I guess this is mostly for Tom Roberts' consumption, but anyone who
thinks they can understand should play.

It has the common ingredients of train car, the central
observer/emitter/receiver/clock within, the detector/reflector/clocks
- #1 and #2, and the track side observers. And light, of course! No
diagram is needed.

You will need two Wendy's napkins and a pen. Study the light Doppler
effect formula one more time to make sure that you understand that it
not only includes a simple Doppler effect, but also the difference in
clock rates for the emitter vs. the receiver.

Why do clocks have different rates of time? Because of v/c. v/c is
self-referential so that v/c = 0 for the inertial observer of record.
That leaves everything else that is moving with a relative v/c 0.
Light is anisotropic for those moving objects in most considerations
that you may have. That is the future point to be made amid the
obscurity.

The train is non-moving at the station. This is the crux. Can we let
the clocks on the train e-synch now, before it starts moving? After
all, all three clocks will undergo the same changes in velocity
(forget the little push/pull on the train car). At some future
velocity, all the clocks will still be in the same inertial frame,
right?

Finally moving to my point, at any v/c 0, the central train
observer WILL still measure the return of both emissions (fore and
aft) simultaneously. But what time will the fore and aft clocks
record for when they received it?

Again, the crux. We let the train e-synch at rest. If we let the
train e-synch while in its final motion, the fore and aft clocks would
record the same time for the event (the reception of the emission from
the central train observer).

All of this falls within the so-called "SR-LET equivalence". This
puts more of a point to the difference between "observer-based" SR
(subjective) and the more objective "LET-type" consideration. Notice
how the track side observer is nonrelavent in all this?

What this boils down to is a partial victory for an absolute v/c. You
will now know how fast you are traveling relative to when you
e-synched your clocks last. But it is still a relative measurement
(not an absolute delta v) and it only conforms to how you measure NOW
at whatever v/c you have.

Of course the delta v must exceed the error brackets for such
measurements and it must include the possible changeover from the
positive |v| to the negative |v| along the line of measurement. H-K
tried to exemplify this, if I guess it right.

So, I can figure the additional gravitational effects to clocks as
long as R/M remains constant. Perturbations of Sun, Moon, etc. are,
of course, an almost insignificant noise to be reckoned with - but
defined to set up the error bars.

This little, almost insignificant thought (above) has been nagging at
my logic for years without ever surfacing. There are more and I wish
they would come forward soon. Maybe this will be a prompt. I need a
good kick now and again.

I guess what I am saying is that SR can make a "physic" of subjective
observation, but it is only that. It is enough to "handle" what we
know and do with it (to an unspecified point). But we need more sense
of objective reality to do "real science".

I'll throw this in that I have a "gravity" that is simple and
compliant to all consideration except for prior beliefs. That is why
I don't post it. It is not "unscientific" --- I just know the belief
barrier.

Btw, the answers to the above initial e-synch with the train car
length of x meters (and assuming T'=0) are .5 * x/c * 1/((v-c) *
gamma^2) for the fore clock and .5 * x/c * 1/((v+c) * gamma^2) for the
aft clock. They add up to the time it takes light to transverse fore
to aft (or vv) in the train car as measured by an onboard (v/c) clock.
A little deeper symmetry than you are used to? That is what an "LET"
consideration provides.

I might add (Tom, if you read this) that our universe is connected
continuously. There is no breakage that is not assymtopic. This
means (in short words) that BB had a prior history. All symmetry that
we can observe (and all that we cannot) is caused by this
connectiveness. There would be no causal mechanism for symmetry if
this were not so.

I don't think anyone should reply to this until you (TR) do. (I think
you are respected)

Other than that, let the forum roll.

"xxein" wrote in message om...
I guess this is mostly for Tom Roberts' consumption, but anyone who
thinks they can understand should play.

Submitted to
http://groups.google.com/groups?&thr... ng.google.com

Dirk Vdm

(xxein) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

The math says that your hand waving = crap.

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
"xxein" wrote in message om...
I guess this is mostly for Tom Roberts' consumption, but anyone who
thinks they can understand should play.

Submitted to
http://groups.google.com/groups?&thr... ng.google.com

Dirk Vdm

xxein: You may be excused from this homework, Dirk. I would never
force anyone to injure their brain.

(xxein) wrote in message . com...

I made an ideosyncratic typo by typing "v-c" and "v+c" instead of
"c-v" and "c+v". However, it takes but a few adjacent brain cells to
guess the intended script. Also, some of the wording of that
paragraph is hard to understand. I will not change THAT though.

The paragraph corrected:

"
Btw, the answers to the above initial e-synch with the train car
length of x meters (and assuming T'=0) are .5 * x/c * 1/((c-v) *
gamma^2) for the fore clock and .5 * x/c * 1/((c+v) * gamma^2) for the
aft clock. They add up to the time it takes light to transverse fore
to aft (or vv) in the train car as measured by an onboard (v/c) clock.
A little deeper symmetry than you are used to? That is what an "LET"
consideration provides.
"

I'm sorry for any inconvenience that I may have caused.

