kenseto wrote:
"Jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:QGzig.1415$ZV5.451@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"Jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:0VUhg.20079$B42.18555@dukeread05...
kenseto wrote:
"Jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:g_zhg.20015$B42.19614@dukeread05...
There is a lots of thing wrong with it. A clock second have different
duration in different frames and somtime a clokc second will have
different
duration in the same frame.
This is wrong, and it's been pointed out to you many times now that it's
wrong.
Assertion is not an arguement.
There's nothing to argue. It's a matter of fact, and as usual, you've
got it wrong.
So if you use clock second to measure length you
are using a rubber ruler to measure length.
There are (and must be) multiple procedures for making measurements in
various situations, and there's no guarantee that each such procedure
is
going to produce the same value when used to measure any particular
thing (e.g. the length of a meter stick from different distances).
The current circular defintion for a meter will guarantee the measured
TWLS
equal to c everytime.
A "circular definition" would amount to defining something as itself
(e.g., a clock is a clock). Defining a meter as the distance something
(anything) travels in a fixed amount of time is clearly not circularly
defining it.
No....the circular definition is that the basic defintion have different
meaning in different frames.
Apparently you're unaware that it's been experimentally confirmed (to
acceptable tolerances) that the measured speed of light in vacuum is
independent of its direction and of the measurer's (uniform) state of
motion.
This is true only if you use the circular definition for a meter length of
(1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second) to measure the TWLS.
Nonsense. Those experimental results have nothing to do with how many
meters light travels in a second.
BTW, OWLS can't
use that definition and that's why you SRians refused to measure OWLS
directly.
It's been explained to you ad nauseum that isotropic OWLS necessarily
implies OWLS=TWLS. It should be trivially easy to see, but apparently
not for you.
For example: a clock second in different frame
s will have different duration.
Stop repeating this counterfactual mantra. It's WRONG.
But it is true....even SR say so.
Wrong.
SR said that the passage of a clock second
in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's
frame.
Do the lengths of far-away meter sticks correspond to the lengths of
near-by meter sticks?
Then why can't the observed rod be longer than the observer's rod?
Because the measurement procedure, in conjunction with SR, ensures that
it won't be.
Right....so you invented a new measuring procedure to fit what the
theory
says. This is doing physics ***** backward.
You are utterly confused about measurement procedures, units of
measurement, and their roles in physical theories. E.g., what you call
a new measuring procedure (i.e. the meter's redefinition), isn't a
measuring procedure at all, and there's nothing in any theory that's
been validated or invalidated by the minute change in the length of a
meter that's the only consequence of the redefinition.
We use the physical length of a ruler to measure length everyday. SR uses
light-second to measure length.
Do you think the redefined meter is used just for SR based measurements,
and the metal bar in Paris is used for everything else? Wake up, Seto.
You don't think that's not a new measuring
procedure?
I don't think that's not a dumb question. What did I say no more than
10 lines above?
Are you
saying that the observer is in a preferred frame (in a frame of
absolute
rest)???
Of course not. SR treats every (Inertial) observer in the same way.
So how come every inertial observer sees all the clcoks moving wrt him
are
running slow if every inertial observer is not in a state of absolute
rest?
How come every observer sees all meter sticks at a distance to be
shorter than his own if every observer is not in a state of absolute rest?
But the physical length of the meter stick is not shorter. The projected
length is not real length.
Duh! Does that suggest anything to you about the "real" tick rates of
the moving clocks. How can you be so dense?
length contraction.
The LT shows exactly what I indicated above - that the measured length
of objects increase as their speed wrt the measurer decreases. If you
understood SR as well as you claim to, you'd be able to easily confirm
that.
ut that's because you invented a new measuring procedure that fits what
the
theory says.
More confusion. To repeat: the meter's redefinition isn't a new
measuring procedure.
The redefinition is a completely inoccuous change that was implemented
for purely practical reasons. It has no bearing on the correctness of
any aspect of any physical theory.
No it was invented to ensure that TWLS =c. It was invented to fit the SR
psotulate.
The meter's redefinition has nothing to do with SR's postulates.
Well, the tick rates of relatively moving (standard) clocks are
different in the same *sense* that the lengths of our separated meter
sticks were different (i.e. they're measured to be different).
No....in the case of a clock second it is defined to have the same
number of
ticks in every frame. But SR missed the point that a tick does not have
the
same duration (absolute time content) in different frames.
No, SR didn't miss the point, it's you who misses the point - repeatedly.
SR doesn't incorporate an absolute time - it's completely nonsensical to
talk about absolute time in the context of SR.
But SR is wrong.
Irrelevant to the point.
The postulate of the constancy of the speed of light is
dependent on the existence of absolute time as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the ruler.
What Einstein postulated in his theory is exactly what his theory says,
which is certainly not that gibberish you just produced.
