of course.
>
> LOL......another circular logic invented by this SRian.
The only circularity is that you try to impose.
>>
>> >> > In SR there is only relative velocity.
>> >>
>> >> In SR there is no medium.
>> >
>> > Where does SR say that?
>>
>> [quote from AE's 1905 paper on the electro dynamics of moving bodies]
>> We will raise this conjecture (the purport
>> of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the
>> status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is
>> only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is
>> always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>> independent
> of
>> the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice
>> for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the
>> electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
>> stationary bodies.
>>
>> [empahasis mine]
>> The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous
>> [end emphasis]
>>
>> inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an
>> "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor
>> assign a velocity- vector to a point of the empty space in which
>> electromagnetic processes take place.
>
> If SR doesn't require an "absolutely stationary space" why then an SR
> observer assumes that he is in such a space
He doesn't. You mistakenly claim that he does.
> ....as he assumes that he
> sees all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rod
> moving wrt him are contracted? Surely you know that that means that the
> SR observer is in a perferred state of rest in the "absolutely
> stationary space"
There is NO prefered state of rest in SR.
Read what Einstein said again: "...the view here to be developed will NOT
require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties."
There is NO prefered state of rest in SR.
Your attributing such to SR shows that you did not read what Einstein said.
>>
>> > If there is no medium what is waving?
>
>> The moving electric field excites a moving magnetic field.
>> The moving magnetic field excites a moving electric field.
>>
>> Nothing is 'waving'. Interdependent fields are moving together.
>
> So what are the magnetic and electric fields? If the fields are math
> constructs how does math constructs move?
The fields are described using math. Just like my thoughts are described
using words. My words are not my thoughts. The math is not the fields.
Get a couple of magnets. See what the fields do. You will be holding in
your hands an example of a field. Put your finger between the two magnets.
Do you feel the field? It is there but you can not feel it. The math can
describe it but the math does not manipulate the field. You can move the
magnet and manipulate the field. You can feel the interaction between the
two magnets but you can NOT feel the field.
> Is it because the charge
> particle is moving absolutely and carries the filed with it?
There is NO absolute. There is no need for absolute.
The fact is that if you move a coil of wire through a magnetic field,
electrons move in the coil.
The fact is that if you move a magnet past a coil of wire, electrons move
in the coil.
Einstein pointed out that the math for a coil moving past a magnet was much
different from the math for a magnet moving past a coil IF there were any
such thing as one being at absolute rest and the other in motion.
The fact is that the effect is the same, no matter which one is stationary.
This led him to conclude that neither can claim to know it is stationary
and the other is in absolute motion. At best, each know that there is
relative motion between the two.
>> >> > You are wrong. The wave length DOES not change.
>> >>
>> >> It certainly does. The waves advancing ahead of the boat have a
>> >> shorter wavelength than the waves traveling away behind the stern of
>> >> the boat.
>> >>
>> >> It is called 'doppler shift'.
>> >
>> > No....the wavelength does not change. The apparent change is the
>> > result of the observer's motion wrt the wave.
>>
>> Get on a boat that is moving. MEasure the 'wavelength' of the
>> disturbance caused by the bow of the boat. You will find that the 'wave
>> length' of the bow wave' goes from close to zero ahead of the boat to
>> close to infinite directly behind the boat.
>
> You are talking nonsense. We were talking about every observer measures
> his sodium source to have a wavelength of 589 nm and thus 589 nm is the
> universal wavelength for sodium. If you know the source of the incoming
> light is sodium then you must use the universal wavelength of 589 nm and
> the measure frequency to determine its arriving speed to the observer.
You are JUST as wrong about that as you are about the wavelength of waves
emitted from the bow of a moving boat being constant.
GO LOOK for gosh sake.
kenseto
None of these measurements use the direct procedure that we use to measure
sppeed of anything: Two spatially separated and synchronized clocks and the
distance of separation of the clocks is measured using a measuring tape.
>
> > The OWLS was never measured. Why? Probaly because the direct measurement
of
> > the OWLS is not c. This led physicists to invent the current circular
> > definition for the speed of light so that the speed of light is
guaranteed
> > to be c.
> >>
> >> OWLS is difficult to measure directly.
> >
> > Not at all. The proposed experiments in the following link will measure
OWLS
> > and compared to TWLS directly over the same distrance.
> > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
>
> OK. And your data from this experiment is located ... where?
Hey idiot .....don't you see that these are proposed experiments??????
>
> >
> >>The main problem
> >> of course is getting the signal back from the remote clock
> >> without introducing an additional delay measurement in the
> >> process, completing a round trip and thereby converting
> >> OWLS to TWLS.
> >
> > Why do you need to get the signal back from the remote clock when you
want
> > to do an OWLS measurement?
>
> To compare to the local clock, of course. How else does one do a time
> measurement?
Hey idiot....start the time when the laser leave the source clock (t1) stop
time when the laser arrive at the other clock (t2).
Transit time is (t2-t1).
distance of separation between the two clock as measured by a measuring
tape=L
The OWLS =L/(t2-t1)
What so hard about that????
The_Man
As a usual lurker here, I have a question. What physics courses have
you taken at the University /college level?
You make the most elementary mistakes, mistakes of which you would
have been disabused long ago if you had had proper instruction.
The posters here, rather than just being annoyed with you, have gone
at of their way to PATIENTLY explain the errors you've made. Even from
my infrequent vists, I've noticed the same principles being explained
to you over and over. The pattern is this: you voice some ill-founded
objection to SR, and the other posters patiently correct you.
At no time have I noticed you help anyone else, or explain even a
simple concept to another poster. All your posts consist of
megalomaniacal delusions that you have solved the greatest problems in
physics without any evident skills, training, or knowledge, that the
greatest minds of the 19th and 20th century either couldn't solve, or
"fraudently" solved.
While it is certainly possible for new theories to displace SR or GR,
it seems kind of far-fetched for this to be done by someone who can't
do simple Newtonian mechanics. It is the same likelihood that the
village idiot is the greatest brain surgeon in history. While it is
possible, no sensible person is going to have their brain operation
done by a village idiot.
If you have actually solved these problems, you already know that the
standard way to inform the world is through publication in peer-review
journals. If you have published in any of these journals, please give
us the citation, so we can read the paper. If not, please let us know
to which journals you have submitted manuscripts.
If you haven't done that, then at least let us know if you have ever
even READ a journal article in physics.
Until you have published in the literature, a better use nof your time
might be to take classes, or at least study the literature on you own.
kenseto
"The_Man" <me_so_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172344209.1...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
However unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments,including gravity. IRT is described in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
BTW, definition for a runt of the SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
The Ghost In The Machine
<45e07f65$0$1374$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
A measuring tape is light-defined (even if one uses
platinum-iridium, since bonding uses virtual photons).
That may cause some problems in IRT.
>
>>
>> > The OWLS was never measured. Why? Probaly because the direct measurement
> of
>> > the OWLS is not c. This led physicists to invent the current circular
>> > definition for the speed of light so that the speed of light is
> guaranteed
>> > to be c.
>> >>
>> >> OWLS is difficult to measure directly.
>> >
>> > Not at all. The proposed experiments in the following link will measure
> OWLS
>> > and compared to TWLS directly over the same distrance.
>> > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
>>
>> OK. And your data from this experiment is located ... where?
>
> Hey idiot .....don't you see that these are proposed experiments??????
OK. And your data from this experiment is located ... where?
Presumably someone would have performed them by now; you've
only been proposing them for several years, IINM.
Is there a funding problem?
>>
>> >
>> >>The main problem
>> >> of course is getting the signal back from the remote clock
>> >> without introducing an additional delay measurement in the
>> >> process, completing a round trip and thereby converting
>> >> OWLS to TWLS.
>> >
>> > Why do you need to get the signal back from the remote clock when you
> want
>> > to do an OWLS measurement?
>>
>> To compare to the local clock, of course. How else does one do a time
>> measurement?
>
> Hey idiot....start the time when the laser leave the source clock (t1) stop
> time when the laser arrive at the other clock (t2).
> Transit time is (t2-t1).
> distance of separation between the two clock as measured by a measuring
> tape=L
> The OWLS =L/(t2-t1)
> What so hard about that????
>
Someone has to get the measurements from both clocks.
In most scenarios I can think of, the clocks are separated
by some distance but the experimenter can walk or ride
between them, or one of the clocks is located on Earth
and the other is somewhere else (e.g., in orbit, the Moon,
maybe very far away past Pluto if we can somehow calibrate
a clock somewhere on the now more-or-less-decrepit Voyager
or Pioneer spacecraft).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
Sam Wormley
> You are a runt of the SRians. My theory IRT includes SRT as a subset.
> However unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
> environments,including gravity.
Nature is the way she is. So far SR correctly predicts measurable
effects resulting from relative velocity. A very fruitful theory
in deed... and doesn't require any unnecessary assumptions of any
*absolute* woo haw.
Because SR is simpler that IRT, it is superior. Actually I don't
think IRT has any more significance than one of my farts!
The Ghost In The Machine
<bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
wrote
on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:21:15 +0000 (UTC)
<Xns98E1743F8D974WQ...@130.39.198.139>:
> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> news:45e056f7$0$28084$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
>>
>> "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98E066E863883WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>>> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>>> news:45defa9a$0$28079$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>>> > news:Xns98DF63F553C4DWQ...@130.39.198.139...
>>> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>>> >> news:45ddae94$0$18898$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 'true velocity of the waves through the water' velocity wrt the
>>> >> water
>>> >
>>> > So water wave have to have water. What about light?
>>>
>>> Light waves have to have light, of course.
>>
>> LOL......another circular logic invented by this SRian.
>
> The only circularity is that you try to impose.
Kenseto does have a point. The unit of length depends on time; the unit
of time, fortunately, does not depend on length. OK, half a point.
>
>>>
>>> >> > In SR there is only relative velocity.
>>> >>
>>> >> In SR there is no medium.
>>> >
>>> > Where does SR say that?
>>>
>>> [quote from AE's 1905 paper on the electro dynamics of moving bodies]
_Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper_, published 1905-06-30.
A translation is of course available at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ .
However, there *is* a preferred coordinate system in most proposed SR
experiments -- although it makes no difference to the results, if the
math is done properly, and is primarily for computational convenience.
For example, one might contemplate a TWLS. From an observer's viewpoint
motionless with respect to the TWLS, right next to the light source,
he will see the events:
(0,0)_O
(L,L/c)_O
(0,2L/c)_O
The second event is difficult to observe directly, since x != 0.
If one instead postulates a moving light source (and
an observer to go with it), one can use the Lorentz
Transformation on the above events (with v > 0 meaning
that the observer is moving from O's origin towards the
TWLS mirror), and one gets:
(0,0)_A
(gL-gLv/c, gL/c-vgL/c^2)_A = (0,2gL/c-2vgL/c^2)_A
(-2vgL/c, 2gL/c)_A = (0,2gL/c+2vgL/c^2)_A
(Remember that one of SR's postulates is that lightspeed is constant.
Therefore (k,t) = (0,t+k/c) if k is positive. Some care must
be taken if k can be negative; the third event in particular
indicates that (k,t) = (0,t-k/c) in that case. This is not
the same as the postulated IRT dichotomy.)
If A uses the inverse Lorentz, he should get the
first and third events according to (his interpretation of) O's motion.
Note that g(1 + v/c) = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c); the third event
can be rewritten
(0,(2L/c)*(sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)))_A
Similarly, g(1 - v/c) = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c), which means the
second event can be rewritten
(0,(2L/c)*(sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)))_A
This dichotomy should be expected as the beam passes by the moving
observer twice, and therefore the wavefront of its arrival back at the
original target now has to overtake the observer, whereas the wavefront
of its arrival at the mirror merely has to hit the observer, which is
already approaching said mirror.
