 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute... |
|
Page 3 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Inertial... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436 at (no spam) m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24 at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run fast,
just due to relative velocity?
If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to the
observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's clock is
in
a preferred frame....we know that is not the case.
Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in
relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be
true for almost all observer. None of them is special or
preferred.
Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether frame to
make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same math....they
both use the ether frame to do calculations..
WRONG
The fact that every SR
observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow means
that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of absolute
rest.
WRONG
You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take physics again
..
but this time stay awake during the lessons.
Hey idiot ....it is not wrong.
[/quote]
Yes, it IS wrong
[quote]SR says that all observer are
equaivalent including the ether frame observer.
[/quote]
SR says nothing about any ether frame.
[quote]So every SR observer
selected the ether frame to do predictions and calculations....
[/quote]
Wrong
[quote]the
reason is that it is the simplest frame to do calculations
[/quote]
Wrong
[quote]because all
the clocks in the universe are running slow compared to the ether
frame clock and all the rods in the universe are contraction compared
to the ether frame rod.
[/quote]
And the same is true for every inertial frame, so it is no easier in that
frame. And transforming back and forth to the supposed ether frame makes it
harder.
[quote]LET acknowledges that the ether frame is used to do calculations
[/quote]
Wrong
[quote]and
that's why SR and LET have the same math.
[/quote]
No .. it is not why
But yes, they have the same math for what measurements one would get. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
kenseto wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
No--It just means that all motion is relative, there are no preferred
observers. Relativity predicts that any observer will measure time
dilation of all moving clocks... and guess what, Ken, that's exactly
what is observed! In Spades!
No wormy...all relative motions are derived from individual motion.
For example if you change your state of individual motion by
acceleration you will have changed all the observed relative motions
in the universe.
There is no time dilation....there is a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames (different
states of absolute motion). Also there is no physical length
contraction. There is: a meter stick has different light path length
in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
Ken Seto
[/quote]
Ken you live in a different conceptual world than most of us. I'm
not saying that is necessarily bad or good. But can you make calculations
that match observations?
For example, can you calculate what many call "time dilation" for
an earth satellite clock in orbit around the earth in a circular
orbit (eccentricity, e = 0) at an altitude of 202 km above mean
sea level?
I can do it with general relativity derivations. Can you calculate
it with whatever methods you use? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:14 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]kenseto wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
No--It just means that all motion is relative, there are no preferred
observers. Relativity predicts that any observer will measure time
dilation of all moving clocks... and guess what, Ken, that's exactly
what is observed! In Spades!
No wormy...all relative motions are derived from individual motion.
For example if you change your state of individual motion by
acceleration you will have changed all the observed relative motions
in the universe.
There is no time dilation....there is a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames (different
states of absolute motion). Also there is no physical length
contraction. There is: a meter stick has different light path length
in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
Ken Seto
Ken you live in a different conceptual world than most of us. I'm
not saying that is necessarily bad or good. But can you make calculations
that match observations?
For example, can you calculate what many call "time dilation" for
an earth satellite clock in orbit around the earth in a circular
orbit (eccentricity, e = 0) at an altitude of 202 km above mean
sea level?
I can do it with general relativity derivations. Can you calculate
it with whatever methods you use?
[/quote]
Sure look up the IRT gravitational time dilation equation in the
following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
- Hide quoted text -
[quote]
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 6:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436 at (no spam) m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24 at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com....
On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run fast,
just due to relative velocity?
If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to the
observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's clock is
in
a preferred frame....we know that is not the case.
Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in
relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be
true for almost all observer. None of them is special or
preferred.
Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether frame to
make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same math....they
both use the ether frame to do calculations..
WRONG
The fact that every SR
observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow means
that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of absolute
rest.
WRONG
You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take physics again
..
but this time stay awake during the lessons.
Hey idiot ....it is not wrong.
Yes, it IS wrong
SR says that all observer are
equaivalent including the ether frame observer.
SR says nothing about any ether frame.
[/quote]
So when SR says that all frames are equaivlent...that does not include
the rest frame of the ether??? you are so fucking stupid.
Ken Seto
[quote]
So every SR observer
selected the ether frame to do predictions and calculations....
