Science > Physics > What are the SR predictions for these experiments??
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
04 Mar 2005 01:51:51 PM |
| Object: |
What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for a total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
2. All distance measurements are made with a physical ruler.
3. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two synchronized
clocks from A's location.
4. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two synchronized
clocks from A's location..
5. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from A's location.
6. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from B's location.
What are the SR predictions for these experiments??
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
04 Mar 2005 02:35:20 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:r%2Wd.1267$J14.73@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for a total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
2. All distance measurements are made with a physical ruler.
3. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two synchronized
clocks from A's location.
4. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two synchronized
clocks from A's location..
5. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from A's location.
6. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from B's location.
What are the SR predictions for these experiments??
Since you obviously implicitly assume that the line connecting
the clocks is horizontal, and since you always insist that in
every relativity experiment light exclusively travels in the
vertical direction, all the times and distances will be zero,
so no speeds can be calculated.
Drawing board called for.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
04 Mar 2005 10:00:09 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:51:51 GMT
<r%2Wd.1267$J14.73@fe1.columbus.rr.com>:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for a total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
Only if the space curvature field is exactly the same (or perhaps
mirrored) for the paths of the clocks. Ideally, the two clocks
would be way out in unstressed space.
For example, take a pole about 380 m high (the simplest such pole
might be the Empire State building :-) ), and place the two
clocks 190 m up on the side, then slowly accelerate them to a
uniform velocity, one going up, the other down, simultaneously
(as observed by a camera sitting at the midpoint). The one
stops at the ground, the other at the tippy-top of the building.
The two clocks won't remain synchronized (though the error isn't
exactly going to be huge).
2. All distance measurements are made with a physical ruler.
As opposed to what, an imaginary one? :-P :-)
Oh BTW: the last measurement standard but one used the wavelength
of krypton light; it was scrapped as it wasn't accurate enough
to measure lightspeed. The current standard *assumes* a
constant lightspeed. Guess why.
3. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two synchronized
clocks from A's location.
4. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two synchronized
clocks from A's location..
5. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from A's location.
6. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from B's location.
What are the SR predictions for these experiments??
c all around, regardless of measurement aperture size.
Ken Seto
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
04 Mar 2005 02:35:23 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for a total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
[snip]
Lying ineducable idiot.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
04 Mar 2005 03:09:19 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4228C68B.3493F813@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for a
total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
[snip]
Lying ineducable idiot.
Hey fucking idiot runt.... So you think that they will not remain
synchronized when they came to rest again after 100 m separation?
Ken Seto
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
04 Mar 2005 06:13:47 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4228C68B.3493F813@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for a
total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
[snip]
Lying ineducable idiot.
Hey fucking idiot runt.... So you think that they will not remain
synchronized when they came to rest again after 100 m separation?
Ken Seto
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Hey stooopid lying ineducable idiot, two non-local clocks have no
reason to maintain synchronizton. How will you measure distance,
jackass? A relativistic universe has four distinct distances:
luminosity (inverse square), angular diameter, parallax, and proper
motion. The Earth is rotating vs. the fixed stars. You are so fucked
in the ehad, kenseto, that you can look out your own mouth,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Hey schmuck, internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies
of a purely mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to
contradictions in number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the
mathematics of Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of
real numbers and with arithmetic.
Hey schmuck - Special Relativity is 100 years old. There are no
errors.
Hey schmuck,
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
05 Mar 2005 09:38:46 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4228F9BB.F60D2561@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4228C68B.3493F813@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for
a
total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
[snip]
Lying ineducable idiot.
Hey fucking idiot runt.... So you think that they will not remain
synchronized when they came to rest again after 100 m separation?
Ken Seto
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Hey stooopid lying ineducable idiot, two non-local clocks have no
reason to maintain synchronizton. How will you measure distance,
jackass?
Hey idiot SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the
opposite directions at the same speed will remain synchronized with each
other. They will remain synchronized when they come to a rest after a
separation of 100m.
Distance measurement is done with a physical ruler as stipulated in the
procedure.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
05 Mar 2005 10:11:17 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4228F9BB.F60D2561@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4228C68B.3493F813@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for
a
total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
[snip]
Lying ineducable idiot.
Hey fucking idiot runt.... So you think that they will not remain
synchronized when they came to rest again after 100 m separation?