If O instead puts the mirror behind the moving observer, that yields
(-L,L/c)_O
for the second event, which translates into
(-gL-gLv/c, gL/c+vgL/c^2)_A = (0,2gL/c+2vgL/c^2)_A
and now the moving observer sees both events #2 and #3 at
the exact same time, but the observation of #3 is the
same for both experiments (assuming L is the same).
The moving observer, knowing that he's moving at v,
however, will still work out that the third event,
*relative to O*, will be at the same time that O actually
sees it.
If one rewrites b = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) for brevity, then
(0,(2Lb/c))_A
translates into
(2Lbvg/c, 2Lbg/c)_O = (0, 2Lbg/c-2Lbvg/c^2)_O
= (0, (2L/c)(1/(1 - v/c)) - (2L/c)(v/c)(1/(1 - v/c)))_O
= (0, (2L/c)(1-v/c)(1/(1-v/c))_O
= (0, 2L/c)_O
since bg = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) * (1 / (sqrt(1-v/c) * sqrt(1+v/c)))
= 1/(1-v/c).
(All this, of course, is theoretical math, but various other results of
SR have already been validated by a number of experiments.)
>
> Read what Einstein said again: "...the view here to be developed will NOT
> require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties."
>
> There is NO prefered state of rest in SR.
> Your attributing such to SR shows that you did not read what Einstein said.
>
>>>
>>> > If there is no medium what is waving?
>>
>>> The moving electric field excites a moving magnetic field.
>>> The moving magnetic field excites a moving electric field.
>>>
>>> Nothing is 'waving'. Interdependent fields are moving together.
>>
>> So what are the magnetic and electric fields? If the fields are math
>> constructs how does math constructs move?
>
> The fields are described using math. Just like my thoughts are described
> using words. My words are not my thoughts. The math is not the fields.
>
> Get a couple of magnets. See what the fields do. You will be holding in
> your hands an example of a field. Put your finger between the two magnets.
> Do you feel the field? It is there but you can not feel it. The math can
> describe it but the math does not manipulate the field. You can move the
> magnet and manipulate the field. You can feel the interaction between the
> two magnets but you can NOT feel the field.
If the fields are strong enough he will definitely feel
it, although it's probably more easily illustrated by
using a sheet of copper, and a sheet of slotted copper.
Neither one will be attracted to the magnets, but the
former should be harder to push through the magnets
because of eddy currents. It will also heat up, though I'm
not sure by how much since it depends on field strength
(and therefore eddy current amperage), amount of motion,
and length of time spent moving around.
>
>> Is it because the charge
>> particle is moving absolutely and carries the filed with it?
>
> There is NO absolute. There is no need for absolute.
> The fact is that if you move a coil of wire through a magnetic field,
> electrons move in the coil.
And set up a field of their own. Makes life mildly interesting. :-)
The double-D sodium line is a very well-known line, and presumably can
be easily used to establish motion of a star with respect to the Earth.
kenseto
> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> <ken...@woh.rr.com>
> wrote
> on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:14:52 -0500
> <45e07f65$0$1374$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
> >
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
> > news:sl56b4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> >> <ken...@woh.rr.com>
> >> wrote
> >> on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:40:38 -0500
> >> <45e04d2e$0$28089$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
> >> >
> >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> > message
> >> > news:ite3b4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> >> >> <ken...@woh.rr.com>
> >> >> wrote
> >> >> on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:16:23 -0500
> >> >> <45def5ff$0$28106$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
> >> >> >
> >>
> >> using the krypton-defined meter standard. I'm assuming this is
> >> what you're referring to. Beyond using lasers the details of this
> >> experiment are lacking; I'm not even sure Evanson's name is spelled
> >> correctly.
> >
> > None of these measurements use the direct procedure that we use to
measure
> > sppeed of anything: Two spatially separated and synchronized clocks and
the
> > distance of separation of the clocks is measured using a measuring tape.
>
> A measuring tape is light-defined (even if one uses
> platinum-iridium, since bonding uses virtual photons).
> That may cause some problems in IRT.
So what??? That's how we measure distance. No problem for IRT.
>
> >
> >>
> > OWLS
> >> > and compared to TWLS directly over the same distrance.
> >> > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
> >>
> >> OK. And your data from this experiment is located ... where?
> >
> > Hey idiot .....don't you see that these are proposed experiments??????
>
> OK. And your data from this experiment is located ... where?
> Presumably someone would have performed them by now; you've
> only been proposing them for several years, IINM.
>
> Is there a funding problem?
Sure there is funding problem.....if you had read the experiment you will
note that it requires building and expensive equipments..
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>The main problem
> >> >> of course is getting the signal back from the remote clock
> >> >> without introducing an additional delay measurement in the
> >> >> process, completing a round trip and thereby converting
> >> >> OWLS to TWLS.
> >> >
> >> > Why do you need to get the signal back from the remote clock when you
> > want
> >> > to do an OWLS measurement?
> >>
> >> To compare to the local clock, of course. How else does one do a time
> >> measurement?
> >
> > Hey idiot....start the time when the laser leave the source clock (t1)
stop
> > time when the laser arrive at the other clock (t2).
> > Transit time is (t2-t1).
> > distance of separation between the two clock as measured by a measuring
> > tape=L
> > The OWLS =L/(t2-t1)
> > What so hard about that????
> >
>
> Someone has to get the measurements from both clocks.
Sigh....the clocks can start and stop automatically.
> In most scenarios I can think of, the clocks are separated
> by some distance but the experimenter can walk or ride
> between them,
My God you truly are an idiot.
>or one of the clocks is located on Earth
> and the other is somewhere else (e.g., in orbit, the Moon,
> maybe very far away past Pluto if we can somehow calibrate
> a clock somewhere on the now more-or-less-decrepit Voyager
> or Pioneer spacecraft).
Hey idiot both clocks are in the same frame.
Ken Seto
YBM
>> or one of the clocks is located on Earth
>> and the other is somewhere else (e.g., in orbit, the Moon,
>> maybe very far away past Pluto if we can somehow calibrate
>> a clock somewhere on the now more-or-less-decrepit Voyager
>> or Pioneer spacecraft).
>
> Hey idiot both clocks are in the same frame.
Hum. It took some time to realize than Seto considered the quite
monthypithonesque concept of "absolute vertical direction", now we've
just discovered he consider that two separated bodies, as long as
they are far enough (how much ?), are not "in the same frame".
We had problems of this kind on fr.sci.physique with "Richard Hachel"
(aka Richard Hubert Lengrand, the one who recently tried here to
address some "nonsense" is SR) who consider as well that a object
can NOT be in a certain frame.
This guy is either a joke or would make Wilson and Androcles geniuses
compared to him.
The Ghost In The Machine
<swor...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:40:01 GMT
<Rg2Eh.14389$PD2.13738@attbi_s22>:
IRT cannot be a superset of SR if it postulates constant
wavelength, unless it also postulates multiple length
measurement systems (e.g., light-defined and absolute).
SR, after all, predicts that
L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
as opposed to the Newtonian prediction
L/L0 = 1.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
fortune: not found
bz
> If the fields are strong enough he will definitely feel
> it
With a static field, he is unlikely to be able to 'feel' the field with his
finger.
He MIGHT if he moves his finger rapidly. But only if he is rather highly
conductive.
Yeah, I know that a frog was floated in a magnetic field (and probably felt
the field), and I have at this moment, about 5 feet away from me, a small
magnet floating between two graphite blocks.
Build one yourself, http://www.matchrockets.com/ether/diacglev.html
> , although it's probably more easily illustrated by
> using a sheet of copper, and a sheet of slotted copper.
> Neither one will be attracted to the magnets, but the
> former should be harder to push through the magnets
> because of eddy currents.
Take a length of copper tubing and allow a strong magnet to slide down the
inside of the tube. It will move much slower than a similar non magnetic
mass.
> It will also heat up, though I'm
> not sure by how much since it depends on field strength
> (and therefore eddy current amperage), amount of motion,
> and length of time spent moving around.
The heating will be no more than the heating caused by friction that would
have the same dampening effect on motion.
If you use AC to float a conducting ring, you will get a LOT more heat.
G. L. Bradford
"kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45e07f65$0$1374$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
"What is so hard about that????" Non-locally? The curve.
GLB
kenseto
Hey idiot runt SR is not simpler. SR is incomplete and that's why it appears
to be simpler. IRT is complete and it includes the effect of gravity.
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
kenseto
> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@mchsi.com>
> wrote
> on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:40:01 GMT
> <Rg2Eh.14389$PD2.13738@attbi_s22>:
> > kenseto wrote:
> >
> >> You are a runt of the SRians. My theory IRT includes SRT as a subset.
> >> However unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
> >> environments,including gravity.
> >
> >
> > Nature is the way she is. So far SR correctly predicts measurable
> > effects resulting from relative velocity. A very fruitful theory
> > in deed... and doesn't require any unnecessary assumptions of any
> > *absolute* woo haw.
> >
> > Because SR is simpler that IRT, it is superior. Actually I don't
> > think IRT has any more significance than one of my farts!
> >
>
> IRT cannot be a superset of SR if it postulates constant
> wavelength, unless it also postulates multiple length
> measurement systems (e.g., light-defined and absolute).
Hey idiot everbody measures his sodium source to have a universal wavelength
of 589 nm. There is no need for mutiple length measurement systems.
>
> SR, after all, predicts that
>
> L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
In what text book do you find that??
The text book I have says that:
L/Lo = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
In IRT:
L/Lo=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Fab/Faa
OR
L/Lo=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Faa/Fab
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
IRT doesn't predict the correct perihelion shift of Mercury!
Therefore IRT is wrong!
kenseto
Even though he said "...the view here to be developed will NOT
require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties."
But the math of SR place the SR observer in a preferred
situation......namely that the SR observer's clock is the fastest running
clock in the universe and that the SR observer's rod is the longest rod in
the universe. What this mean is that he tried to have it both ways. He
rejected the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show that SR doesn't
require it. He ambraced the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show that
SR agrees with observations and experiments.
>
> >>
> >> > If there is no medium what is waving?
> >
> >> The moving electric field excites a moving magnetic field.
> >> The moving magnetic field excites a moving electric field.
> >>
> >> Nothing is 'waving'. Interdependent fields are moving together.
> >
> > So what are the magnetic and electric fields? If the fields are math
> > constructs how does math constructs move?
>
> The fields are described using math. Just like my thoughts are described
> using words. My words are not my thoughts. The math is not the fields.
Steven Weinberg describe the field as follows:
"A field like an electric or magnetic field is a sort of stress in space,
something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid
body, but a field is a stress in space"
Weinberg is saying that space is a material body that exhibits stress. So
clearly your understanding of the field is quite different than what
Weinberg said. I agree with you that the math is not the field. The math is
the language that describes the behavior of a material body reacting to the
stress is the surrounding material body.
>
Ken Seto
The_Man
> "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172344209.1...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > <snipped complete nonsense>
>
> > As a usual lurker here, I have a question. What physics courses have
> > you taken at the University /college level?
Apparently, none.
>
> > You make the most elementary mistakes, mistakes of which you would
> > have been disabused long ago if you had had proper instruction.
>
> > The posters here, rather than just being annoyed with you, have gone
> > at of their way to PATIENTLY explain the errors you've made. Even from
> > my infrequent vists, I've noticed the same principles being explained
> > to you over and over. The pattern is this: you voice some ill-founded
> > objection to SR, and the other posters patiently correct you.
A pattern which continues.
>
> > At no time have I noticed you help anyone else, or explain even a
> > simple concept to another poster. All your posts consist of
> > megalomaniacal delusions that you have solved the greatest problems in
> > physics without any evident skills, training, or knowledge, that the
> > greatest minds of the 19th and 20th century either couldn't solve, or
> > "fraudently" solved.