Wrong
the
reason is that it is the simplest frame to do calculations
Wrong
because all
the clocks in the universe are running slow compared to the ether
frame clock and all the rods in the universe are contraction compared
to the ether frame rod.
And the same is true for every inertial frame, so it is no easier in that
frame. And transforming back and forth to the supposed ether frame makes it
harder.
LET acknowledges that the ether frame is used to do calculations
Wrong
and
that's why SR and LET have the same math.
No .. it is not why
But yes, they have the same math for what measurements one would get.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:8691ae33-39de-4433-8b3b-2348ea2b6f0a at (no spam) 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 2, 6:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436 at (no spam) m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24 at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run fast,
just due to relative velocity?
If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to the
observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's clock
is
in
a preferred frame....we know that is not the case.
Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in
relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be
true for almost all observer. None of them is special or
preferred.
Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether frame
to
make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same math....they
both use the ether frame to do calculations..
WRONG
The fact that every SR
observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
means
that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of absolute
rest.
WRONG
You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take physics
again
..
but this time stay awake during the lessons.
Hey idiot ....it is not wrong.
Yes, it IS wrong
SR says that all observer are
equaivalent including the ether frame observer.
SR says nothing about any ether frame.
So when SR says that all frames are equaivlent...
[/quote]
They are. All inertial ones that is.
[quote]that does not include
the rest frame of the ether???
[/quote]
What would give you that silly idea. If there was an ether, and if it had
such a thing as a unique rest frame frame, and if that frame was inertial,
then it would be no different to any other inertial frame as far as SR is
concerned. Its just one of an infinite number of such frames, and you've
just stuck the label "ether frame" on it. It needs no special treatment.
Of course, SR says nothing about there being such a frame .. it doesn't need
to |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:8691ae33-39de-4433-8b3b-2348ea2b6f0a at (no spam) 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 6:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436 at (no spam) m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24 at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run fast,
just due to relative velocity?
If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to the
observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's clock
is
in
a preferred frame....we know that is not the case.
Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in
relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be
true for almost all observer. None of them is special or
preferred.
Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether frame
to
make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same math....they
both use the ether frame to do calculations..
WRONG
The fact that every SR
observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
means
that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of absolute
rest.
WRONG
You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take physics
again
..
but this time stay awake during the lessons.
Hey idiot ....it is not wrong.
Yes, it IS wrong
SR says that all observer are
equaivalent including the ether frame observer.
SR says nothing about any ether frame.
So when SR says that all frames are equaivlent...
They are. All inertial ones that is.
that does not include
the rest frame of the ether???
What would give you that silly idea. If there was an ether, and if it had
such a thing as a unique rest frame frame, and if that frame was inertial,
then it would be no different to any other inertial frame as far as SR is
concerned. Its just one of an infinite number of such frames, and you've
just stuck the label "ether frame" on it. It needs no special treatment.
Of course, SR says nothing about there being such a frame .. it doesn't need
to-
[/quote]
The ether frame has the following exclusive special properties:
1. The ether frame clock is the fastest running clock in the universe.
2. The ether frame meter stick is the longest meter stick in the
universe.
Every SR observer assumes these excvlusive special properties of the
ether frame and thus every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in
the ether. That's exactly what a LET observer assumes and that's why
SR and LET have the same math. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 2:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]kenseto wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:14 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
No--It just means that all motion is relative, there are no preferred
observers. Relativity predicts that any observer will measure time
dilation of all moving clocks... and guess what, Ken, that's exactly
what is observed! In Spades!
No wormy...all relative motions are derived from individual motion.
For example if you change your state of individual motion by
acceleration you will have changed all the observed relative motions
in the universe.
There is no time dilation....there is a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames (different
states of absolute motion). Also there is no physical length
contraction. There is: a meter stick has different light path length
in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
Ken Seto
Ken you live in a different conceptual world than most of us. I'm
not saying that is necessarily bad or good. But can you make calculations
that match observations?
For example, can you calculate what many call "time dilation" for
an earth satellite clock in orbit around the earth in a circular
orbit (eccentricity, e = 0) at an altitude of 202 km above mean
sea level?
I can do it with general relativity derivations. Can you calculate
it with whatever methods you use?