Ken Seto
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Hey stooopid lying ineducable idiot, two non-local clocks have no
reason to maintain synchronizton. How will you measure distance,
jackass?
Hey idiot SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the
opposite directions at the same speed will remain synchronized with each
other. They will remain synchronized when they come to a rest after a
separation of 100m.
Distance measurement is done with a physical ruler as stipulated in the
procedure.
Locally synchronized clocks translated through non-coincident paths
have no constraint upon synchronization when they are again brought
together. Quite the contrary,
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
kenseto is an ineducable empirical idiot.
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html>
Ha ha ha. kenseto a polymathic idiot, too.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
05 Mar 2005 12:44:25 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4229DA25.75FFCF0C@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4228F9BB.F60D2561@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4228C68B.3493F813@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day
for
a
total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
[snip]
Lying ineducable idiot.
Hey fucking idiot runt.... So you think that they will not remain
synchronized when they came to rest again after 100 m separation?
Ken Seto
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Hey stooopid lying ineducable idiot, two non-local clocks have no
reason to maintain synchronizton. How will you measure distance,
jackass?
Hey idiot SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks moving in
the
opposite directions at the same speed will remain synchronized with each
other. They will remain synchronized when they come to a rest after a
separation of 100m.
Distance measurement is done with a physical ruler as stipulated in the
procedure.
Locally synchronized clocks translated through non-coincident paths
have no constraint upon synchronization when they are again brought
together. Quite the contrary,
Hitler Al is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
05 Mar 2005 07:00:05 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:44:25 GMT
<d6nWd.9885$3t3.1777@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4229DA25.75FFCF0C@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
[snip Uncle Al's stuff for brevity]
Hey idiot SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks
moving in the opposite directions at the same speed will
remain synchronized with each other. They will remain
synchronized when they come to a rest after a separation of 100m.
Distance measurement is done with a physical ruler as stipulated
in the procedure.
Locally synchronized clocks translated through non-coincident paths
have no constraint upon synchronization when they are again brought
together. Quite the contrary,
Hitler Al is a runt of the SR experts.
[rest snipped]
I'll leave you to ponder the implications of
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Can you predict the precession, at least, using your E-matrix?
Or the 90 microsecond signal delay or the 0.38 millisecond
rotational slowdown?
GR can. (SR cannot; it wasn't designed to.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
06 Mar 2005 07:54:04 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:tcvpf2-n9b.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:44:25 GMT
<d6nWd.9885$3t3.1777@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4229DA25.75FFCF0C@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
[snip Uncle Al's stuff for brevity]
Hey idiot SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks
moving in the opposite directions at the same speed will
remain synchronized with each other. They will remain
synchronized when they come to a rest after a separation of 100m.
Distance measurement is done with a physical ruler as stipulated
in the procedure.
Locally synchronized clocks translated through non-coincident paths
have no constraint upon synchronization when they are again brought
together. Quite the contrary,
Hitler Al is a runt of the SR experts.
[rest snipped]
I'll leave you to ponder the implications of
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Can you predict the precession, at least, using your E-matrix?
Or the 90 microsecond signal delay or the 0.38 millisecond
rotational slowdown?
GR can. (SR cannot; it wasn't designed to.)
IRT can too. Also IRT predicts the correct path for pioneer 10 and the
rotational curves for galaxies. In addition. IRT predicts the observed
accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
06 Mar 2005 12:00:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:54:04 GMT
<0YDWd.2805$J14.1808@fe1.columbus.rr.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:tcvpf2-n9b.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
[snip for brevity]
I'll leave you to ponder the implications of
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Can you predict the precession, at least, using your E-matrix?
Or the 90 microsecond signal delay or the 0.38 millisecond
rotational slowdown?
GR can. (SR cannot; it wasn't designed to.)
IRT can too. Also IRT predicts the correct path for pioneer 10 and the
rotational curves for galaxies. In addition. IRT predicts the observed
accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe.
Ken Seto
Is this in your book then?
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
06 Mar 2005 01:06:34 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:ctqrf2-hho.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:54:04 GMT
<0YDWd.2805$J14.1808@fe1.columbus.rr.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:tcvpf2-n9b.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
[snip for brevity]
I'll leave you to ponder the implications of
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Can you predict the precession, at least, using your E-matrix?
Or the 90 microsecond signal delay or the 0.38 millisecond
rotational slowdown?
GR can. (SR cannot; it wasn't designed to.)