Your megalomania continues unabated.
>
> > While it is certainly possible for new theories to displace SR or GR,
> > it seems kind of far-fetched for this to be done by someone who can't
> > do simple Newtonian mechanics. It is the same likelihood that the
> > village idiot is the greatest brain surgeon in history. While it is
> > possible, no sensible person is going to have their brain operation
> > done by a village idiot.
And your model is the village idiot one
>
> > If you have actually solved these problems, you already know that the
> > standard way to inform the world is through publication in peer-review
> > journals. If you have published in any of these journals, please give
> > us the citation, so we can read the paper. If not, please let us know
> > to which journals you have submitted manuscripts.
So? No publications? I thought so.
>
> > If you haven't done that, then at least let us know if you have ever
> > even READ a journal article in physics.
Won;t say? Must not have even READ any.
>
> > Until you have published in the literature, a better use nof your time
> > might be to take classes, or at least study the literature on you own.
>
> You are a runt of the SRians.
What does this inane expression even mean?
> My theory IRT includes SRT as a subset.
> However unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
> environments,including gravity. IRT is described in the following
> link:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Wow! The greatest paper in physics is on a geocities website!
>
> BTW, definition for a runt of the SRians:
> A moron who thinks that SR is a religion.
Then you are, by YOUR OWN DEFINTION, a moron. No physicist considers
SR a religion.
> An idiot who doesn't
> know the limitations of SR.
What do you call someone who can not form a complete sentence, like
the fragmen tabove?
> A mental midget who can't comprehend
> beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
> the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
> gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
> disagrees with SR
Four fragments in a row, which are not sentences. Not only can't you
do physics, you have the greatest difficulty with English.
BTW, dolt, I merely asked you a couple of questions, which you didn't
bother to answer.
>
> Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
The Ghost In The Machine
<45e196e6$0$9434$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:slu6b4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
>> <swor...@mchsi.com>
>> wrote
>> on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:40:01 GMT
>> <Rg2Eh.14389$PD2.13738@attbi_s22>:
>> > kenseto wrote:
>> >
>> >> You are a runt of the SRians. My theory IRT includes SRT as a subset.
>> >> However unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
>> >> environments,including gravity.
>> >
>> >
>> > Nature is the way she is. So far SR correctly predicts measurable
>> > effects resulting from relative velocity. A very fruitful theory
>> > in deed... and doesn't require any unnecessary assumptions of any
>> > *absolute* woo haw.
>> >
>> > Because SR is simpler that IRT, it is superior. Actually I don't
>> > think IRT has any more significance than one of my farts!
>> >
>>
>> IRT cannot be a superset of SR if it postulates constant
>> wavelength, unless it also postulates multiple length
>> measurement systems (e.g., light-defined and absolute).
>
> Hey idiot everbody measures his sodium source to have a universal wavelength
> of 589 nm. There is no need for mutiple length measurement systems.
Um...no they don't.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l301523160512575/
in particular refers to sodium lines shift with the interesting units
km/sec, which basically tells us three things:
[1] That sodium lines shift,
[2] that this shift can be expressed as a velocity,
[3] that astrophysicists can use this, and have been using it.
(Note that 3 km/s is a shift of about 0.0589 nanometer, which tells me
a fourth thing: that we can measure such shifts with sufficient
precision.)
>>
>> SR, after all, predicts that
>>
>> L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
>
> In what text book do you find that??
> The text book I have says that:
> L/Lo = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> In IRT:
> L/Lo=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Fab/Faa
> OR
> L/Lo=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Faa/Fab
>
> Ken Seto
>
The text book you have is wrong, as it is not properly compensating for
the Doppler effect (or perhaps it *is* compensating for the Doppler,
which it really should not be, as this is an observation, not a
computation).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
if(*i == thing) {...}
The Ghost In The Machine
<TchEh.4703$u93.4196@attbi_s21>:
Erm....where did Kenseto predict the shift of Mercury?!
I must have missed that. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.
Sam Wormley
Yup... Seto's IRT doesn't predict the correct perihelion shift of Mercury.
bz
news:45e1a813$0$1365$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
It would only be 'absolutly prefered; if every other observer agreed that
only one SR observer's clock was the fastest running.
No observer's frame is 'absolutely Prefered' because EACH observer sees
his own clock as running fastest.
> What this mean is that he tried to have it both ways.
He was not trying to 'have it both ways'(absolute and non absolute). He has
it only one way, NON absolute.
> He
> rejected the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show that SR doesn't
> require it.
Correct.
> He ambraced the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show
> that SR agrees with observations and experiments.
Wrong.
>> >> > If there is no medium what is waving?
>> >
>> >> The moving electric field excites a moving magnetic field.
>> >> The moving magnetic field excites a moving electric field.
>> >>
>> >> Nothing is 'waving'. Interdependent fields are moving together.
>> >
>> > So what are the magnetic and electric fields? If the fields are math
>> > constructs how does math constructs move?
>>
>> The fields are described using math. Just like my thoughts are
>> described using words. My words are not my thoughts. The math is not
>> the fields.
>
> Steven Weinberg describe the field as follows:
> "A field like an electric or magnetic field is a sort of stress in
> space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible
> within a solid body, but a field is a stress in space"
Ok. That sounds reasonable, provided you can define 'stress' when there is
nothing to be stressed. As far as I remember stress and strain from statics
and dynamics, they are only present when there is something there. If the
bridge support breaks, the stress disappears.
> Weinberg is saying that space is a material body that exhibits stress.
He seems to be using a metaphor so that the reader can 'grasp' the concept.
Metaphors are useful but the map is never the territory.
> So clearly your understanding of the field is quite different than what
> Weinberg said.
Not surprising. We are different people.
> I agree with you that the math is not the field. The math
> is the language that describes the behavior of a material body reacting
> to the stress is the surrounding material body.
Some math describes the behavior of material bodies.
The math of SR does NOT describe the behavior of 'a material body' [an
aether] reacting to the stress imposed by the surrounding material bodies.
[I assume that is what you mean by your sentence, it kind of wanders off
toward the end.]
-------------------------
Have you been for that boat ride yet?
Watch closely as the boat starts moving slowly.
You will notice that the waves traveling ahead of the boat get shorter and
shorter in wavelength as the boat moves faster while those behind get
longer and longer.
It should be clear to you now that your contention that waves maintain
wavelength and change speed to produce the doppler shift was wrong.
kenseto
Yes they do. If they don't then the PoR is invalid.
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/l301523160512575/
>
> in particular refers to sodium lines shift with the interesting units
> km/sec, which basically tells us three things:
>
> [1] That sodium lines shift,
The shift tells us that the incoming speed of light is varying.
> [2] that this shift can be expressed as a velocity,
(delta frequency shift)*(universal wavelength for sodium)= the relative
velocity of the source wrt the observer.
> [3] that astrophysicists can use this, and have been using it.
>
> (Note that 3 km/s is a shift of about 0.0589 nanometer, which tells me
> a fourth thing: that we can measure such shifts with sufficient
> precision.)
>
> >>
> >> SR, after all, predicts that
> >>
> >> L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
> >
> > In what text book do you find that??
> > The text book I have says that:
> > L/Lo = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > In IRT:
> > L/Lo=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Fab/Faa
> > OR
> > L/Lo=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Faa/Fab
> >
> > Ken Seto
> >
>
> The text book you have is wrong,
ROTFLOL....so the text book is wrong and you are right????
Only an idiot would claim that.
>as it is not properly compensating for
> the Doppler effect (or perhaps it *is* compensating for the Doppler,
> which it really should not be, as this is an observation, not a
> computation).
For your information the direction of the moving rod has no effect on its
projected length in the observer's frame. I suggest that you spend more time
to study SR before you make a fool of yourself again.
Ken Seto
Igor
> On Feb 24, 9:55 am, "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 3:34 pm, "Ace0f_5pades" <m4de...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 5:37 am, "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 22, 4:28 pm, "Ace0f_5pades" <m4de...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 23, 6:05 am, "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 22, 2:32 am, "Ace0f_5pades" <m4de...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 5:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > GO FIGURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > > > > > The *measured* speed of light is a constant for all observers
> > > > > > > > independent of relative motion between light source and observer.
>
> > > > > > > & over & on..
>
> > > > > > > Put it this way, Is it possible to acceleration a photon to light
> > > > > > > speed without it increasing its energy and heat etc?
> > > > > > > NO!
> > > > > > > if you gather a bunch of electrons in its metal state, and accelerate
> > > > > > > it to light speed, will it also increase its energy, heat etc?
> > > > > > > YES!
> > > > > > > even at far less speeds than light, when a metal is heated, IT
> > > > > > > EXPANDS> Tis obvious to everybody
>
> > > > > > > So I wouldn't go around making such outrageous claims like that, with
> > > > > > > that air of infallibility. Plain and simply, you're wrong, and those
> > > > > > > professors you got your stuff from have been perpetuating a
> > > > > > > misconception since Einstein died.
>
> > > > > > Fish can swim, therefore a vest has no sleeves.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > with the same silly billy arguments? No one to challenge the
> > > > > statement made, or shift position if you realised that you're wrong?
> > > > > lol, ok igor, of course fish can swim!! but what about jetsam?
>
> > > > > light refraction shows primary composition, therefore the mathematic
> > > > > community is a separate light hearted joke
>
> > > > C'mon lighten up! I was making fun of your half-assed proof. Lack of
> > > > an understanding of basic physics is no excuse. Ignorance is curable,
> > > > but stupidity is not. Which category do you fall into?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > it is obvious to me that in order to accelerate A to lightspeed, A
> > > must undergo a massive energy transformation that will obviously cause
> > > it composition to expand.
>
> > Speak english! Better yet, speak the language of physics.
> > Apparently, you don't understand either.
>
> Oh, I speak english, and physics. And I understand more than you do.
> Though I might not be the best typist, and in line for the highest
> writing order of merit, it is no reflection of my Ideas.
>
> The only thing you demonstrate is the incapacity to argue with the so
> called physics understanding you claim to wield.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > How long have you been a Physicist? Too long if you ask me.
>
> > Probably about as long as you've been completely in the dark.
>
> > >Too hard
> > > to change a way of looking when those are the only glasses you wear.
> > > Einstein has been misinterpreted. And because all the physicists
> > > never questioned the postulate, they bounced the ideas around
> > > themselves gather that much momentum, anything that seeks to correct
> > > it looks quite preposterous even when it is as plain as the nosed
> > > face.
>
> > Physicists question everything and all the time. New theories are
> > being born every day. Unfortunately, most of them are a dime a half
> > million and they easily crumble under tough scrutiny. And even if you
> > are able to put together a working theory that mathematically makes
> > sense, nature will eventually tell you whether it's treasure or
> > trash. But you're smarter than me, so you apparently already know
> > this. Right? And if you were half as knowledgable as you claim to
>
> Damn right I'm smarter than you, Why? because I don't get bogged down
> by the millions of crude theory. why? cause I have a source
> understanding, which is what you keep seeking from me when you dance
> around with your crappy positions. The one that is really in the dark
> is you. Why, because you're a slave to your position. -i.e. you can
> only be a physicist if you are a Dr of the discipline
>
> > be, you'd be well on your way. But how can you be when you don't even
> > speak the language?
>
> I might not have support I need yet, that doesn't defer or detract
> away from the solidarity of my Ideas. It is more a reflection of
> circumstance, and the continual misunderstandings than of what I am
> capable of. I have great capacity, and even if I stand alone it is
> still the case.
>
> > > When you stop assuming you're infallible, you might make a break
> > > through.