Sure look up the IRT gravitational time dilation equation in the
following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
Doesn't give the right answer, can you make it give the right answer?
[/quote]
Show me your calculations....I bet that you are lying....you never did
any calcultions using the IRT equations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
kenseto wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 12:14 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
No--It just means that all motion is relative, there are no preferred
observers. Relativity predicts that any observer will measure time
dilation of all moving clocks... and guess what, Ken, that's exactly
what is observed! In Spades!
No wormy...all relative motions are derived from individual motion.
For example if you change your state of individual motion by
acceleration you will have changed all the observed relative motions
in the universe.
There is no time dilation....there is a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames (different
states of absolute motion). Also there is no physical length
contraction. There is: a meter stick has different light path length
in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
Ken Seto
Ken you live in a different conceptual world than most of us. I'm
not saying that is necessarily bad or good. But can you make calculations
that match observations?
For example, can you calculate what many call "time dilation" for
an earth satellite clock in orbit around the earth in a circular
orbit (eccentricity, e = 0) at an altitude of 202 km above mean
sea level?
I can do it with general relativity derivations. Can you calculate
it with whatever methods you use?
Sure look up the IRT gravitational time dilation equation in the
following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
[/quote]
Doesn't give the right answer, can you make it give the right answer? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:17 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3566
|
On Oct 31, 7:22 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
[quote]kenseto wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:20 am, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:14 am, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
A paper entitled "Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute
Motion" is availble in
[snip crap]
a landfill.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
idiot
Al is a fucking moron
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.....
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize)
idiot
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm-Hide quoted text
Al you are so fucking stupoid I suggest that you go off to a corner
and commit suicide.
God save us from the congenitally inconsequential. Go ahead, idiot,
post a technical rebuttal. Uncle Al has your head right here,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
The greatest obstacle to understanding reality is not ignorance but
the illusion of knowledge. Reality is not a peer vote.
idiot
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Weight reveals matter changing speed linearly or curvilnear. This is
detecting new motion.
New motion by weight is made detectable contrary to the idea that
speed can't be detected.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
kenseto wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 2:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:14 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
No--It just means that all motion is relative, there are no preferred
observers. Relativity predicts that any observer will measure time
dilation of all moving clocks... and guess what, Ken, that's exactly
what is observed! In Spades!
No wormy...all relative motions are derived from individual motion.
For example if you change your state of individual motion by
acceleration you will have changed all the observed relative motions
in the universe.
There is no time dilation....there is a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames (different
states of absolute motion). Also there is no physical length
contraction. There is: a meter stick has different light path length
in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
Ken Seto
Ken you live in a different conceptual world than most of us. I'm
not saying that is necessarily bad or good. But can you make calculations
that match observations?
For example, can you calculate what many call "time dilation" for
an earth satellite clock in orbit around the earth in a circular
orbit (eccentricity, e = 0) at an altitude of 202 km above mean
sea level?
I can do it with general relativity derivations. Can you calculate
it with whatever methods you use?
Sure look up the IRT gravitational time dilation equation in the
following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
Doesn't give the right answer, can you make it give the right answer?
Show me your calculations....I bet that you are lying....you never did
any calcultions using the IRT equations.
[/quote]
My relevant inputs include:
o r, the distance from the center of the earth to the satellite
o e, eccentricity of the orbit
o E, eccentricity anomaly
o V, the orbital velocity of satellite
o f, the true anomaly
And I wind up with a path integral for the elapsed coordinate time on the
satellite that upon solution (a factor) yields:
3GMe/2ac^2 + (a scale correction for clocks on the surface of the earth)/c^2
This result can then be multiplied by a satellite clock "rest" frequency to
gain the frequency observed on the ground.
But I can see how tour Tab = Taa(Fab/Faa) can possibly work! It has no
physical world inputs.
If you could demonstrate its use, please.
Time dilation" for
an earth satellite clock in orbit around the earth in a circular
orbit (eccentricity, e = 0) at an altitude of 202 km above mean
sea level? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:4f7c47f6-3a44-4662-9f92-84546f9ab0fc at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 3, 9:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:8691ae33-39de-4433-8b3b-2348ea2b6f0a at (no spam) 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 6:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436 at (no spam) m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24 at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run
fast,
just due to relative velocity?