IRT can too. Also IRT predicts the correct path for pioneer 10 and the
rotational curves for galaxies. In addition. IRT predicts the observed
accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe.
Ken Seto
Is this in your book then?
No.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
06 Mar 2005 01:37:54 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
IRT can too. Also IRT predicts the correct path for pioneer 10 and the
rotational curves for galaxies. In addition. IRT predicts the observed
accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the universe.
Ken Seto
*****! BTW thanks, Seto, for registering at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
05 Mar 2005 02:17:11 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4229DA25.75FFCF0C@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4228F9BB.F60D2561@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4228C68B.3493F813@hate.spam.net...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day
for
a
total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
[snip]
Lying ineducable idiot.
Hey fucking idiot runt.... So you think that they will not remain
synchronized when they came to rest again after 100 m separation?
Ken Seto
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Hey stooopid lying ineducable idiot, two non-local clocks have no
reason to maintain synchronizton. How will you measure distance,
jackass?
Hey idiot SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks moving in
the
opposite directions at the same speed will remain synchronized with each
other. They will remain synchronized when they come to a rest after a
separation of 100m.
Distance measurement is done with a physical ruler as stipulated in the
procedure.
Locally synchronized clocks translated through non-coincident paths
have no constraint upon synchronization when they are again brought
together. Quite the contrary,
Hitler Al is a runt of the SR experts.
[snip]
Are you fucked over by empirical observation, keneseto?
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
You are fucked over by empirical observation, keneseto.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
05 Mar 2005 11:24:05 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the
opposite directions at the same speed will remain synchronized with each
other. They will remain synchronized when they come to a rest after a
separation of 100m.
Distance measurement is done with a physical ruler as stipulated in the
procedure.
Ken Seto
Thanks, Seto, for registering at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
05 Mar 2005 12:41:54 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:VWlWd.33234$Ze3.31349@attbi_s51...
kenseto wrote:
Hey idiot SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks moving in
the
opposite directions at the same speed will remain synchronized with each
other. They will remain synchronized when they come to a rest after a
separation of 100m.
Distance measurement is done with a physical ruler as stipulated in the
procedure.
Ken Seto
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
04 Mar 2005 02:14:27 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for a
total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
While they are moving at 20m/day relative velocity, they will no longer
be synchronized. Synchronization is a procedure ONLY on clocks that are
at rest with respect to each other. IF the clocks are brought to rest
when they are 100 m apart (and you don't say whether that is done or
not), then the clocks can be resynchronized.
2. All distance measurements are made with a physical ruler.
That's not an SR prediction, so I assume you mean this is something
you're imposing.
Is the ruler stationary with respect to A or with respect to B? Or are
A and B both moving with respect to the ruler? (This will make a
difference as to whether A and B or the person at rest with respect to
the ruler agrees that A and B are 100 m apart.) Or is this after A and
B have been brought to rest again and resynchronized?
3. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
clocks from A's location.
Are the clocks stll moving at 100 m apart? If so, then you can't use
them to do a 1-way measurement of light speed.
4. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
clocks from A's location..
Are the clocks still moving at 100 m apart? If so, then you can't use
them to do a 1-way measurement of light speed.
5. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from A's location.
See the above.
6. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from B's location.
See the above.
What are the SR predictions for these experiments??
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
04 Mar 2005 02:58:22 PM |
|
|
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for a
total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
While they are moving at 20m/day relative velocity, they will no longer
be synchronized.
I think you are wrong. They are both moving at a velocity of 10m/day wrt the
starting point.in the opposite directions. Doesn't SR say that they will
remain synchronized?
Synchronization is a procedure ONLY on clocks that are
at rest with respect to each other. IF the clocks are brought to rest
when they are 100 m apart (and you don't say whether that is done or
not), then the clocks can be resynchronized.
How do you test for OWLS or TWLS if they don't brought to rest after 100m
separation?
2. All distance measurements are made with a physical ruler.
That's not an SR prediction, so I assume you mean this is something
you're imposing.
That's the normal way of measuring distance in our daily life.
Is the ruler stationary with respect to A or with respect to B?
???? You mark of a distance of 50m on the opposite directions with a ruler
for a total separation of 100 m.
Or are
A and B both moving with respect to the ruler?
Sigh...the distances are marked off before the slow transport of the clocks
begin.