>
> > Maybe you should take your own advice, and learn some real physics
> > while you're at it. Till then, you're just spouting nonsensical
> > jibberish. And there's plenty of room for flexibility in science.
> > But only if know what the hell you're talking about in the first
> > place.
>
> There you go, assuming you're an ass again. Unless that's you
> permanent makeup? Do the ladies flock to that look?
>
> I know what I'm talking about. If you're the so-called keeper of
> Physics you tout yourself to be, why can't you use physics to counter
> my positions, or even understand why they are even given. i.e. my
> formula. I've place enough around the place for you to get a good
> idea of what I'm talking about. Surely, you being the supposedly
> learn exponent of physics you say you are, you would be able to show
> me up as a kook in one swift and accurate retort against any formula
> and position I submit.
>
> But you can't, and why? Because the physics you claim as so superior
> isn't, its full of holes and that's where I can challenge and redirect
> the thought to a better line of reasoning. So don't come down on me
> with you misguided reasoning.
>
> I learn and continue to learn physics according to my directions and
> purposes, And I'm keen. So what that I learn according to an order
> that all you physicist seem to demote as kooky just because it dares
> to stand against and challenge the so called accepted view. Outside
> the box is why I'm so freely placed.
>
> If you have anything of real value other than pointing out that same
> old retarded retort, then please see through to seeing that help be
> given to me in the true spirit of real help.
Mu
Igor
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172249442.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 10:47 am, The Ghost In The Machine
> > <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> > > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> > > <kens...@woh.rr.com>
> > > wrote
> > > on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:16:23 -0500
>
> > > > "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:1172170839.5...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> On Feb 22, 8:58 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> You seem to have this problem with the definitions of standards.
> > > >> First it was a clock second, which apparently, you still haven't
> > > >> resolved. Now it's the meter. The point that you don't seem to be
> > > >> getting is that standards can be set any way we choose. And the
> > > >> underlying observable physics will not be affected in any way. How
> > > >> can our giving something a name affect how nature works?
>
> of
> > > > light is a *measured constant* I was merely pointing out that the OWLS
> was
> > > > never measured and the two-way speed of light is a measured constant
> by
> > > > definition (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second).
>
> > > Speed of light was a measured constant, plus or minus a certain error,
> > > in 1983; the scientific community basically threw in the towel and it is
> > > now *defined* as constant.
>
> > > of course is getting the signal back from the remote clock
> > > without introducing an additional delay measurement in the
> > > process, completing a round trip and thereby converting
> > > OWLS to TWLS.
>
> > doesn't understand the idea of how the standards of physical
> > measurement work in the first place. He seems to think that by
> > defining the meter in terms of the speed of light, it's circular.
>
> But it is circular. Also if the speed of light is a defined constant you
> runts of the SRians can't keep on claiming that it is a measured constant
It's just a number. A well measured number, but a number
nevertheless. We could just as easily define a meter as three times
the perimeter of George Bush's head and it would be just as valid,
though probably not as accurate. We can define a physical unit any
way we wish to. This is elementary stuff, and you can't seem to
figure it out. And you still haven't answered my original question.
And that is how giving something a name affects nature. I'll give you
a clue. It doesn't.
> >But
> > it's not, since the standard for the second is independently defined.
>
> The problem with the second definition is that a second does not represent
> the same duration in different frames.
There you go again, off in la la land. A second is a second, no
matter who is using it measure things. It's a standard and standards
are invariant. If you can't get that, then there's something
seriously wrong.
>Even an SR observer will say that a
> second in the observer's frame is worth 1/gamma second in the observed
> frame.
That may be true, but completely irrelevant. Any time interval is
dilated by an application of the Lorentz transformation, but that
doesn't affect the value of a single second. The second has the same
definition and meaning in all frames. This has been explained to you
again and again, but you still don't get it. I think you're only
happy when you're complaining about your perceived nonsense.
>What that mean is that the defined constant speed of light based on
> the second is not a true constant.
So you're saying that c is not defined as a constant? Come back in
fifty years and we'll see if it changes. It IS a constant and very
well defined, too. Whether it is even the actual speed of light is
irrelevant to the discussion. And that's the part I think that you
don't really understand. You're talking about the actual propagation
of light but the standard is just a set number. We have a constant
number called c that we use to define a meter. That's all there is to
it. We could have just as easily used any other number, but c, which
is just a number, was chosen. Apparently you don't get it. Try not
to read more into it than is actually there.
> > What the difference between OWLS and TWLS, even if actually exists,
> > has to do with the definition of the meter (which can be defined
> > anyway we wish to) is completely beyond me.
>
> Of course it is beyond you. You are a runt of the SRians.
I have no problem with that since it is coming from someone that
doesn't know he's talking about in the first place. Stop getting hung
up on definitions and standards and start learning some real physics.
Anybody that argues about standards the way you do would never be able
to even get past the first day of a regular physics course.
Igor
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 9:16 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > > On Feb 22, 8:58 am, "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 21, 11:05 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > GO FIGURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > > > The *measured* speed of light is a constant for all observers
> > > > > > independent of relative motion between light source and
> observer.
>
> > > > > measured....in fact it is impossible to do so. The two-way speed of
> > > > > light is measured with the circular definition for a meter length of
> > > > > 1/299,792,458 light-second.
>
> > > > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > First it was a clock second, which apparently, you still haven't
> > > > resolved. Now it's the meter. The point that you don't seem to be
> > > > getting is that standards can be set any way we choose. And the
> > > > underlying observable physics will not be affected in any way. How
> > > > can our giving something a name affect how nature works?
>
> > > Hey idiot....wormy keep on regurgitating the statement that the speed of
> > > light is a *measured constant* I was merely pointing out that the OWLS
> was
> > > never measured and the two-way speed of light is a measured constant by
> > > definition (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second).
>
> > can our giving something a name affect how nature works? Until you
> > can answer that, nothing you say will mean anything to anyone. You're
> > the one with issues about standards.
>
> How does nature work in SR? In SR you give a circular definition for the
> speed of light based on a clock second that has different duration in
> different frames. You think that's how nature is working????????????
Are you too stupid to realize that standards and measurements are two
entirely different things? Stop thinking about them as the same thing
and you're silly paradox will be resolved.
Igor
Just shut up and answer his question. Answer a few of mine while
you're at it.
kenseto
> On Feb 24, 4:34 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1172344209.1...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > <snipped complete nonsense>
You are a runt of the SR SRians.
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
kenseto
Hey idiot.....What SR done is reverse engineering and curve fitting. It is
not science when you have to invent a new standard (light-second for length
measurement) so that it fits measurements and observations. Would you
believe it if I told you that I can walk at a speed of 300,000km/one special
second?
YBM
> Would you
> believe it if I told you that I can walk at a speed of 300,000km/one special
> second?
As we say in french : "Vous n'êtes pas une lumière".
kenseto
> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> news:45e1a813$0$1365$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> >
> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Xns98E1743F8D974WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >> news:45e056f7$0$28084$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns98E066E863883WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> >> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:45defa9a$0$28079$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:Xns98DF63F553C4DWQ...@130.39.198.139...
> >> >> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:45ddae94$0$18898$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> >> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > observer assumes that he is in such a space
> >>
> >> He doesn't. You mistakenly claim that he does.
> >>
> >> > ....as he assumes that he
> >> > sees all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rod
> >> > moving wrt him are contracted? Surely you know that that means that
> >> > the SR observer is in a perferred state of rest in the "absolutely
> >> > stationary space"
> >>
> >> There is NO prefered state of rest in SR.
> >>
> >> Read what Einstein said again: "...the view here to be developed will
> >> NOT require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special
> > properties."
> >>
> >> There is NO prefered state of rest in SR.
> >> Your attributing such to SR shows that you did not read what Einstein
> >> said.
> >
> > Even though he said "...the view here to be developed will NOT
> > require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special
> > properties." But the math of SR place the SR observer in a preferred
> > situation......namely that the SR observer's clock is the fastest
> > running clock in the universe and that the SR observer's rod is the
> > longest rod in the universe.
>
> It would only be 'absolutly prefered; if every other observer agreed that
> only one SR observer's clock was the fastest running.
It doen't matter if other SR observer makes this claim. The point is that
the claim is the property of the absolute rest frame.
>
> No observer's frame is 'absolutely Prefered' because EACH observer sees
> his own clock as running fastest.
But the SR observer is claiming that he is at absolute rest. That's why he
claims that his clock is the fastest clock in the universe.
>
> > What this mean is that he tried to have it both ways.
>
> He was not trying to 'have it both ways'(absolute and non absolute). He
has
> it only one way, NON absolute.
No....not NON absolute...Each SR observer is claiming that he is in a state
of absolute rest.
>
> > He
> > rejected the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show that SR doesn't
> > require it.
>
> Correct.
>
> > He ambraced the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show
> > that SR agrees with observations and experiments.
>
> Wrong.
Not wrong.
>
> >>
> >> The fields are described using math. Just like my thoughts are
> >> described using words. My words are not my thoughts. The math is not
> >> the fields.
> >
> > Steven Weinberg describe the field as follows:
> > "A field like an electric or magnetic field is a sort of stress in
> > space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible
> > within a solid body, but a field is a stress in space"
>
> Ok. That sounds reasonable, provided you can define 'stress' when there is
> nothing to be stressed.
But Wienberg's anology does mean that space is some sort of medium and the
field is the stress in that medium.
>As far as I remember stress and strain from statics
> and dynamics, they are only present when there is something there. If the
> bridge support breaks, the stress disappears.
So are you disagreeing with Weinberg? Remember he said
>
> > Weinberg is saying that space is a material body that exhibits stress.
>
> He seems to be using a metaphor so that the reader can 'grasp' the
concept.
No he was not using any metaphor. Remember he said: "but a field is a stress
in space"
>
> Metaphors are useful but the map is never the territory.
>
> > So clearly your understanding of the field is quite different than what
> > Weinberg said.
>
> Not surprising. We are different people.
Doesn't that means that your understanding of physics is lacking. After all
Weinberg won a Nobel Prize.
>
> > I agree with you that the math is not the field. The math
> > is the language that describes the behavior of a material body reacting
> > to the stress in the surrounding material body (space).
>
> Some math describes the behavior of material bodies.
>
> The math of SR does NOT describe the behavior of 'a material body' [an
> aether] reacting to the stress imposed by the surrounding material bodies.
> [I assume that is what you mean by your sentence, it kind of wanders off
> toward the end.]
Of coursse SR does not describe the behavior of a material body reacting to
the stress in space. SR is an incomplete theory of motion. In real life any
observer will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and
some are running fast. This interpretation will remove the SR observer being
placed in a preferred situation.
>
> -------------------------
>
> Have you been for that boat ride yet?
> Watch closely as the boat starts moving slowly.
>
> You will notice that the waves traveling ahead of the boat get shorter and
> shorter in wavelength as the boat moves faster while those behind get
> longer and longer.
So what is your point? I dont see any wave in front of the boat.
>
> It should be clear to you now that your contention that waves maintain
> wavelength and change speed to produce the doppler shift was wrong.
All observer measures his sodium source to have a wave length of 589 nm.
During the transit of light there is nothing that can change this wave
length. The new wavelength of the incoming light is a define wavelength for
a new light source in the observer's frame.
Sam Wormley
>
> Hey idiot.....What SR done is reverse engineering and curve fitting. It is
> not science when you have to invent a new standard (light-second for length
> measurement) so that it fits measurements and observations. Would you
> believe it if I told you that I can walk at a speed of 300,000km/one special
> second?
>
Seto, the speed of light is a constant in nature... it matters not
what units are used... the velocity is constant for all inertial
observers independent of relative velocity between source and observer.
One that was realized... it makes a convenient reference for defining
better units of measure. Try not to be so g...... ....ing stooopid!