If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to the
observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's
clock
is
in
a preferred frame....we know that is not the case.
Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in
relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be
true for almost all observer. None of them is special or
preferred.
Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether
frame
to
make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same
math....they
both use the ether frame to do calculations..
WRONG
The fact that every SR
observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
means
that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of
absolute
rest.
WRONG
You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take physics
again
..
but this time stay awake during the lessons.
Hey idiot ....it is not wrong.
Yes, it IS wrong
SR says that all observer are
equaivalent including the ether frame observer.
SR says nothing about any ether frame.
So when SR says that all frames are equaivlent...
They are. All inertial ones that is.
that does not include
the rest frame of the ether???
What would give you that silly idea. If there was an ether, and if it
had
such a thing as a unique rest frame frame, and if that frame was
inertial,
then it would be no different to any other inertial frame as far as SR is
concerned. Its just one of an infinite number of such frames, and you've
just stuck the label "ether frame" on it. It needs no special treatment.
Of course, SR says nothing about there being such a frame .. it doesn't
need
to-
The ether frame has the following exclusive special properties:
[/quote]
There is no evidence that there is any thing
[quote]1. The ether frame clock is the fastest running clock in the universe.
[/quote]
Nope. But every inertial frame measures clocks in other frames as running
slower
[quote]2. The ether frame meter stick is the longest meter stick in the
universe.
[/quote]
Nope. But every inertial frame measures lengths in other frames as
contracted
[quote]Every SR observer assumes these excvlusive special properties of the
ether frame
[/quote]
The properties of an inertial frame have nothing to do with ether frames
[quote]and thus every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in
the ether.
[/quote]
Nope .. he doesn't assume anything about an aether. There is no aether
mentioned in SR
[quote]That's exactly what a LET observer assumes and that's why
SR and LET have the same math.
[/quote]
Nope. You're just totally ignorant |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 7:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:4f7c47f6-3a44-4662-9f92-84546f9ab0fc at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 9:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:8691ae33-39de-4433-8b3b-2348ea2b6f0a at (no spam) 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 2, 6:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436 at (no spam) m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24 at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run
fast,
just due to relative velocity?
If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to the
observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's
clock
is
in
a preferred frame....we know that is not the case.
Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks in
relative motion would appear to run slower... That would be
true for almost all observer. None of them is special or
preferred.
Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether
frame
to
make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same
math....they
both use the ether frame to do calculations..
WRONG
The fact that every SR
observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow
means
that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of
absolute
rest.
WRONG
You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take physics
again
..
but this time stay awake during the lessons.
Hey idiot ....it is not wrong.
Yes, it IS wrong
SR says that all observer are
equaivalent including the ether frame observer.
SR says nothing about any ether frame.
So when SR says that all frames are equaivlent...
They are. All inertial ones that is.
that does not include
the rest frame of the ether???
What would give you that silly idea. If there was an ether, and if it
had
such a thing as a unique rest frame frame, and if that frame was
inertial,
then it would be no different to any other inertial frame as far as SR is
concerned. Its just one of an infinite number of such frames, and you've
just stuck the label "ether frame" on it. It needs no special treatment.
Of course, SR says nothing about there being such a frame .. it doesn't
need
to-
The ether frame has the following exclusive special properties:
There is no evidence that there is any thing
[/quote]
Sure there is evidence....the fields are stresses in the aether.
[quote]
1. The ether frame clock is the fastest running clock in the universe.
Nope. But every inertial frame measures clocks in other frames as running
slower
[/quote]
No such measurement is made. Every SR observer predicts that the clock
moving wrt the observer is running slow.
[quote]
2. The ether frame meter stick is the longest meter stick in the
universe.
Nope. But every inertial frame measures lengths in other frames as
contracted
[/quote]
No such measurement is made. SR predicts a meter stick moving wrt the
observer is contracted.
[quote]
Every SR observer assumes these excvlusive special properties of the
ether frame
The properties of an inertial frame have nothing to do with ether frames
[/quote]
Hey idiot...Calling the ether frame as an inertial frames does not
eliminate the ether frame.
[quote]
and thus every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in
the ether.
Nope .. he doesn't assume anything about an aether. There is no aether
mentioned in SR
[/quote]
SR assumes that the inertial frame is the ether frame and that's why
an inertial frame has all the properties of the ether frame.
