Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Imagine the pressure you'd feel at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Next: The REAL reason they hate Einstein.
From: kenseto on 2 Nov 2009 09:17 On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> 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.. 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. > > > Ken Seto > > 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
From: Inertial on 2 Nov 2009 18:25 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> >> kenseto wrote: >> >> > On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)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 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.
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Nov 2009 00:14 kenseto wrote: > On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)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?
From: kenseto on 3 Nov 2009 08:56 On Nov 3, 12:14 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)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 - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 3 Nov 2009 09:13
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:8691ae33-39de-4433-8b3b-2348ea2b6f0a(a)15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 2, 6:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:7c18fe7c-479f-49ac-88ce-4c7eabe3c436(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 1, 3:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:a257e2dd-b5e5-46d5-9496-07ce692f4e24(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Oct 31, 2:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> >> >> kenseto wrote: >> >> >> > On Oct 31, 11:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)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 |