The_Man
> "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172419530....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 24, 4:34 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > > "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1172344209.1...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > <snipped complete nonsense>
>
> You are a runt of the SR SRians.
Ad hominem attack.
> Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
> A moron who thinks that SR is a religion.
So you say, but I already refuted that.
> An idiot who doesn't
> know the limitations of SR.
If I'm an idiot, What the fuck tdoes that make YOU?
> A mental midget who can't comprehend
> beyond what he was taught in school.
In other words: You couldn't pass even the simplest courses in school,
so it must be the SCHOOL's fault that you're stupid.
> An imbecile who follows
> the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
> gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
> disagrees with SR
I didn't attack you, I asked you several questions, none of which you
answered dirrectly.
You did answer them indirectly.
You never passed even one college/University level physics course, and
have no skill, training, or experience in physics, or any other
science for that matter.
>
> Ken Seto
Are you sure that's your name? You are wrong about everything else.
kenseto
> On Feb 24, 9:00 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1172249442.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 23, 10:47 am, The Ghost In The Machine
> > > <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> > > > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> > > > <kens...@woh.rr.com>
> > > > wrote
> > > > on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:16:23 -0500
> > > > <45def5ff$0$28106$4c368...@roadrunner.com>:
> >
> >
> > > > of course is getting the signal back from the remote clock
> > > > without introducing an additional delay measurement in the
> > > > process, completing a round trip and thereby converting
> > > > OWLS to TWLS.
> >
> > > That's true, but it's not what Seto seems to have a problem with. He
> > > doesn't understand the idea of how the standards of physical
> > > measurement work in the first place. He seems to think that by
> > > defining the meter in terms of the speed of light, it's circular.
> >
> > But it is circular. Also if the speed of light is a defined constant you
> > runts of the SRians can't keep on claiming that it is a measured
constant
>
> It's just a number. A well measured number, but a number
> nevertheless. We could just as easily define a meter as three times
> the perimeter of George Bush's head and it would be just as valid,
> though probably not as accurate. We can define a physical unit any
> way we wish to.
No it's not just a number. We already have a procedure to measure the speed
of anything as follows:
1. measure the physical distance (L) between two synchronized clocks .
2. measure the flight time between the two clocks (t2-t1).
3. The speed is L/(t2-t1)
Apparently the one-way speed of light is not measured to be constant so you
SRians invented a new circular porcedure (use light-second to measure
length) that will guarantee that the OWLS is a defined constant.
>This is elementary stuff, and you can't seem to
> figure it out. And you still haven't answered my original question.
> And that is how giving something a name affects nature. I'll give you
> a clue. It doesn't.
Youdidn't just giving something a name. You invented a new procedure to
measure speed that guarantees the speed of light is measured to be constant.
>
>
> > >But
> > > it's not, since the standard for the second is independently defined.
> >
> > The problem with the second definition is that a second does not
represent
> > the same duration in different frames.
>
> There you go again, off in la la land. A second is a second, no
> matter who is using it measure things. It's a standard and standards
> are invariant. If you can't get that, then there's something
> seriously wrong.
Hey idiot..... a second is the duration of a specific number periods of the
radiation of the Cs 133 atom. The problem is that a clock second in
different frame does not represent the same duration. That means that the
passage of a clock second in A's frame does not corresponds to the passage
of a clcok second in B's frame. That means that a second is not a second in
different frames.
>
> >Even an SR observer will say that a
> > second in the observer's frame is worth 1/gamma second in the observed
> > frame.
>
> That may be true, but completely irrelevant. Any time interval is
> dilated by an application of the Lorentz transformation, but that
> doesn't affect the value of a single second. The second has the same
> definition and meaning in all frames. This has been explained to you
> again and again, but you still don't get it. I think you're only
> happy when you're complaining about your perceived nonsense.
Hey idiot the value of a second is the duration which in urn is the absolute
time content. There is no time dilation. A clock second will represent a
different duration in different frames. BTW that's the reason why the speed
of light is measured to be a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the duration (absolute time)
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
Ken Seto
The Ghost In The Machine
<45e1dfb0$0$5732$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
Ah, of course.
>>
>> http://www.springerlink.com/content/l301523160512575/
>>
>> in particular refers to sodium lines shift with the interesting units
>> km/sec, which basically tells us three things:
>>
>> [1] That sodium lines shift,
>
> The shift tells us that the incoming speed of light is varying.
Galilean/Newtonian theory cannot change the wavelength merely by
moving the source.
In G/N theory,
x' = x-vt
t' = t
for some v. The two events
(0,t)_O and (L,t)_O
will transform to
(-vt,t)_A, (L-vt,t)_A
which are still L units apart.
>
>> [2] that this shift can be expressed as a velocity,
>
> (delta frequency shift)*(universal wavelength for sodium)= the relative
> velocity of the source wrt the observer.
Not as SR sees it.
v_est = (1 - (Fab/Faa)^2)/(1 + (Fab/Faa)^2)
where Faa is the line of sodium measured from a lamp at rest,
and Fab is the line of sodium measured from a distant star.
>
>> [3] that astrophysicists can use this, and have been using it.
>>
>> (Note that 3 km/s is a shift of about 0.0589 nanometer, which tells me
>> a fourth thing: that we can measure such shifts with sufficient
>> precision.)
>>
>> >>
>> >> SR, after all, predicts that
>> >>
>> >> L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
>> >
>> > In what text book do you find that??
>> > The text book I have says that:
>> > L/Lo = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> > In IRT:
>> > L/Lo=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Fab/Faa
>> > OR
>> > L/Lo=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Faa/Fab
>> >
>> > Ken Seto
>> >
>>
>> The text book you have is wrong,
>
> ROTFLOL....so the text book is wrong and you are right????
> Only an idiot would claim that.
You haven't stated with text book. The formulae I've seen are easily
derivable from the Lorentz, with some care:
L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
F/F0 = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
and of course
L*F = L0*F0 = c
>
>>as it is not properly compensating for
>> the Doppler effect (or perhaps it *is* compensating for the Doppler,
>> which it really should not be, as this is an observation, not a
>> computation).
>
> For your information the direction of the moving rod has no effect on its
> projected length in the observer's frame. I suggest that you spend more time
> to study SR before you make a fool of yourself again.
Of course.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0);
The Ghost In The Machine
<me_so_h...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 25 Feb 2007 13:55:18 -0800
<1172440518.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> On Feb 25, 3:57 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172419530....@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 24, 4:34 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> > > "The_Man" <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:1172344209.1...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > <snipped complete nonsense>
>>
>> You are a runt of the SR SRians.
>
> Ad hominem attack.
It's more or less his standard response. :-)
>
>> Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
>> A moron who thinks that SR is a religion.
>
> So you say, but I already refuted that.
>
>> An idiot who doesn't
>> know the limitations of SR.
>
> If I'm an idiot, What the fuck tdoes that make YOU?
>
>> A mental midget who can't comprehend
>> beyond what he was taught in school.
>
> In other words: You couldn't pass even the simplest courses in school,
> so it must be the SCHOOL's fault that you're stupid.
>
>> An imbecile who follows
>> the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
>> gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
>> disagrees with SR
>
> I didn't attack you, I asked you several questions, none of which you
> answered dirrectly.
> You did answer them indirectly.
>
> You never passed even one college/University level physics course, and
> have no skill, training, or experience in physics, or any other
> science for that matter.
>
>>
>> Ken Seto
>
> Are you sure that's your name? You are wrong about everything else.
>
No, I for one am pretty sure that's his actual name, as he *has*
published a book. Amazon is even selling it.
(Apologies if the link malfunctions. I'm not sure which of these refer
to the book, and which refer to the search I used to find it, which
was simply "Ken H. Seto". The full title is _Model Mechanics: A New
Interpretation of Nature_.)
Not that such means an awful lot, of course, as they're
also selling _Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows_, which
is clearly not scientifically related. There's also a
copy of _Worlds In Collsion_ on there, plus a number
of other works from Immanual Velikovsky -- AFAIK, all of
them junk from a scientific standpoint. :-)
bz
news:45e20462$0$28109$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
There is no absolute rest frame.
Insisting it is an absolute frame will not make it so.
Every Inertial frame is an SR rest frame.
There is no way to tell that one is or is not at absolute rest.
That is the reason that there is no absolute rest frame in SR.
>>
>> No observer's frame is 'absolutely Prefered' because EACH observer sees
>> his own clock as running fastest.
>
> But the SR observer is claiming that he is at absolute rest.
No. Show me where an SR observer claims that he is at absolute rest.
If he understands SR, he will make no such claim because he knows it would
not be true.
> That's why
> he claims that his clock is the fastest clock in the universe.
If he is wise, he makes no such claim.
He knows that every other observer with a clock in any other intertial FoR
also sees his clock as fastest.
These people are not so stupid as to think that they are at absolute rest.
>> > What this mean is that he tried to have it both ways.
>>
>> He was not trying to 'have it both ways'(absolute and non absolute). He
> has
>> it only one way, NON absolute.
>
> No....not NON absolute...Each SR observer is claiming that he is in a
> state of absolute rest.
No one that understands SR will ever claim he is a state of absolute rest
because he knows that everyone else has an equally poor claim to being at
absolute rest.
>> > He
>> > rejected the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show that SR
>> > doesn't require it.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> > He ambraced the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show
>> > that SR agrees with observations and experiments.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Not wrong.
Einstein was smart enough to know that there is no reason to prefer any FoR
above another.
Back up your claim by showing me exactly where he 'ambrace [sic] the
absolute rest frame.'
>> >> The fields are described using math. Just like my thoughts are
>> >> described using words. My words are not my thoughts. The math is not
>> >> the fields.
>> >
>> > Steven Weinberg describe the field as follows:
>> > "A field like an electric or magnetic field is a sort of stress in
>> > space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible
>> > within a solid body, but a field is a stress in space"
>>
>> Ok. That sounds reasonable, provided you can define 'stress' when there
>> is nothing to be stressed.
>
> But Wienberg's anology does mean that space is some sort of medium and
> the field is the stress in that medium.
See the word 'like' in the sentence?
See the 'a sort of stress'?
Those are NOT terms that one uses when being precise.
He is explaining things in simple terms.
He is not giving a rigorous definition.
>>As far as I remember stress and strain from statics
>> and dynamics, they are only present when there is something there. If
>> the bridge support breaks, the stress disappears.
>
> So are you disagreeing with Weinberg? Remember he said
I am disagreeing with anyone interpreting his words, out of context, as if
his words were the words of god and the interpreter were his annointed
prophet, knowing the exact meaning that each word was intended to convey.
>> > Weinberg is saying that space is a material body that exhibits
>> > stress.
>>
>> He seems to be using a metaphor so that the reader can 'grasp' the
> concept.
>
> No he was not using any metaphor. Remember he said: "but a field is a
> stress in space"
'like' 'sort of'
>> Metaphors are useful but the map is never the territory.
>>
>> > So clearly your understanding of the field is quite different than
>> > what Weinberg said.
>>
>> Not surprising. We are different people.
>
> Doesn't that means that your understanding of physics is lacking. After
> all Weinberg won a Nobel Prize.
But the one interpreting his words did not.
>> > I agree with you that the math is not the field. The math
>> > is the language that describes the behavior of a material body
>> > reacting to the stress in the surrounding material body (space).
>>
>> Some math describes the behavior of material bodies.
>>
>> The math of SR does NOT describe the behavior of 'a material body' [an
>> aether] reacting to the stress imposed by the surrounding material
>> bodies. [I assume that is what you mean by your sentence, it kind of
>> wanders off toward the end.]
> Of coursse SR does not describe the behavior of a material body reacting
> to the stress in space. SR is an incomplete theory of motion.