"xxein" wrote in message m...
(xxein) wrote in message . com...

I made an ideosyncratic typo by typing "v-c" and "v+c" instead of
"c-v" and "c+v". However, it takes but a few adjacent brain cells to
guess the intended script. Also, some of the wording of that
paragraph is hard to understand. I will not change THAT though.

No worries.
I don't think anyone has even had a look at it beyond the
second paragraph.

Dirk Vdm

(Paul Cardinale) wrote in message . com...
(xxein) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

The math says that your hand waving = crap.

xxein: Your math is synthetic. My crap provides a life-cycle.

"xxein" wrote in message
om...
I guess this is mostly for Tom Roberts' consumption, but anyone who
thinks they can understand should play.

I'll have a look.

It has the common ingredients of train car, the central
observer/emitter/receiver/clock within, the detector/reflector/clocks
- #1 and #2, and the track side observers. And light, of course! No
diagram is needed.

I'll provide one anyway:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

You will need two Wendy's napkins and a pen. Study the light Doppler
effect formula one more time to make sure that you understand that it
not only includes a simple Doppler effect, but also the difference in
clock rates for the emitter vs. the receiver.

You mean Einstein's combined Doppler and time dilation equation that also is
called "relativistic Doppler"?

Why do clocks have different rates of time? Because of v/c. v/c is
self-referential so that v/c = 0 for the inertial observer of record.
That leaves everything else that is moving with a relative v/c 0.
Light is anisotropic for those moving objects in most considerations
that you may have. That is the future point to be made amid the
obscurity.

Completely obvious and logical, but indeed succesfully obscured for many.

The train is non-moving at the station. This is the crux. Can we let
the clocks on the train e-synch now, before it starts moving? After
all, all three clocks will undergo the same changes in velocity
(forget the little push/pull on the train car). At some future
velocity, all the clocks will still be in the same inertial frame,
right?

Last year I did a similar thought experiment for three rockets. Yours is
slightly different because of length contraction, affecting the e-synch a
littlebit.

Finally moving to my point, at any v/c 0, the central train
observer WILL still measure the return of both emissions (fore and
aft) simultaneously. But what time will the fore and aft clocks
record for when they received it?

Again, the crux. We let the train e-synch at rest. If we let the
train e-synch while in its final motion, the fore and aft clocks would
record the same time for the event (the reception of the emission from
the central train observer).

All of this falls within the so-called "SR-LET equivalence". This
puts more of a point to the difference between "observer-based" SR
(subjective) and the more objective "LET-type" consideration. Notice
how the track side observer is nonrelavent in all this?

When doing dynamics one can compare two frames of reference using only one
observer.

What this boils down to is a partial victory for an absolute v/c. You
will now know how fast you are traveling relative to when you
e-synched your clocks last. But it is still a relative measurement
(not an absolute delta v) and it only conforms to how you measure NOW
at whatever v/c you have.

Yup, just as with stellar aberration.

Of course the delta v must exceed the error brackets for such
measurements and it must include the possible changeover from the
positive |v| to the negative |v| along the line of measurement. H-K
tried to exemplify this, if I guess it right.

I didn't follow that one.

So, I can figure the additional gravitational effects to clocks as
long as R/M remains constant. Perturbations of Sun, Moon, etc. are,
of course, an almost insignificant noise to be reckoned with - but
defined to set up the error bars.

R/M = radius/mass?

This little, almost insignificant thought (above) has been nagging at
my logic for years without ever surfacing. There are more and I wish
they would come forward soon. Maybe this will be a prompt. I need a
good kick now and again.

I guess what I am saying is that SR can make a "physic" of subjective
observation, but it is only that. It is enough to "handle" what we
know and do with it (to an unspecified point). But we need more sense
of objective reality to do "real science".

I'll throw this in that I have a "gravity" that is simple and
compliant to all consideration except for prior beliefs. That is why
I don't post it. It is not "unscientific" --- I just know the belief
barrier.

[corrected:]
Btw, the answers to the above initial e-synch with the train car
length of x meters (and assuming T'=0) are .5 * x/c * 1/((c-v) *
gamma^2) for the fore clock and .5 * x/c * 1/((c+v) * gamma^2) for the
aft clock. They add up to the time it takes light to transverse fore
to aft (or vv) in the train car as measured by an onboard (v/c) clock.
A little deeper symmetry than you are used to? That is what an "LET"
consideration provides.

I am too lazy to check that now.

I might add (Tom, if you read this) that our universe is connected
continuously. There is no breakage that is not assymtopic. This
means (in short words) that BB had a prior history. All symmetry that
we can observe (and all that we cannot) is caused by this
connectiveness. There would be no causal mechanism for symmetry if
this were not so.