(This will make a
difference as to whether A and B or the person at rest with respect to
the ruler agrees that A and B are 100 m apart.) Or is this after A and
B have been brought to rest again and resynchronized?
A and B are brought to rest again after the distance of separation of 100 m
is reached.
3. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
clocks from A's location.
Are the clocks stll moving at 100 m apart? If so, then you can't use
them to do a 1-way measurement of light speed.
This is an obvious attempt to obfuscate the experiment. You know damn well
that the clocks come to rest after the separation of 100 meters is reached.
4. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
clocks from A's location..
Are the clocks still moving at 100 m apart?
Hey idiot the clocks came to rest after 100 m separation.
If so, then you can't use
them to do a 1-way measurement of light speed.
5. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from A's location.
See the above.
6. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from B's location.
See the above.
What are the SR predictions for these experiments??
Why are you refusing to give one SR predictions for these experiments??
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudy Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
07 Mar 2005 03:54:24 PM |
|
|
kenseto schrieb:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for a
total separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
While they are moving at 20m/day relative velocity, they will no longer
be synchronized.
A to B yes, but not to a resting clock, which is not mentioned.
Isnt it the triple paradoxon exp?
I think you are wrong. They are both moving at a velocity of 10m/day wrt the
starting point.in the opposite directions. Doesn't SR say that they will
remain synchronized?
They are always in sync and the OWLS and TWLS will report c if the
distance was marked with the same speed as the clocks travel.
See later for explanation.
snip
2. All distance measurements are made with a physical ruler.
That's not an SR prediction, so I assume you mean this is something
you're imposing.
That's the normal way of measuring distance in our daily life.
Is the ruler stationary with respect to A or with respect to B?
???? You mark of a distance of 50m on the opposite directions with a ruler
for a total separation of 100 m.
Here we have the problem. If this marking is done with a 1 m ruler and
you are marking with 10 marks per day in continuos motion of the ruler
then the distance after marking the 100m is length contracted for an
observer in the rest frame. So after the clocks are again at rest the
distance isnt 100m.
Or are
A and B both moving with respect to the ruler?
Sigh...the distances are marked off before the slow transport of the clocks
begin.
(This will make a
difference as to whether A and B or the person at rest with respect to
the ruler agrees that A and B are 100 m apart.) Or is this after A and
B have been brought to rest again and resynchronized?
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
07 Mar 2005 06:11:31 PM |
|
|
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422ccfdc$0$32222$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation
20m/day for a
total separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
While they are moving at 20m/day relative velocity, they will no longer
be synchronized.
A to B yes, but not to a resting clock, which is not mentioned.
Isnt it the triple paradoxon exp?
I think you are wrong. They are both moving at a velocity of 10m/day wrt
the
starting point.in the opposite directions. Doesn't SR say that they will
remain synchronized?
They are always in sync and the OWLS and TWLS will report c if the
distance was marked with the same speed as the clocks travel.
See later for explanation.
snip
2. All distance measurements are made with a physical ruler.
That's not an SR prediction, so I assume you mean this is something
you're imposing.
That's the normal way of measuring distance in our daily life.
Is the ruler stationary with respect to A or with respect to B?
???? You mark of a distance of 50m on the opposite directions with a
ruler
for a total separation of 100 m.
Here we have the problem. If this marking is done with a 1 m ruler and
you are marking with 10 marks per day in continuos motion of the ruler
then the distance after marking the 100m is length contracted for an
observer in the rest frame. So after the clocks are again at rest the
distance isnt 100m.
No you mark the distances with a ruler before moving the clocks.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudy Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
08 Mar 2005 03:30:53 AM |
|
|
kenseto schrieb:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422ccfdc$0$32222$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
snip
???? You mark of a distance of 50m on the opposite directions with a
ruler for a total separation of 100 m.
Here we have the problem. If this marking is done with a 1 m ruler and
you are marking with 10 marks per day in continuos motion of the ruler
then the distance after marking the 100m is length contracted for an
observer in the rest frame. So after the clocks are again at rest the
distance isnt 100m.
No you mark the distances with a ruler before moving the clocks.
Yes I understand you. But tell me about the procedure of marking the
distance. If, e.g. it is a wound up ruler, you draw out of the box, it
is done with a certain speed. And you have autom. length contraction.
So in this special case, how the marking of the distance is done, is of
importance.