It is concomplete because it only deals with inertial FoRs.
> In real
> life any observer will see some of the clocks moving wrt him are running
> slow and some are running fast.
Incorrect.
> This interpretation will remove the SR
> observer being placed in a preferred situation.
Since the SR observer is NOT in a preferred situation, there is no need to
remove them.
>>
>> -------------------------
>>
>> Have you been for that boat ride yet?
>> Watch closely as the boat starts moving slowly.
>>
>> You will notice that the waves traveling ahead of the boat get shorter
>> and shorter in wavelength as the boat moves faster while those behind
>> get longer and longer.
>
> So what is your point? I dont see any wave in front of the boat.
The waves are there, compressed together by the doppler shift. The exact
same waves that spread out and form the 'wake' that propagates outward,
with the wavelength getting longer and longer, the further behind the boat
it gets.
If you move the boat slowly enough, you will see the individual waves in
front of the boat. As the boat approaches the 'speed of wave', the doppler
shift will compress the waves closer and closer together.
>>
>> It should be clear to you now that your contention that waves maintain
>> wavelength and change speed to produce the doppler shift was wrong.
>
> All observer measures his sodium source to have a wave length of 589 nm.
> During the transit of light there is nothing that can change this wave
> length. The new wavelength of the incoming light is a define wavelength
> for a new light source in the observer's frame.
Look at the waves in front of the boat. Look at the ones you can make
yourself. Look at that link I sent you that shows the doppler shift in a
wave tank on an overhead projector.
Being a scientist means looking AND learning from what you see.
Look at the waves on the water. Sound, water and light all display the same
kind doppler shift.
Repeatedly saying "During the transit of light there is nothing that can
change this wave length." does not make it so. Motion of the source and/or
motion of the observer 'change the wave length' but NOT the speed of
propagation of the wave.
Bob Cain
> Hey idiot....start the time when the laser leave the source clock (t1) stop
> time when the laser arrive at the other clock (t2).
> Transit time is (t2-t1).
> distance of separation between the two clock as measured by a measuring
> tape=L
> The OWLS =L/(t2-t1)
> What so hard about that????
Hmmm, a few posts back you said it was impossible. Which is it, Ken,
easy or impossible?
I know you find it easy to believe the simultaneous truth of
contradicting statements but you need to realize that such is not an
indicator of sanity in the consensus universe inhabited by the rest of us.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
kenseto
> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> <ken...@woh.rr.com>
> wrote
> on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:17:58 -0500
> <45e1dfb0$0$5732$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
> >
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
> > news:6eo8b4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
> >> <ken...@woh.rr.com>
> >> wrote
> >> on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:07:25 -0500
> >> <45e196e6$0$9434$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
> >> >
> >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> > message
> >> >
> > wavelength
> >> > of 589 nm. There is no need for mutiple length measurement systems.
> >>
> >> Um...no they don't.
> >
> > Yes they do. If they don't then the PoR is invalid.
>
> Ah, of course.
>
> >>
> >> http://www.springerlink.com/content/l301523160512575/
> >>
> >> in particular refers to sodium lines shift with the interesting units
> >> km/sec, which basically tells us three things:
> >>
> >> [1] That sodium lines shift,
> >
> > The shift tells us that the incoming speed of light is varying.
>
> Galilean/Newtonian theory cannot change the wavelength merely by
> moving the source.
We are not talking about Galilean/Newtom theory. We are talking about IRT
and SRT.
>
>
> >
> >> [2] that this shift can be expressed as a velocity,
> >
> > (delta frequency shift)*(universal wavelength for sodium)= the relative
> > velocity of the source wrt the observer.
>
> Not as SR sees it.
>
> v_est = (1 - (Fab/Faa)^2)/(1 + (Fab/Faa)^2)
Sigh....you are using the Doppler formula to get v_est. v_est is constant
whether the source is approaching the observer or receding from the
observer. Therefore the Doppler formula is not valid for determing the
relative velocity of a moving source.
>
> where Faa is the line of sodium measured from a lamp at rest,
> and Fab is the line of sodium measured from a distant star.
>
> >
> >> >> SR, after all, predicts that
> >> >>
> >> >> L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
> >> >
> >> > In what text book do you find that??
> >> > The text book I have says that:
> >> > L/Lo = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >> > In IRT:
> >> > L/Lo=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Fab/Faa
> >> > OR
> >> > L/Lo=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Faa/Fab
> >> >
> >> > Ken Seto
> >> >
> >>
> >> The text book you have is wrong,
> >
> > ROTFLOL....so the text book is wrong and you are right????
> > Only an idiot would claim that.
>
> You haven't stated with text book.
Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday/Resnick.
The length contraction formula is as follows:
L'=Lo/gamma.
>The formulae I've seen are easily
> derivable from the Lorentz, with some care:
>
> L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
> F/F0 = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
These cannot be derived from the LT. Did you using the Doppler formula to
derive these?
Ken Seto
kenseto
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:jrydnXlthbiwOn_Y...@giganews.com...
> kenseto wrote:
>
> > Hey idiot....start the time when the laser leave the source clock (t1)
stop
> > time when the laser arrive at the other clock (t2).
> > Transit time is (t2-t1).
> > distance of separation between the two clock as measured by a measuring
> > tape=L
> > The OWLS =L/(t2-t1)
> > What so hard about that????
>
> Hmmm, a few posts back you said it was impossible. Which is it, Ken,
> easy or impossible?
I never said that measuring OWLS is impossible. It is a claim of you SRians.
It is likely that the direct measured OWLS is not constant and that's why
you SRians had to invent a circular definition for a meter length (1
meter=1/299,792,458 light-second) that will guarantee that the speed of
light is constant by definition.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> news:45e20462$0$28109$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> >
> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Xns98E27A2421ABFWQ...@130.39.198.139...
> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >> news:45e1a813$0$1365$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns98E1743F8D974WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> >> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:45e056f7$0$28084$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> >> >>
> >>
> >> that only one SR observer's clock was the fastest running.
> >
> > It doen't matter if other SR observer makes this claim. The point is
> > that the claim is the property of the absolute rest frame.
>
> There is no absolute rest frame.
> Insisting it is an absolute frame will not make it so.
Hey idiot.....then explain to me why an SR observer claim that his clock is
the fastest clock in the universe?? This claim is valid only if the SR
observer is in a state of absolute rest. A LET observer also claims that he
is in a state of absolute rest and that's why SR and LET has the same math.
>
> Every Inertial frame is an SR rest frame.
What does an SR rest frame mean? What is it at rest with respect to???
>
> There is no way to tell that one is or is not at absolute rest.
That's right but every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in that frame
anyway for calculation purposes.
>
> That is the reason that there is no absolute rest frame in SR.
If no absolute rest frame then why the SR observer claims that his clock is
the fastest clock in the universe?
>
> >>
> >> No observer's frame is 'absolutely Prefered' because EACH observer sees
> >> his own clock as running fastest.
> >
> > But the SR observer is claiming that he is at absolute rest.
>
> No. Show me where an SR observer claims that he is at absolute rest.
When he claims that his clock is the fastest clock in the universe.
>
> If he understands SR, he will make no such claim because he knows it would
> not be true.
>
> > That's why
> > he claims that his clock is the fastest clock in the universe.
>
> If he is wise, he makes no such claim.
So he didn't claim that his clcok is the fastest clock in the universe?
> He knows that every other observer with a clock in any other intertial FoR
> also sees his clock as fastest.
Exactly....every SR observer claim that his is in a state of absolute rest
and that's why his clock is the fastest clock in the universe.
>
> These people are not so stupid as to think that they are at absolute rest.
>
> >> > What this mean is that he tried to have it both ways.
> >>
> >> He was not trying to 'have it both ways'(absolute and non absolute). He
> > has
> >> it only one way, NON absolute.
> >
> > No....not NON absolute...Each SR observer is claiming that he is in a
> > state of absolute rest.
>
> No one that understands SR will ever claim he is a state of absolute rest
> because he knows that everyone else has an equally poor claim to being at
> absolute rest.
When an observer claims that his clock is the fastest running clock in the
universe he is claiming that he is in a state of absolute rest.
>
> >> > He
> >> > rejected the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show that SR
> >> > doesn't require it.
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
> >> > He ambraced the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show
> >> > that SR agrees with observations and experiments.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >
> > Not wrong.
>
> Einstein was smart enough to know that there is no reason to prefer any
FoR
> above another.
But this did not prevent him from using the properties of the absolute rest
frame to derive his math. In fact that's the reason why SR and LET have the
same math.
>
> Back up your claim by showing me exactly where he 'ambrace [sic] the
> absolute rest frame.'
That he claim that the SR observer's clock is the fastest clock in the
universe.
>
> >> Ok. That sounds reasonable, provided you can define 'stress' when there
> >> is nothing to be stressed.
> >
> > But Wienberg's anology does mean that space is some sort of medium and
> > the field is the stress in that medium.
>
> See the word 'like' in the sentence?
>
> See the 'a sort of stress'?
If he didn't mean that space is some sort of medium he wouldn't use such
anology....the last part of his sentence is: "but a field is a stress in
space"
>
> Those are NOT terms that one uses when being precise.
>
> He is explaining things in simple terms.
> He is not giving a rigorous definition.
This is nonsense. So you are saying that when he explains things in simple
terms he is not correct. Only the unkown rigorous defintion is correct and
that unknown rigoruous definition can not be described by everyday language.
It can only be described by math.
You are a runt of the SRians.
Ken Seto
bz
$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> Sigh....you are using the Doppler formula to get v_est. v_est is constant
> whether the source is approaching the observer or receding from the
> observer. Therefore the Doppler formula is not valid for determing the
> relative velocity of a moving source.
>
Get out of your arm chair and go look.
A ride in a boat, watching the waves created by the boat.
Standing beside the rail road tracks, measuring the doppler shift of sounds
from the moving train.
A few minutes with a police radar gun, measuring the velocity of passing
cars or of thrown baseballs at the ball park.
Observation of orbital satellites via doppler radar or observing the
doppler shift on uplink and downlink signals.
All of those will show you, if you will just look at the data, that the
doppler formula IS valid for any moving sources (moving less than a
significant portion of the 'speed of wave') and the SR modified formula is
correct for all of them.
Even with rapidly moving source, as far as all observations have been able
to tell, v_est IS constant, whether the source is approaching the observer
or receding from the observe.
The fact that your conclusions are at odds with observations, observations
that you could make any time you choose, should show you that your
assumptions are wrong.
------------------------
Suppose someone kept insisting that the sky was bright purple with yellow
polkadots. People keep telling him that the sky is blue unless there are
cloud, or the sun is down, but even then it is never bright purple with
yellow polkadots.
He keeps saying 'I can prove the sky is bright purple with yellow
polkadots, all you have to do is run the experiment I have proposed on my
web site.
You suggest that they go outside and look at the sky and they say 'what
would that prove? I know the sky is purple with yellow polkadots'.
What would you think of such a person?
bz
news:45e2f91f$0$28091$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns98E2CECAB4845WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:45e20462$0$28109$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>
>> >
>> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns98E27A2421ABFWQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>> >> news:45e1a813$0$1365$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>> >> > news:Xns98E1743F8D974WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> >> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:45e056f7$0$28084$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> It would only be 'absolutly prefered; if every other observer agreed
>> >> that only one SR observer's clock was the fastest running.
>> >
>> > It doen't matter if other SR observer makes this claim. The point is
>> > that the claim is the property of the absolute rest frame.
>>
>> There is no absolute rest frame.
>> Insisting it is an absolute frame will not make it so.
>
> Hey xxxx.....then explain to me why an SR observer claim that his clock
> is the fastest clock in the universe??
He does NOT. You say that he makes this claim. Show me one such observer
that makes such a claim.