In th3e case of a rod the physical length of a rod is the same in all
frames.
In SR's terms, the "proper length" of a rod is independent of the
reference frame in which it's at rest.
The light path length of identical rod is different in different
frames.
What's a "light path length"? The time it takes light to go from one
end to the other?
The physical length that light need to traverse to cover the physical length
of a moving rod.
And presumably the length of a racetrack is the distance the horses need
to travel to cover the length of the racetrack.
I also explained the *sense* in which I meant it - i.e., because their
tick rates are the same when they're together, and because SR presumes
that their tick rates don't change when they're moved.
Nut the tick rate does change when the clock is moving. That's the
reason
why the clcoks show different elapsed time when they are rejoined.
Like I said, that's not the way SR describes the situation.
So what? Sr interpretation is wrong.
So we were discussing what SR *says*, not whether SR is right or wrong -
that's what.
When they're apart they have different states of motion relative to the
reference frame in which they'll ultimately be compared (i.e. the
situation can be well described without invoking an absolute motion).
But relative motion between two objects is born from the individual
motions
of the two objects. So your insistence that absolute motion doesn't
exist is
absurd. It is like you insist that your mother is not your mother.
Well, I never insisted on the pretty-much senseless proposition
"absolute motion doesn't exist", but I'm glad you thought I did, so that
I got to see this humorous display of Seto "logic". :)
You said that the situation can be well described without invoking absolute
motion. So doesn't that mean that you think that absolute motion doesn't
exist?
If I said I could describe the content of a book without referring to
the typewriter that produced it, would you conclude that I thought
typewriter's don't exist?
Can you precisely describe what you think absolute motion is?
Do you think that's somehow more correct than saying its real length is
1 foot and it just looks bigger when it's closer? If you do, try
explaining why it's more correct.
No I didn't think that at all.
Previously you said that measured projected length is real length and
you
don't need to convert it to the observer's rod length to make
comparison.
Now you are suggesting that measure projected length need to be
converted to
the observer's length to make comparison.
I didn't suggest anything there - I simply asked a question, and (no
surprise) your answer to it is inconsistent with what you said previously.
So what is your real position on
this?
Anything can be compared to anything else, without restriction,
although the direct comparison of quantitative measurements requires
that the quantities have commensurate units.
So you are now agreeing that projected length can't be compared to physical
length directly?
I can measure the length of the meter stick I'm holding to be 1 meter,
and I can measure the length of the meter stick across the room to be .5
meter, and since a meter is commensurate with a meter, I can compare
them directly.
k there's one "real" procedure for measuring any
particular thing, and every other measurement (of that thing) should be
converted to it. So what (e.g.) is the "real" procedure for measuring a
clock's tick rate?
The standard procedure:
You assume that the observer's clock tick is standard. The tick rate of
other clock moving wrt the observer is different and SR or IRT is used
to
determine the tick rate of the relative clock.
:) Don't consider looking for employment as a writer of procedures
manuals.
Where in your "standard procedure" is a measurement described?
What measurement?
Can you not retain a thought past your last post - even when all you
have to do is look a few lines above to see it? Here's what you were
responding to - "So what (e.g.) is the 'real' procedure for *measuring*
a clock's tick rate?"
Can you answer that question or not? My money's on 'not', because I
don't think you even know what a measurement is.
The observer's clock rate is consider as standard. The
clock rate of other clocks moving wrt the observer is determined using IRT
or SRT.
Yes the odometer must have turned at different rates if they depart and
return at the same time.
I didn't say anything about returning at the "same time" (i.e.
simultaneously). In SR's twins example, do you think the twins return
simultaneously?
If they don't return simultaneously they can't compare the accumulated
elapsed time on each clock.
You mean that if they return non-simultaneously they'll encounter
something that prevents them from seeing each other's clock? Or makes
them forget how to do arithmetic?
Hey idiot ....they can't meet again if they unless they return
simultaneously.
Are you married, Seto? If you get home before your wife does, does it
mean you'll never see her again? (If it does, you better not tell her
about it.)
BTW, what do you suppose it means for the twins to return simultaneously?
It means that one of the twin must travel at different indivdiual speed.
Were you dropped when you were a baby?
Yes of course, but the point is that the different state of motion
doesn't have to be a difference in speed (i.e. odometer rate), but could
also be a difference in distance travelled.
Sure it does...if one of the odometer have to stop and waite for the
other
to rejoin with it then the waiting time have to be included to calculate
the
speed of the odometer. So the two odometers are turning at different
speeds
after all.
I've explained the limitations of analogies. If you don't like
analogies, learn the math. If you can't learn the math, learn to like
analogies.
The math doesn't say that one of the car have to stop and wait for the other
car. So it appaear that you need to learn what the math is saying. What the
math says is that one of the car have to move at a different speed if the
two car were to meet again.
No Seto, that's not what the math (SR math) says.
.