The best way to solve this exp. is to say that both clocks -always in
sync from theory- have a built
in wound (winded?) up ruler that is drawn out during movement of the
clocks. Then you measure -at the clocks- the distance you have moved.
And you do it in the moving frame.
And after stopping at the rated the distance, it is not the same as
drawn out at the unrolling -marking- procedure.
In any case one can see, that v*v/(2c*c) is about 0,75 e-24, so the
differences are only of academic value and beyond accuracy of any
measurement I know.
Rudy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
08 Mar 2005 07:44:31 AM |
|
|
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422d7350$0$17816$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422ccfdc$0$32222$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
snip
???? You mark of a distance of 50m on the opposite directions with a
ruler for a total separation of 100 m.
Here we have the problem. If this marking is done with a 1 m ruler and
you are marking with 10 marks per day in continuos motion of the ruler
then the distance after marking the 100m is length contracted for an
observer in the rest frame. So after the clocks are again at rest the
distance isnt 100m.
No you mark the distances with a ruler before moving the clocks.
Yes I understand you. But tell me about the procedure of marking the
distance. If, e.g. it is a wound up ruler, you draw out of the box, it
is done with a certain speed. And you have autom. length contraction.
So in this special case, how the marking of the distance is done, is of
importance.
You are making too much out of nothing. Besides, the physical length of a
ruler at its rest frame will remain unchanged after it is drawn out. Also in
SR length contraction is not real. It a the projection of a ruler that is
foreshortened. A ruler will return to its physical original length after
traveling. Besides we can mark the distances with a meter rod.
Ken Seto
The best way to solve this exp. is to say that both clocks -always in
sync from theory- have a built
in wound (winded?) up ruler that is drawn out during movement of the
clocks. Then you measure -at the clocks- the distance you have moved.
And you do it in the moving frame.
And after stopping at the rated the distance, it is not the same as
drawn out at the unrolling -marking- procedure.
In any case one can see, that v*v/(2c*c) is about 0,75 e-24, so the
differences are only of academic value and beyond accuracy of any
measurement I know.
Rudy
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
08 Mar 2005 12:44:49 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422d7350$0$17816$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422ccfdc$0$32222$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and
slow
snip
???? You mark of a distance of 50m on the opposite directions
with a
ruler for a total separation of 100 m.
Here we have the problem. If this marking is done with a 1 m
ruler and
you are marking with 10 marks per day in continuos motion of the
ruler
then the distance after marking the 100m is length contracted for
an
observer in the rest frame. So after the clocks are again at rest
the
distance isnt 100m.
No you mark the distances with a ruler before moving the clocks.
Yes I understand you. But tell me about the procedure of marking
the
distance. If, e.g. it is a wound up ruler, you draw out of the box,
it
is done with a certain speed. And you have autom. length
contraction.
So in this special case, how the marking of the distance is done,
is of
importance.
You are making too much out of nothing. Besides, the physical length
of a
ruler at its rest frame will remain unchanged after it is drawn out.
Also in
SR length contraction is not real. It a the projection of a ruler
that is
foreshortened. A ruler will return to its physical original length
after
traveling. Besides we can mark the distances with a meter rod.
You have no idea what SR says about distance measurement.
PD
Ken Seto
The best way to solve this exp. is to say that both clocks -always
in
sync from theory- have a built
in wound (winded?) up ruler that is drawn out during movement of
the
clocks. Then you measure -at the clocks- the distance you have
moved.
And you do it in the moving frame.
And after stopping at the rated the distance, it is not the same as
drawn out at the unrolling -marking- procedure.
In any case one can see, that v*v/(2c*c) is about 0,75 e-24, so the
differences are only of academic value and beyond accuracy of any
measurement I know.
Rudy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
08 Mar 2005 01:12:50 PM |
|
|
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110307489.283383.183040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422d7350$0$17816$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422ccfdc$0$32222$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and
slow
snip
???? You mark of a distance of 50m on the opposite directions
with a
ruler for a total separation of 100 m.
Here we have the problem. If this marking is done with a 1 m
ruler and
you are marking with 10 marks per day in continuos motion of the
ruler
then the distance after marking the 100m is length contracted for
an
observer in the rest frame. So after the clocks are again at rest
the
distance isnt 100m.
No you mark the distances with a ruler before moving the clocks.
Yes I understand you. But tell me about the procedure of marking
the
distance. If, e.g. it is a wound up ruler, you draw out of the box,
it
is done with a certain speed. And you have autom. length
contraction.
