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: Sam Wormley on 3 Nov 2009 14:21 kenseto wrote: > 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 > Doesn't give the right answer, can you make it give the right answer?
From: kenseto on 3 Nov 2009 16:46 On Nov 3, 9:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(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- 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.
From: kenseto on 3 Nov 2009 16:48 On Nov 3, 2:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > 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 > > 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.
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Nov 2009 17:44 kenseto wrote: > On Nov 3, 2:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> 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 >> 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. 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?
From: Inertial on 3 Nov 2009 19:30
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:4f7c47f6-3a44-4662-9f92-84546f9ab0fc(a)l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 3, 9:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(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- > > The ether frame has the following exclusive special properties: There is no evidence that there is any thing > 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > 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 |