[quote]
That's exactly what a LET observer assumes and that's why
SR and LET have the same math.
Nope. You're just totally ignorant
[/quote]
You are a runt of the SRians.
Ken Seto
- Hide quoted text -
[quote]
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 5:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]kenseto wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:14 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
No--It just means that all motion is relative, there are no preferred
observers. Relativity predicts that any observer will measure time
dilation of all moving clocks... and guess what, Ken, that's exactly
what is observed! In Spades!
No wormy...all relative motions are derived from individual motion.
For example if you change your state of individual motion by
acceleration you will have changed all the observed relative motions
in the universe.
There is no time dilation....there is a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames (different
states of absolute motion). Also there is no physical length
contraction. There is: a meter stick has different light path length
in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
Ken Seto
Ken you live in a different conceptual world than most of us. I'm
not saying that is necessarily bad or good. But can you make calculations
that match observations?
For example, can you calculate what many call "time dilation" for
an earth satellite clock in orbit around the earth in a circular
orbit (eccentricity, e = 0) at an altitude of 202 km above mean
sea level?
I can do it with general relativity derivations. Can you calculate
it with whatever methods you use?
Sure look up the IRT gravitational time dilation equation in the
following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
Doesn't give the right answer, can you make it give the right answer?
Show me your calculations....I bet that you are lying....you never did
any calcultions using the IRT equations.
My relevant inputs include:
o r, the distance from the center of the earth to the satellite
o e, eccentricity of the orbit
o E, eccentricity anomaly
o V, the orbital velocity of satellite
o f, the true anomaly
And I wind up with a path integral for the elapsed coordinate time on the
satellite that upon solution (a factor) yields:
3GMe/2ac^2 + (a scale correction for clocks on the surface of the earth)/c^2
This result can then be multiplied by a satellite clock "rest" frequency to
gain the frequency observed on the ground.
But I can see how tour Tab = Taa(Fab/Faa) can possibly work! It has no
physical world inputs.
[/quote]
Sure it has physical input....you measure the quantity Fab and Faa for
a standard light source and the gravitational time dilation comes out
directly without all the bull shit that you have to go through with SR/
GR.
Ken Seto
[quote]
If you could demonstrate its use, please.
Time dilation" for
an earth satellite clock in orbit around the earth in a circular
orbit (eccentricity, e = 0) at an altitude of 202 km above mean
sea level?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:41 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3566
|
On Nov 4, 7:21 am, "kens... at (no spam) erinet.com" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 5:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:14 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
No--It just means that all motion is relative, there are no preferred
observers. Relativity predicts that any observer will measure time
dilation of all moving clocks... and guess what, Ken, that's exactly
what is observed! In Spades!
No wormy...all relative motions are derived from individual motion.
For example if you change your state of individual motion by
acceleration you will have changed all the observed relative motions
in the universe.
There is no time dilation....there is a clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time in different frames (different
states of absolute motion). Also there is no physical length
contraction. There is: a meter stick has different light path length
in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
Ken Seto
Ken you live in a different conceptual world than most of us. I'm
not saying that is necessarily bad or good. But can you make calculations
that match observations?
For example, can you calculate what many call "time dilation" for
an earth satellite clock in orbit around the earth in a circular
orbit (eccentricity, e = 0) at an altitude of 202 km above mean
sea level?
I can do it with general relativity derivations. Can you calculate
it with whatever methods you use?
Sure look up the IRT gravitational time dilation equation in the
following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
Doesn't give the right answer, can you make it give the right answer?
Show me your calculations....I bet that you are lying....you never did
any calcultions using the IRT equations.
My relevant inputs include:
o r, the distance from the center of the earth to the satellite
o e, eccentricity of the orbit
o E, eccentricity anomaly
o V, the orbital velocity of satellite
o f, the true anomaly
And I wind up with a path integral for the elapsed coordinate time on the
satellite that upon solution (a factor) yields:
3GMe/2ac^2 + (a scale correction for clocks on the surface of the earth)/c^2
This result can then be multiplied by a satellite clock "rest" frequency to
gain the frequency observed on the ground.
But I can see how tour Tab = Taa(Fab/Faa) can possibly work! It has no
physical world inputs.