So in this special case, how the marking of the distance is done,
is of
importance.
You are making too much out of nothing. Besides, the physical length
of a
ruler at its rest frame will remain unchanged after it is drawn out.
Also in
SR length contraction is not real. It a the projection of a ruler
that is
foreshortened. A ruler will return to its physical original length
after
traveling. Besides we can mark the distances with a meter rod.
You have no idea what SR says about distance measurement.
PD
So what does SR say about measuring distances in your own frame??
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
The best way to solve this exp. is to say that both clocks -always
in
sync from theory- have a built
in wound (winded?) up ruler that is drawn out during movement of
the
clocks. Then you measure -at the clocks- the distance you have
moved.
And you do it in the moving frame.
And after stopping at the rated the distance, it is not the same as
drawn out at the unrolling -marking- procedure.
In any case one can see, that v*v/(2c*c) is about 0,75 e-24, so the
differences are only of academic value and beyond accuracy of any
measurement I know.
Rudy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudy Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
09 Mar 2005 03:22:13 AM |
|
|
kenseto schrieb:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110307489.283383.183040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422d7350$0$17816$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422ccfdc$0$32222$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snip
So in this special case, how the marking of the distance is done,
is of importance.
You are making too much out of nothing. Besides, the physical length
of a ruler at its rest frame will remain unchanged after it is drawn out.
Also in SR length contraction is not real. It a the projection of a ruler
that is foreshortened. A ruler will return to its physical original length
after traveling. Besides we can mark the distances with a meter rod.
You have no idea what SR says about distance measurement.
PD
Dear PD pls explain, where I am wrong. We are waiting.
If I take a 1m rod or a draw out ruler makes no difference.
You have to stick to one frame in any case.
Changing frames without correcting the numbers is IMO a failure.
See Lorentz.
You must not forget, that speed is a derived value. Only s and t are
basic values. And s and t is different in the rest and moving frame. Sorry!
But may be we get assistance from an approved expert.
Rudy
So what does SR say about measuring distances in your own frame??
Ken Seto
The best way to solve this exp. is to say that both clocks -always
in sync from theory- have a built in wound (winded?) up ruler that
is drawn out during movement of the clocks.
Then you measure -at the clocks- the distance you have moved.
And you do it in the moving frame.
And after stopping at the rated the distance, it is not the same as
drawn out at the unrolling -marking- procedure.
In any case one can see, that v*v/(2c*c) is about 0,75 e-24, so the
differences are only of academic value and beyond accuracy of any
measurement I know.
Rudy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rudy Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
10 Mar 2005 02:17:52 AM |
|
|
PD schrieb:
kenseto wrote:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422d7350$0$17816$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422ccfdc$0$32222$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and
slow
snip
???? You mark of a distance of 50m on the opposite directions
with a
ruler for a total separation of 100 m.
Here we have the problem. If this marking is done with a 1 m
ruler and
you are marking with 10 marks per day in continuos motion of the
ruler
then the distance after marking the 100m is length contracted for
an
observer in the rest frame. So after the clocks are again at rest
the
distance isnt 100m.
No you mark the distances with a ruler before moving the clocks.
Yes I understand you. But tell me about the procedure of marking
the
distance. If, e.g. it is a wound up ruler, you draw out of the box,
it
is done with a certain speed. And you have autom. length
contraction.
So in this special case, how the marking of the distance is done,
is of
importance.
You are making too much out of nothing. Besides, the physical length
of a
ruler at its rest frame will remain unchanged after it is drawn out.
Also in
SR length contraction is not real. It a the projection of a ruler
that is
foreshortened. A ruler will return to its physical original length
after
traveling. Besides we can mark the distances with a meter rod.
You have no idea what SR says about distance measurement.
PD
Dear PD pls explain, where I am wrong.
If I take a 1m rod or a draw out ruler makes no difference.
To avoid misunderstandings:
If I go to Sirius, s= 9 ly with v= +-.94c, Gamma = 3
I'll be back 19.14 y earth time. My ship clock will report 6.38 y
So during the trip the distance was shrinked to 3 ly for the ship
(or for the FTL fans v was 3x 0.94c).
It's clear that for the observer on Earth the distance never changes
and also for the ship at rest it is 9 ly as you write
"A ruler will return to its physical original length after"
The question of kenseto, what I understood is, to find out discrepancies
in SR?
