Henry Wilson DSc wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:33:31 -0700 (PDT), GSS
wrote:


On Sep 30, 9:02 pm, glird wrote:

On Aug 31, 9:53 am, GSS wrote: In classical physics, the notion of time, as a measure of change, is

an absolute measure independent of position coordinates or reference
frames. However, in relativity the second postulate has rendered the
notion of time as a relative measure, dependent on the position
coordinates as well as the state of motion of the reference frame.

It was neither postulate 1 or 2; it was Einstein's method of setting
clocks to MEASURE the time it takes a ray of light to travel from A
and b and back again the same each way. THAT method of esynching
clocks (which he defined as "synchronism") is why the time of a given
system is dependent on the position of a clock in a given system and
the state of motion (whether known or not) of that system.

glird

No, in my opinion, Einstein's synchronization procedure was defined
that way in order to sustain the second postulate.


He knew he could get away with it because Ritz had convinced him that there was
no aether and light was ballistic....but Ritz died and Einstein made more money
by selling his own crappy theory to a bunch of opportunistic idiots like those
who support him here.

Ralph is back to lies on this thread.



GSS



Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

On Oct 3, 10:34 am, ASS wrote:

In this regard I have already shown that out of a group of inertial
reference frames in relative uniform motion, the speed of light
propagation c can be an isotropic constant in only one of them,

Imbecile. Persistent.

On Oct 4, 1:27 am, "Dono." wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:34 am, GSS wrote:
....
In this regard I have already shown that out of a group of inertial
reference frames in relative uniform motion, the speed of light
propagation c can be an isotropic constant in only one of them,
.....
A digital atomic clock, which is "stationary" in its local or
laboratory reference frame (say K1) on earth, can be viewed as in
"motion" in BCRF (say K2) as well as in the Galactic reference frame
(say K3). If at any instant we obtain a digital time readout of t1,
then this physical measurement will correspond to the instantaneous
reading of a "stationary" clock in reference frame K1 as well as the
instantaneous reading of a "moving" clock in reference frames K2 and
K3. Similarly, when we measure the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td)
signal propagation times between two clocks A and B, which are
"moving" at velocity U2 along AB in reference frame K2, then it can be
easily shown that,
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ....... (1)

But the same two clocks can be simultaneously viewed as "moving" at
velocity U3 along AB in reference frame K3, and hence it can be easily
shown that,
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ...... (2)

However, equations (1) and (2) cannot both be valid simultaneously
because U2 U3. This contradiction brings us to the conclusion that
the speed of light propagation c cannot be an isotropic constant in
more than one inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion.
And the reference frame in which the speed of light propagation is an
isotropic constant is referred as absolute or universal reference
frame. For detailed analysis on this issue, kindly refer to sections 2
and 3 of the following article.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0

GSS