Sure it has physical input....you measure the quantity Fab and Faa for
a standard light source and the gravitational time dilation comes out
directly without all the bull shit that you have to go through with SR/
GR.
Ken Seto
If you could demonstrate its use, please.
Time dilation" for
an earth satellite clock in orbit around the earth in a circular
orbit (eccentricity, e = 0) at an altitude of 202 km above mean
sea level?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
There are two times aethers. One for speed the other for the strength
of gravity. These are SR and GR.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7cc9cc58-0eeb-402a-ab4c-3f16752a4dc4 at (no spam) k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 3, 7:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:4f7c47f6-3a44-4662-9f92-84546f9ab0fc at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 9:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:8691ae33-39de-4433-8b3b-2348ea2b6f0a at (no spam) 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 6:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436 at (no spam) m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24 at (no spam) g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com
wrote:
Ken, where in the real world are clock observed to run
fast,
just due to relative velocity?
If every clock in the universe is running slow compared to
the
observer's clock then that would mean that the observer's
clock
is
in
a preferred frame....we know that is not the case.
Ken, that would be true for ANY observer--the other clocks
in
relative motion would appear to run slower... That would
be
true for almost all observer. None of them is special or
preferred.
Ah....that's equivalent to that a LET observer uses the ether
frame
to
make predictions....that's why SR and LET have the same
math....they
both use the ether frame to do calculations..
WRONG
The fact that every SR
observer claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running
slow
means
that the every SR observer is assumed to be in a state of
absolute
rest.
WRONG
You just have no idea about SR. Go back to school and take
physics
again
..
but this time stay awake during the lessons.
Hey idiot ....it is not wrong.
Yes, it IS wrong
SR says that all observer are
equaivalent including the ether frame observer.
SR says nothing about any ether frame.
So when SR says that all frames are equaivlent...
They are. All inertial ones that is.
that does not include
the rest frame of the ether???
What would give you that silly idea. If there was an ether, and if it
had
such a thing as a unique rest frame frame, and if that frame was
inertial,
then it would be no different to any other inertial frame as far as SR
is
concerned. Its just one of an infinite number of such frames, and
you've
just stuck the label "ether frame" on it. It needs no special
treatment.
Of course, SR says nothing about there being such a frame .. it
doesn't
need
to-
The ether frame has the following exclusive special properties:
There is no evidence that there is any thing
Sure there is evidence....the fields are stresses in the aether.
[/quote]
There is no evidence that there is any such thing as aether for there to be
stresses in
[quote]1. The ether frame clock is the fastest running clock in the universe.
Nope. But every inertial frame measures clocks in other frames as
running
slower
No such measurement is made.
[/quote]
Wrong
[quote]Every SR observer predicts that the clock
moving wrt the observer is running slow.
[/quote]
And that is what is measured.
[quote]2. The ether frame meter stick is the longest meter stick in the
universe.
Nope. But every inertial frame measures lengths in other frames as
contracted
No such measurement is made.
[/quote]
Only because it is not practical to do so directly.
[quote]SR predicts a meter stick moving wrt the
observer is contracted.
[/quote]
And that is what you would find if you could accurately do the measurement
[quote]Every SR observer assumes these excvlusive special properties of the
ether frame
The properties of an inertial frame have nothing to do with ether frames
Hey idiot...Calling the ether frame as an inertial frames does not
eliminate the ether frame.
[/quote]
There needs to be a fixed ether for there to be an ether frame. There is no
evidence of such a thing.
[quote]and thus every SR observer assumes that he is at rest in
the ether.
Nope .. he doesn't assume anything about an aether. There is no aether
mentioned in SR
SR assumes that the inertial frame is the ether frame
[/quote]
No .. it says nothing about ether
[quote]and that's why
an inertial frame has all the properties of the ether frame.
[/quote]
Nope
You're just so wrong, its hilarious
[quote]That's exactly what a LET observer assumes and that's why
SR and LET have the same math.
Nope. You're just totally ignorant
You are a runt of the SRians.
[/quote]
That, of course, is what ken says when he is beaten
Glad to see I (and science) has won yet again. Aren't you tired of being
such a loser? You should get a new hobby. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:49 am
|
|