About the influences on accuracy see below. What I wanted to express is,
that setting up marks you normally need time and as marks are separated
a certain distance, automatically SR comes into the picture.
I wanted to show, that when kenseto chooses a very low v, then setting
up the marks can influence the set up of them.
Rudy
Ken Seto
The best way to solve this exp. is to say that both clocks -always
in
sync from theory- have a built
in wound (winded?) up ruler that is drawn out during movement of
the
clocks. Then you measure -at the clocks- the distance you have
moved.
And you do it in the moving frame.
And after stopping at the rated the distance, it is not the same as
drawn out at the unrolling -marking- procedure.
In any case one can see, that v*v/(2c*c) is about 0,75 e-24, so the
differences are only of academic value and beyond accuracy of any
measurement I know.
Rudy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
09 Mar 2005 03:19:37 AM |
|
|
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422d7350$0$17816$91cee783@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"Rudy Drabek" <erdrXs@aon.at> wrote in message
news:422ccfdc$0$32222$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
kenseto schrieb:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
snip
???? You mark of a distance of 50m on the opposite directions with a
ruler for a total separation of 100 m.
Here we have the problem. If this marking is done with a 1 m ruler and
you are marking with 10 marks per day in continuos motion of the ruler
then the distance after marking the 100m is length contracted for an
observer in the rest frame. So after the clocks are again at rest the
distance isnt 100m.
No you mark the distances with a ruler before moving the clocks.
Yes I understand you. But tell me about the procedure of marking the
distance. If, e.g. it is a wound up ruler, you draw out of the box, it
is done with a certain speed. And you have autom. length contraction.
So in this special case, how the marking of the distance is done, is of
importance.
The best way to solve this exp. is to say that both clocks -always in
sync from theory- have a built
in wound (winded?) up ruler that is drawn out during movement of the
clocks. Then you measure -at the clocks- the distance you have moved.
And you do it in the moving frame.
In fact on this point Ken Seto is right (it appears that he does improve, I
was too pessimistic!):
First of all, his procedure was to use the ruler of the stationary frame.
Using instead your procedure, the unwound part of the ruler is resting in
the stationary frame. Therefore in principle your length measurement is that
of the stationary frame, just as with Ken Seto's procedure . Apart of that,
the slow clock transport procedure is deisgned for neglecting such effects
in the first place.
And after stopping at the rated the distance, it is not the same as
drawn out at the unrolling -marking- procedure.
NO, only the part that is not used for the measurement is affected by the
stopping.
In any case one can see, that v*v/(2c*c) is about 0,75 e-24, so the
differences are only of academic value and beyond accuracy of any
measurement I know.
Very right, I know of no such direct experimental verification of Lorentz
contraction, AFAIK nobody has come up with a feasible experiment.
Harald
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
04 Mar 2005 03:10:44 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
transport
them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day
for a
total
separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
synchronized.
While they are moving at 20m/day relative velocity, they will no
longer
be synchronized.
I think you are wrong. They are both moving at a velocity of 10m/day
wrt the
starting point.in the opposite directions. Doesn't SR say that they
will
remain synchronized?
No. Moving is moving. The SR correction is small, but it is not zero.
Synchronization is a procedure ONLY on clocks that are
at rest with respect to each other. IF the clocks are brought to
rest
when they are 100 m apart (and you don't say whether that is done
or
not), then the clocks can be resynchronized.
How do you test for OWLS or TWLS if they don't brought to rest after
100m
separation?
Ah, fine then. So I'll assume for the rest of the discussion that they
are at rest 100 m apart and have been resynchronized.
2. All distance measurements are made with a physical ruler.
That's not an SR prediction, so I assume you mean this is something
you're imposing.
That's the normal way of measuring distance in our daily life.
Yes, though recall that SR warns that our "normal way" is not
guaranteed to produce consistent results.
Is the ruler stationary with respect to A or with respect to B?
???? You mark of a distance of 50m on the opposite directions with a
ruler
for a total separation of 100 m.
Ah, fine, then the ruler and the two clocks A & B are all at rest with
respect to each other.
Or are
A and B both moving with respect to the ruler?
Sigh...the distances are marked off before the slow transport of the
clocks
begin.
Ah, OK, though note that a ruler riding along with A would not
necessarily agree that the distance covered was 50 m by the time it got
to the prearranged mark.
But that's fine, we'll stick with the prearranged marks only.