> This claim is valid only if the
> SR observer is in a state of absolute rest. A LET observer also claims
> that he is in a state of absolute rest and that's why SR and LET has the
> same math.
Ken Seto claims that the SR observer and the LET observer claim that they
are at absolute rest. Ken Seto is wrong. Those observers make no such
claims.
>>
>> Every Inertial frame is an SR rest frame.
>
> What does an SR rest frame mean?
It is 'at rest' as far as its mathematics is concerned.
> What is it at rest with respect to???
What is the zero x axis and zero y axis 'zero' with respect to?
They are zero with respect to whatever the user of the graph paper wants
them to be zero with respect to.
>>
>> There is no way to tell that one is or is not at absolute rest.
>
> That's right but every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in that
> frame anyway for calculation purposes.
That is almost correct. "...every SR observer MAY assume that he...."
would be more correct, because only god knows for sure what anyone assumes.
>>
>> That is the reason that there is no absolute rest frame in SR.
>
> If no absolute rest frame then why the SR observer claims that his clock
> is the fastest clock in the universe?
I have never heard any SR observer make such a claim.
The formula would imply that for any observer in an Inertial Frame, to that
observer all clocks in IFoRs that are in motion wrt him would run slower.
But that does NOT mean that he would make the claim you credit him with
making. He may well be smart enough to realize that every other observer
will have their own opinion of who's clock is slow.
>> >> No observer's frame is 'absolutely Prefered' because EACH observer
>> >> sees his own clock as running fastest.
>> >
>> > But the SR observer is claiming that he is at absolute rest.
>>
>> No. Show me where an SR observer claims that he is at absolute rest.
>
> When he claims that his clock is the fastest clock in the universe.
You are imagining that the observer is making such a claim.
I am saying that is YOUR problem, not his problem.
He is too smart to think that his clock is ACTUALLY fastest in the
universe, so he makes no such claim.
>> If he understands SR, he will make no such claim because he knows it
>> would not be true.
>>
>> > That's why
>> > he claims that his clock is the fastest clock in the universe.
>>
>> If he is wise, he makes no such claim.
>
> So he didn't claim that his clcok is the fastest clock in the universe?
That is correct. He makes no such foolish claims. He only states that his
clock appears to be faster than any clock that he can see that is in motion
wrt his clock.
>
>> He knows that every other observer with a clock in any other intertial
>> FoR also sees his clock as fastest.
>
> Exactly....every SR observer claim that his is in a state of absolute
> rest and that's why his clock is the fastest clock in the universe.
No. Smart observers know that there is no 'fastest clock in the universe'.
>>
>> These people are not so stupid as to think that they are at absolute
>> rest.
>>
>> >> > What this mean is that he tried to have it both ways.
>> >>
>> >> He was not trying to 'have it both ways'(absolute and non absolute).
>> >> He
>> > has
>> >> it only one way, NON absolute.
>> >
>> > No....not NON absolute...Each SR observer is claiming that he is in a
>> > state of absolute rest.
>>
>> No one that understands SR will ever claim he is a state of absolute
>> rest because he knows that everyone else has an equally poor claim to
>> being at absolute rest.
>
> When an observer claims that his clock is the fastest running clock in
> the universe he is claiming that he is in a state of absolute rest.
YOU make that assertion.
You make unwarrented assumptions in drawing your conclusion.
You assume that the observer is not smart enough to realize that there is
no absolute state of rest.
>> >> > He
>> >> > rejected the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show that SR
>> >> > doesn't require it.
>> >>
>> >> Correct.
>> >>
>> >> > He ambraced the absolute rest frame when he wanted to show
>> >> > that SR agrees with observations and experiments.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong.
>> >
>> > Not wrong.
>>
>> Einstein was smart enough to know that there is no reason to prefer any
> FoR
>> above another.
>
> But this did not prevent him from using the properties of the absolute
> rest frame to derive his math.
YOU assume he used an 'absolute rest frame' but you can not show anyone
anything in his writings to back up your assertions.
To the contrary, he explicitly excludes the need for any such device.
If I make a math proof and one of my assumptions is that x can take on any
value, then later I use 1/x in my proof, you are justified in exploring my
math to make sure that a value of zero for x would not break my proof.
If, on the other hand, I say that x must not be zero (like einstein said
'no aether assumed') then you MUST abide by the restrictions that are
placed.
Of course, if you have DATA that invalidates any conclusions drawn, like if
you can demonstrate that any of his formula are wrong, THEN you can
question his assumptions.
You can also make sure that he actually is consistent in developing his
formula. Like I can't say x can not be zero and then later use x=0 to
develop a conclusiont. I COULD however say that even though x=0 was
origianally excluded, under certain circumstances (list them), it may be
valid.
> In fact that's the reason why SR and LET
> have the same math.
NO. They have the same math because even though different assumptions were
used as the foundation, the way algebra works allows us to develop two
formula that are essentially identical in form, IN THIS CASE.
The fact that the same formula were developed does NOT allow you to
conclude that the same assumptions were used in both cases (which is what
you have been doing).
Tall men like pretty women.
Short men like pretty women.
Jack likes pretty women.
Can you conclude that Jack is a tall man? Of course not. Nor can you
conclude that Jack is a short man. In fact, Jack may be a dog.
You have been saying
LET gives LT
SR gives LT
SR is LET
And that is incorrect. A lot of other sets of assumptions can also give the
LT formula and NONE of these different sets of assumptions are necessarily
equivalent to each other.
>>
>> Back up your claim by showing me exactly where he 'ambrace [sic] the
>> absolute rest frame.'
>
> That he claim that the SR observer's clock is the fastest clock in the
> universe.
You are much better at reading his mind than I am.
All I see is YOU claiming that he claims things.
>> >> Ok. That sounds reasonable, provided you can define 'stress' when
>> >> there is nothing to be stressed.
>> >
>> > But Wienberg's anology does mean that space is some sort of medium
>> > and the field is the stress in that medium.
>>
>> See the word 'like' in the sentence?
>>
>> See the 'a sort of stress'?
>
> If he didn't mean that space is some sort of medium he wouldn't use such
> anology....the last part of his sentence is: "but a field is a stress in
> space"
I would have to see a lot more of the words he put around those words
before I could guess what he means.
>> Those are NOT terms that one uses when being precise.
>>
>> He is explaining things in simple terms.
>> He is not giving a rigorous definition.
>
> This is nonsense. So you are saying that when he explains things in
> simple terms he is not correct.
You quoted him out of context. I have no idea whether or not what he was
saying is correct because I am not talking to him.
> Only the unkown rigorous defintion is
> correct and that unknown rigoruous definition can not be described by
> everyday language.
Sometimes this is true.
> It can only be described by math.
Sometimes this is true.
> You are a runt of the SRians.
Think.
Take that boat ride.
Look at those waves.
Igor
>
I'm finished with you. You're madder than a hatter!
Igor
You're dead in the water and your corpse is really starting to stink!
The Ghost In The Machine
<45e2ee99$0$16950$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
Without knowing the relative velocity, how do I compensate for the
Doppler effect?
>>
>> where Faa is the line of sodium measured from a lamp at rest,
>> and Fab is the line of sodium measured from a distant star.
>>
>> >
>> >> >> SR, after all, predicts that
>> >> >>
>> >> >> L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
>> >> >
>> >> > In what text book do you find that??
>> >> > The text book I have says that:
>> >> > L/Lo = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> > In IRT:
>> >> > L/Lo=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Fab/Faa
>> >> > OR
>> >> > L/Lo=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=Faa/Fab
>> >> >
>> >> > Ken Seto
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The text book you have is wrong,
>> >
>> > ROTFLOL....so the text book is wrong and you are right????
>> > Only an idiot would claim that.
>>
>> You haven't stated with text book.
>
> Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday/Resnick.
> The length contraction formula is as follows:
> L'=Lo/gamma.
That is correct, if one measures the rod in a certain fashion.
>
>>The formulae I've seen are easily
>> derivable from the Lorentz, with some care:
>>
>> L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
>> F/F0 = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
>
> These cannot be derived from the LT. Did you using the Doppler formula to
> derive these?
You haven't tried, have you?
Now, class, pay close attention.
The Lorentz, as everyone well knows, can be expressed
x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (x_O - v*t_O)*g
t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2)*g
where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to simplify things slightly.
We set up two events from O, traveling at lightspeed
towards A. (We ignore the issue of first photons missing
their target; this is SR, not IRT.) The first event can
be represented
(0,0)_O = (0,0)_A
The second event can be represented
(0,1/F0)_O = (-vg/F0, g/F0)_A
Because A is stuck at his origin, he has to wait a
bit extra for the wavefront of the event to reach him
(we assume F0 > 0). The time it takes is of course the
distance traveled divided by the speed, which is always c
regardless of where the light comes from (this is one of
SR's postulates); therefore A observes the time
g/F0 + vg/(cF0) = (g/F0) * (1 + v/c) =
(1/F0) * (sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c))
so therefore 1/F = (1/F0) * (sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c))
or F/F0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) .
For the wavelength, one can cheat; if one assumes F0 * L0 = c,
then by necessity F * L = c as well in SR, and therefore
(F/F0) * (L/L0) = 1
F/F0 = 1/(L/L0)
and L/L0 = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) .
Or one can simply calculate
(L0,0)_O = (L0g,-L0vg/c^2)_A
Because the time is wrong, we have to wait a bit again; in that
time interval the light will travel L0vg/c length units, so
A measures L = L0g * (1 + v/c) = L0 * sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c),
or L/L0 = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) again.
The Doppler formula is implicit in these calculations, of course.
There's not all that much I can do about it. :-)
>
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Richard Hachel
YBM wrote:
Remarque, moi, j'ai connu un type: il était tellement con qu'on
disait de lui que: "non seulement il n'était pas une lumière, mais qu'en
plus, il n'était même pas une obscurité."
Mais il est mort, le mec.
En fait, son cerveau a explosé un soir d'été quand il a entendu la nouvelle
chanson de Donovan:
"I love you...
I love you...
Y love you, yes it's true...
Yes I do....
I believe you....
I love you...
Yes I do...
Only you...
My only love I believe you...
It's true...
Yes I do..."
Bis repetita trente fois....
Il fut emporté par la profondeur de la mélodie.
Bizarre, c'était pourtant tout écrit sur le même note...
Une sorte de rap, en fait....
J'ai pas compris....
R.H.
kenseto
You don't have to compensate for the Doppler effect. The Doppler formula is
used to determine the instanteous frequency (f_ab) of a moving source. This
instantaneous frequency have no effect on the rate of a moving clock. The
relative velocity is determined as follows:
v = lambda(Faa-Fab)
>
> >>
> >> where Faa is the line of sodium measured from a lamp at rest,
> >> and Fab is the line of sodium measured from a distant star.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> The text book you have is wrong,
> >> >
> >> > ROTFLOL....so the text book is wrong and you are right????
> >> > Only an idiot would claim that.
> >>
> >> You haven't stated with text book.
> >
> > Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday/Resnick.
> > The length contraction formula is as follows:
> > L'=Lo/gamma.
>
> That is correct, if one measures the rod in a certain fashion.
No this is correct for a constant v between the primed and unprimed frames
and the Doppler effect and the direction of motion of the primed frame have
no effect on this equation.
Sigh....think about it. If Doppler is effecting the projected length of the
moving rod the above formula is based on the the moving source is
approaching the observer. If the source is moving away from the observer
then the formula is as follows:
L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
This would mean that the predicted length of a moving rod is directional
sensitive. Now you show me where does SR makes this bogus assertion.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in news:45e2ee99$0$16950
> $4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> > Sigh....you are using the Doppler formula to get v_est. v_est is
constant
> > whether the source is approaching the observer or receding from the
> > observer. Therefore the Doppler formula is not valid for determing the
> > relative velocity of a moving source.