I don't think anyone should reply to this until you (TR) do. (I think
you are respected)

Other than that, let the forum roll.

Nice, but I have the feeling that you didn't really made your point...

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message ...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...
I guess this is mostly for Tom Roberts' consumption, but anyone who
thinks they can understand should play.

I'll have a look.

"Harry" wrote in message ...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...
I guess this is mostly for Tom Roberts' consumption, but anyone who
thinks they can understand should play.

I'll have a look.

Nice, but I have the feeling that you didn't really made your point...

Harald

xxein: Simple point. Railroad car. Aft, central and fore clocks.
All share the same frame of reference. SR does not care how fast it
may be moving. That is because SR e-synchs clocks in the same frame
at its current velocity.

To e-synch, you send a signal to the clock that you wish to e-synch
with. That signal "tells" the other clock what time to reset itself .
You depend on the second relativity postulate - that light travels at
c in any inertial frame - to determine (with a distance measurement
between clocks), what clock time it is supposed to have. Nothing all
that bad here. It allows cause and effect to maintain a constant
relation wrt c as measured by TWLS.

But what if you accelerate that frame to a different velocity without
the frame e-synching the clocks within itself again? Won't all three
clocks undergo the same physical effects? Won't all three share the
same change in timerate? There would be no need to e-synch again,
would there (if you are to believe that all light passes at c = OWLS
for all inertial frames)?

Any change of velocity wrt another frame IS a change of v/c. That is
why the relativistic Doppler formula exists. It defines the simple
Doppler of motion and the timerate difference. Timerate difference
because of what? v/c!

Does your emitted light travel at a different velocity than mine? If
so, then lightspeed is determined by the speed of the emitter object.
We know that is not the case for a myriad of reasons (some, more
definitive than others).

Perhaps you could answer one simple question. Why do the clocks on
the moving train car have a different timerate than the track-side
observer? Remember that if the train came back to rest again
along-side the track-side observer (for whatever its length of
journey), the clocks will beat the same but will not read the same
time as before (when they were e-synched). That leaves out a mere
optical reading of moving clocks. Something caused a change of
timerate. What? (And there is no gravity mumbo-jumbo to complicate
things either.)

"xxein" wrote in message
om...
"Harry" wrote in message
...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...
I guess this is mostly for Tom Roberts' consumption, but anyone who
thinks they can understand should play.

I'll have a look.

"Harry" wrote in message
...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...
I guess this is mostly for Tom Roberts' consumption, but anyone who
thinks they can understand should play.

I'll have a look.

Nice, but I have the feeling that you didn't really made your point...

Harald

xxein: Simple point. Railroad car. Aft, central and fore clocks.
All share the same frame of reference. SR does not care how fast it
may be moving. That is because SR e-synchs clocks in the same frame
at its current velocity.

To e-synch, you send a signal to the clock that you wish to e-synch
with. That signal "tells" the other clock what time to reset itself .
You depend on the second relativity postulate - that light travels at
c in any inertial frame - to determine (with a distance measurement
between clocks), what clock time it is supposed to have. Nothing all
that bad here. It allows cause and effect to maintain a constant
relation wrt c as measured by TWLS.

But what if you accelerate that frame to a different velocity without
the frame e-synching the clocks within itself again? Won't all three
clocks undergo the same physical effects?

Not exactly, but almost, as I pointed out to you.

Won't all three share the
same change in timerate?

Thus again, almost. Better change to my three rockets.

There would be no need to e-synch again,
would there (if you are to believe that all light passes at c = OWLS
for all inertial frames)?

Now you made your point clair. Indeed, that is exactly the purpose of my
three rockets example. The math behind it could distract from considering
what happens. The fact that there is a need to recalibrate, proves that
something physical happened.

Any change of velocity wrt another frame IS a change of v/c. That is
why the relativistic Doppler formula exists. It defines the simple
Doppler of motion and the timerate difference. Timerate difference
because of what? v/c!

Does your emitted light travel at a different velocity than mine? If
so, then lightspeed is determined by the speed of the emitter object.
We know that is not the case for a myriad of reasons (some, more
definitive than others).

Perhaps you could answer one simple question. Why do the clocks on
the moving train car have a different timerate than the track-side
observer?

That is so in general, but not necessarily always. They are measured to have
a different time rate by the track-side observer, because something physical
happened. I deduced from such and other thought experiments that it is
caused by a change of speed relative to an "absolute" (although not
necessarily perfectly stationary) frame of reference - also called physical
space, the ether, or quantum vacuum.

Remember that if the train came back to rest again
along-side the track-side observer (for whatever its length of
journey), the clocks will beat the same but will not read the same
time as before (when they were e-synched).

I think that you mean that they will be behind on identical clocks that
stayed there.

That leaves out a mere
optical reading of moving clocks. Something caused a change of
timerate. What? (And there is no gravity mumbo-jumbo to complicate
things either.)

Harald