(This will make a
difference as to whether A and B or the person at rest with respect
to
the ruler agrees that A and B are 100 m apart.) Or is this after A
and
B have been brought to rest again and resynchronized?
A and B are brought to rest again after the distance of separation of
100 m
is reached.
Okey-doke.
3. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
clocks from A's location.
Are the clocks stll moving at 100 m apart? If so, then you can't
use
them to do a 1-way measurement of light speed.
This is an obvious attempt to obfuscate the experiment. You know damn
well
that the clocks come to rest after the separation of 100 meters is
reached.
Not until you said so.
In this case, it would be c.
4. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
clocks from A's location..
Are the clocks still moving at 100 m apart?
Hey idiot the clocks came to rest after 100 m separation.
Right. I forgot.
In this case, it would be c.
If so, then you can't use
them to do a 1-way measurement of light speed.
5. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from A's location.
See the above.
The answer would be c.
6. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from B's location.
See the above.
The answer would be c.
What are the SR predictions for these experiments??
Why are you refusing to give one SR predictions for these
experiments??
I'm not. I just needed you to clarify the experiment (which you just
did) before answering. The devil is in the details.
PD
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
04 Mar 2005 07:05:14 PM |
|
|
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109970644.632355.246580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
3. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
clocks from A's location.
Are the clocks stll moving at 100 m apart? If so, then you can't
use
them to do a 1-way measurement of light speed.
This is an obvious attempt to obfuscate the experiment. You know damn
well
that the clocks come to rest after the separation of 100 meters is
reached.
Not until you said so.
In this case, it would be c.
So you are saying that the one-way measurement using these two clock is c.
You are wrong. Einstein knew that the OWLS measure with two spatially
separated and synchronized clocks is not c. That why he invented the
e-synched clocks to force OWLS equal to c. The e-synched clocks are
asynchronous. Furthermore if OWLS is measured to be c do you think the
SRians are that dumb not to perform the experiment that could validate the
SR postulate completely? In his 1905 paper he had to assume that OWLS is
isotropic and equal to TWLS and equal to c.
4. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
clocks from A's location..
Are the clocks still moving at 100 m apart?
Hey idiot the clocks came to rest after 100 m separation.
Right. I forgot.
In this case, it would be c.
You are wrong again.
If so, then you can't use
them to do a 1-way measurement of light speed.
5. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from A's location.
See the above.
The answer would be c.
I agree.
6. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from B's location.
See the above.
The answer would be c.
I agree.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments?? |
04 Mar 2005 08:22:57 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109970644.632355.246580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109967267.935607.214460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
3. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
clocks from A's location.
Are the clocks stll moving at 100 m apart? If so, then you
can't
use
them to do a 1-way measurement of light speed.
This is an obvious attempt to obfuscate the experiment. You know
damn
well
that the clocks come to rest after the separation of 100 meters
is
reached.
Not until you said so.
In this case, it would be c.
So you are saying that the one-way measurement using these two clock
is c.
You are wrong. Einstein knew that the OWLS measure with two spatially
separated and synchronized clocks is not c. That why he invented the
e-synched clocks to force OWLS equal to c. The e-synched clocks are
asynchronous. Furthermore if OWLS is measured to be c do you think
the
SRians are that dumb not to perform the experiment that could
validate the
SR postulate completely? In his 1905 paper he had to assume that OWLS
is
isotropic and equal to TWLS and equal to c.
I'm not sure I believe this. Synchronization is used using a TWLS
*assumption*. But once the clocks are synchronized, then I see no
reason why a OWLS measurement is not possible. Of course, one could
argue that it's not independent of the synchronization. But that's ok,
because invariance of c is an *assumption* of SR, not a conclusion.
Naturally, if an OWLS measurement of c ever *violated* the assumption
of c, then SR would be out the window. But as far as I know, there is
no reason to believe that such a violation has ever been seen.
4. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
clocks from A's location..
Are the clocks still moving at 100 m apart?
Hey idiot the clocks came to rest after 100 m separation.
Right. I forgot.
In this case, it would be c.
You are wrong again.
What? You think it would NOT be c? or that an independent measurement
of c is not possible?
If so, then you can't use
them to do a 1-way measurement of light speed.
5. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from A's
location.
See the above.
The answer would be c.
I agree.
6. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from B's
location.
See the above.
The answer would be c.
I agree.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