> >
>
> Get out of your arm chair and go look.
>
> A ride in a boat, watching the waves created by the boat.
> Standing beside the rail road tracks, measuring the doppler shift of
sounds
> from the moving train.
> A few minutes with a police radar gun, measuring the velocity of passing
> cars or of thrown baseballs at the ball park.
> Observation of orbital satellites via doppler radar or observing the
> doppler shift on uplink and downlink signals.
How do you think the police mesures velocity using a radar gun?? Is it as
follows:?
v = (delta frequency shift)(wavelength)/2
I was objecting to Ghost using the Doppler shift formula to determine
relative velocity. The problem with that is that one will get a different
relative velocity for an approaching source than for a receding source.
>
> All of those will show you, if you will just look at the data, that the
> doppler formula IS valid for any moving sources (moving less than a
> significant portion of the 'speed of wave') and the SR modified formula is
> correct for all of them.
>
> Even with rapidly moving source, as far as all observations have been able
> to tell, v_est IS constant, whether the source is approaching the observer
> or receding from the observe.
The doppler formula for receding source is:
f"= f_o*sqrt[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]
The doppler formula for an approaching source is:
f" = f_o*sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
If you solve for v for these two equations are you saying that they will
come out the same (constant?)? I don't think so.
>
> The fact that your conclusions are at odds with observations, observations
> that you could make any time you choose, should show you that your
> assumptions are wrong.
No my conclusions are not at odds with observation. It is you who is
clueless.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> news:45e2f91f$0$28091$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> >
> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Xns98E2CECAB4845WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >> news:45e20462$0$28109$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns98E27A2421ABFWQ...@130.39.198.139...
> >> >> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:45e1a813$0$1365$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> >> >>
> >> > that the claim is the property of the absolute rest frame.
> >>
> >> There is no absolute rest frame.
> >> Insisting it is an absolute frame will not make it so.
> >
> > Hey xxxx.....then explain to me why an SR observer claim that his clock
> > is the fastest clock in the universe??
>
> He does NOT. You say that he makes this claim. Show me one such observer
> that makes such a claim.
Hey idiot.....every SR observer claims that all the clocks in the universe
moving wrt him are running slow. So conversely the SR observer's clock is
the fastest clock in the universe.
>
> > This claim is valid only if the
> > SR observer is in a state of absolute rest. A LET observer also claims
> > that he is in a state of absolute rest and that's why SR and LET has the
> > same math.
>
> Ken Seto claims that the SR observer and the LET observer claim that they
> are at absolute rest. Ken Seto is wrong. Those observers make no such
> claims.
Sure they make such claim.....they claim that all the clocks moving wrt them
are running slow.This is the same as claiming that they are in a state of
absolute rest.
>
>
> >>
> >> Every Inertial frame is an SR rest frame.
> >
> > What does an SR rest frame mean?
>
> It is 'at rest' as far as its mathematics is concerned.
>
> > What is it at rest with respect to???
>
> What is the zero x axis and zero y axis 'zero' with respect to?
> They are zero with respect to whatever the user of the graph paper wants
> them to be zero with respect to.
ROTFLOL.....So the SR observer is at rest with his graph paper? Don't you
think it is silly to say that the SR observer is at rest wrt himself?
>
> >>
> >> There is no way to tell that one is or is not at absolute rest.
> >
> > That's right but every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in that
> > frame anyway for calculation purposes.
>
> That is almost correct. "...every SR observer MAY assume that he...."
> would be more correct, because only god knows for sure what anyone
assumes.
NO....the SR observer didn't "MAY" assume..... He DID assume and came up
with the math that corresponds to that assumption.
>
>
> >>
> >> That is the reason that there is no absolute rest frame in SR.
> >
> > If no absolute rest frame then why the SR observer claims that his clock
> > is the fastest clock in the universe?
>
> I have never heard any SR observer make such a claim.
>
> The formula would imply that for any observer in an Inertial Frame, to
that
> observer all clocks in IFoRs that are in motion wrt him would run slower.
> But that does NOT mean that he would make the claim you credit him with
> making. He may well be smart enough to realize that every other observer
> will have their own opinion of who's clock is slow.
It is irrelevant what every other SR observer think. The only thing that
matter is what the specific observer think.
>
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
>
> Hey idiot.....every SR observer claims that all the clocks in the universe
> moving wrt him are running slow. So conversely the SR observer's clock is
> the fastest clock in the universe.
>
So is everybody else's clock... That's relativity...
bz
$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> every SR observer claims that all the clocks in the universe
> moving wrt him are running slow. So conversely the SR observer's clock is
> the fastest clock in the universe.
>
>
You are mistaking what happens in your imagination for what happens in the
real world.
You can not know what an SR observer claims or thinks unless you ask him.
Just like you made the mistake of thinking that the waves going out from a
boat kept the same wave length, no matter what the velocity of the boat,
you think that you can read the mind of the observer, but you are really
saying what YOU think you would say if you were the observer. And since you
think you know what SR says will happen, you think you know what the
observer would see and say. But you are wrong.
bz
$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> ROTFLOL.....So the SR observer is at rest with his graph paper? Don't you
> think it is silly to say that the SR observer is at rest wrt himself?
>>
>
I think it a lot less silly than your thinking you know what someone you have
never met would think.
kenseto
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Qg0Fh.18866$PD2.10387@attbi_s22...
So every SR observer's assumption that his clock is the fastest clock in the
universe is wrong. In other words, mutual time dilation is wrong.
Sam Wormley
Seto, listen carefully--Each observer's own clock reads *proper time*
and measuring the clocks in other frames having relative motion is
accurately predicted by special relativity. This is true for any and
all inertial observers.
Nobody is privileged or special!
kenseto
Ah but the math of SR is derived from a preferred frame. That's why an SR
observer sees all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. If the SR
observer didn't make such assumption he will see some of the clocks in the
universe are running slow and some will run fast.
The Ghost In The Machine
<ch1Fh.18926$PD2.14156@attbi_s22>:
Perhaps Kenseto is getting confused because he is assuming that, if
t_a = t_b * K, then t_b = t_a / K for some K.
But it doesn't quite work like that, because of the finite speed of
signal transmission -- as kenseto puts it, the Doppler effect.
It's what gives us K = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) in the first place. :-)
(That, and the time dilation evident in the Lorentz.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous
munition. Please notify the US government
immediately upon reception.
0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
The Ghost In The Machine
<45e44ad2$0$4865$4c36...@roadrunner.com>:
SR predicts
lambda = lambda_0 * sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
Fab = Faa * sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
which yields
lambda * (Faa - Fab)
= lambda_0 * sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) * Faa * (1 - sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) )
= c * (sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) - 1)
Since v/c != (sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) - 1), neither this
formula, nor the claim that v = lambda * ( Faa - Fab),
is consistent with SR, though it is compatible with SR
(in a sense similar to SR being compatible with Newtonian theory).
>>
>> >>
>> >> where Faa is the line of sodium measured from a lamp at rest,
>> >> and Fab is the line of sodium measured from a distant star.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> The text book you have is wrong,
>> >> >
>> >> > ROTFLOL....so the text book is wrong and you are right????
>> >> > Only an idiot would claim that.
>> >>
>> >> You haven't stated with text book.
>> >
>> > Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday/Resnick.
>> > The length contraction formula is as follows:
>> > L'=Lo/gamma.
>>
>> That is correct, if one measures the rod in a certain fashion.
>
> No this is correct for a constant v between the primed and unprimed frames
> and the Doppler effect and the direction of motion of the primed frame have
> no effect on this equation.
SR always assumes constant v (though some can adapt that assumption to
use SR for variable v).
No, in my computations the source is always moving away from the
observer. If the source moves toward, one gets
L/L0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
and the rod is observed to shrink.
>
> This would mean that the predicted length of a moving rod is directional
> sensitive. Now you show me where does SR makes this bogus assertion.
The bogus assertion is from the space-time twist that is evident in the
Lorentz.
The more or less standard rotation coordinates in algebra can be expressed
x_r = x_0 * cos(theta) - y_0 * sin(theta)
y_r = y_0 * sin(theta) + x_0 * cos(theta)
The Lorentz is
x_a = (x_0 - v*t_0) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t_a = (t_0 - v*x_0/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
If one writes y_0 = i * t_0 * c, where i^2 = -1, then
t_0 = -i * y_0 / c, and similarly t_a = -i * y_a / c,
and then
x_a = (x_0 - i*v/c*y_0) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
i*y_a/c = (i*y_0/c - v/c^2*x_0) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
i*y_a = (i*y_0 - v/c*x_0) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y_a = (y_0 + i*v/c*x_0) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Clearly this is a rotation, albeit with an imaginary angle.
If one writes cos(theta) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
and sin(theta) = i*v/c / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
then cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta) = 1 as required by basic
trig.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0);
--
kenseto
> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in news:45e48ce0$0$28109
> $4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> > every SR observer claims that all the clocks in the universe
> > moving wrt him are running slow. So conversely the SR observer's clock
is
> > the fastest clock in the universe.
> >
> >
>
> You are mistaking what happens in your imagination for what happens in the
> real world.
> You can not know what an SR observer claims or thinks unless you ask him.
Why not? Doesn't the SR math claims that all the clocks moving wrt the
observer are running slow? The answer is yes.
>
> Just like you made the mistake of thinking that the waves going out from a
> boat kept the same wave length, no matter what the velocity of the boat,
You are an idiot. I never made such assertion. I said that every observer
measures his sodium source to have the same wavelength of 589 nm ( that's
what the PoR says) and when an observer determines that the incoming light
is sodium then the wavelength use to determine its incoming velocity is 589
nm.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> "kenseto" <ken...@woh.rr.com> wrote in news:45e48ce0$0$28109
> $4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> > ROTFLOL.....So the SR observer is at rest with his graph paper? Don't
you
> > think it is silly to say that the SR observer is at rest wrt himself?
> >>
> >
>
> I think it a lot less silly than your thinking you know what someone you
have
> never met would think.
I know what the SR math say. The SR math is derived based on the assumption
that the observer is in a state of rest.
Eric Gisse
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ch1Fh.18926$PD2.14156@attbi_s22...
>
>
>
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > >news:Qg0Fh.18866$PD2.10387@attbi_s22...
> > >> kenseto wrote:
>
> > >>> Hey idiot.....every SR observer claims that all the clocks in the
> > > universe
> > >>> moving wrt him are running slow. So conversely the SR observer's clock
> > > is
> > >>> the fastest clock in the universe.
>
> > >> So is everybody else's clock... That's relativity...
>
> > > So every SR observer's assumption that his clock is the fastest clock in
> the
> > > universe is wrong. In other words, mutual time dilation is wrong.
>
> > Seto, listen carefully--Each observer's own clock reads *proper time*
> > and measuring the clocks in other frames having relative motion is
> > accurately predicted by special relativity. This is true for any and
> > all inertial observers.
>
> > Nobody is privileged or special!
>
> Ah but the math of SR is derived from a preferred frame.
Your misunderstandings start from the ground up.
[snip remaining]
Eric Gisse
> "bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns98E494994CD4CWQ...@130.39.198.139...
>
> > $4c368...@roadrunner.com:
>
> > > ROTFLOL.....So the SR observer is at rest with his graph paper? Don't
> you
> > > think it is silly to say that the SR observer is at rest wrt himself?
>
> > I think it a lot less silly than your thinking you know what someone you
> have
> > never met would think.
>
> I know what the SR math say. The SR math is derived based on the assumption
> that the observer is in a state of rest.
Oh for fucks sake. Who are you kidding? Over a decade of spewing and
you have nothing to show for it.
Why do you bother, Ken?