Absolute motion in the vertical direction will make the value of OWLS
distance dependent and at the same time it will give isotropy to OWLS.
This is not the case for TWLS. Why? Because with one clock it will give
the correct ratio for light speed over at any distance. Remember that
the speed of light is a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299792458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod

It is not a cop out that the SR concept for the propagation of light
violates the UP. In fact all the problems of SR arise from this bogus
concept. In real life, the leading edge of a light ray does not hit the
target due to the target is in a state of absolute motion in the
vertical direction. BTW this is the cause of the observed time
dilation.

Measured TWLS is not equal to measured OWLS. I can only be convinced by
actual experiments. BTW your assertion that TWLS has been measured with
the delay time at the mirror accounted for is a bogus assertion. The
fact is thatTWLS has not been measured. If you think that I am wrong
please provide the reference.

Ken Seto

Absolute motion in the vertical direction will make the value of OWLS
distance dependent and at the same time it will give isotropy to OWLS.
This is not the case for TWLS. Why? Because with one clock it will give
the correct ratio for light speed over at any distance. Remember that
the speed of light is a constant math ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299792458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod

It is not a cop out that the SR concept for the propagation of light
violates the UP. In fact all the problems of SR arise from this bogus
concept. In real life, the leading edge of a light ray does not hit the
target due to the target is in a state of absolute motion in the
vertical direction. BTW this is the cause of the observed time
dilation.

Measured TWLS is not equal to measured OWLS. I can only be convinced by
actual experiments. BTW your assertion that TWLS has been measured with
the delay time at the mirror accounted for is a bogus assertion. The
fact is thatTWLS has not been measured. If you think that I am wrong
please provide the reference.

Ken Seto

"jem" wrote in message news:yVK8f.16496$vk1.1767@dukeread04...
| Androcles wrote:
| "PD" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | wrote:
| | Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
| | 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
| | direction.
| |
| | You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to
| | direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only
| | whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS.
|
| isotropic:
| exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions an isotropic crystal
| velocity:
| the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect to time : the derivative of position with respect to time
| speed:
| magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction
|
| TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0
|
| So why not TW(anything)S = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0?

You can if you want to.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle.
The velocity of turtles is the same in all frames of reference.

Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Same phuckwit math, though.

Androcles.


|
|
| OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c
| TWLS OWLS.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| | 2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return to
| | the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why? Because
| | it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the location of the
| | light ray simultaneously.
| |
| | This is a bogus cop-out. It would apply to your OWLS measurement as
| | well as it would to a TWLS measurement.
| |
| | 3. You assumed that 2(AB) does not include the delay time at the
| | mirror.
| |
| | That's right, because I'm assuming I've already applied the technique I
| | described to remove the mirror delay time from the TWLS measured times.
| | I described that just a short time ago.
| | Welcome all, to Short Attention Span Theater.
| |
| |
| | The only way to know if TWLS=OWLS is by measuring them directrlyas I
| | described in my pdf file. I don't see why you SRians simply refused to
| | do such measurements. Is it because you are afraid that the answers are
| | not what you predicted????
| |
| | No, it is because isotropy of OWLS demands that, once the mirror delay
| | has been removed by experimental analysis, then TWLS=OWLS.
|
| ****ing idiot, welcome to the zero attention span toilet-treasure house
| and the piles of poopoo.
|
|
| | This does
| | not demand that OWLS=c, only that TWLS=OWLS.
| Which it does not.
|
|
| | Fortunately, TWLS has been
| | amply measured to be c.
|
| Nonsense, TWLS is always zero.
|
| | Therefore, OWLS is known to be c.
|
| Stooopid imbecile, OWLS = c+v where v is the velocity of A wrt B.
| Proof:
| "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
| Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
|
|
| | The reason why SRians refuse to do a
| | direct OWLS measurement is because it is fiscally irresponsible to
| | measure something that has already been measured.
|
| You can't afford to do it right, Phuckwit Duck?
| It's fiscally irresponsible to waste 100 years on complete bull****!
| Androcles.
|
|
|
| Androcles.
|

In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel

wrote
on Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:01:13 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message news
In sci.physics.relativity, PD

wrote
on 29 Oct 2005 05:30:16 -0700
. com:

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| wrote:
| Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
| 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
| direction.
|
| You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to
| direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only
| whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS.

isotropic:
exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with
the same values when measured along axes in all directions an
isotropic crystal velocity:
the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect
to time : the derivative of position with respect to time speed:
magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction

TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0
OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c
TWLS OWLS.

Oh, well done, Androcles, you've just demonstrated that Indy500 drivers
have a speed of zero for each lap they complete.

There's a fair number of issues here, not the least of which is
the differentiation of vector (velocity) versus scalar (speed).
However, a NASCAR or Indy racer completing 100-500 laps around his
favorite track (pick one: Indianapolis, Talledega, Atlanta,
Sears Point), will indeed have an average velocity of zero,

TWLS stands for "Two Way Light Speed", not for "Two
Way Light Velocity".

A point, indeed, a point. :-) Of course, the main issues with
TWLS vs OWLS appear to be:


[1] If OWLS != TLWS one has the minor algebraic problem of trying
to figure out why. It's a variant of the headwind/tailwind
problem.

[2] There is strong evidence of OWLS isotropy. If there's no
wind and no reflection time OWLS = TWLS.

[3] Nobody's all that interested in light velocity, mostly because
light have attributes of a spherical wavefront in a lot of
applications. In a way, QM and SR are already merged if
one is careful to use spherical light wavefronts -- which
turn out to be Lorentz-invariant.

[4] The time it takes to reflect off the mirror in a
TWLS experiment turns out to be a non-issue.
Presumably, this is generally treated as instantaneous
and would probably be on the order of 3 * 10^-19
second anyway. After all, a mirror is primarily metal
-- silver being traditionally coated onto glass, but
there are a host of others -- and the width of a single
atom is around 100 pm or 10^-10 m; light will take
about 3.3 * 10^-19 seconds to traverse that distance.
Since most experiments are done (at least) on a 10m
long lab bench, which would take light about 33 ns or
3.3 * 10^-8 s to traverse, the error is on the order
of 10 parts per trillion, and can be easily compensated
for by using another length and subtracting. Of course
a position error of 1 mm would result in an error of
33 ps anyway.


Dirk Vdm


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message news | In sci.physics.relativity, PD
|
| wrote
| on 29 Oct 2005 05:30:16 -0700
| . com:
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "PD" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | wrote:
| | Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings:
| | 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical
| | direction.
| |
| | You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to
| | direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only
| | whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS.
|
| isotropic:
| exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with
| the same values when measured along axes in all directions an
| isotropic crystal velocity:
| the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect
| to time : the derivative of position with respect to time speed:
| magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction
|
| TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0
| OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c
| TWLS OWLS.
|
| Oh, well done, Androcles, you've just demonstrated that Indy500 drivers
| have a speed of zero for each lap they complete.
|
| There's a fair number of issues here, not the least of which is
| the differentiation of vector (velocity) versus scalar (speed).

Correct. Phuckwit Duck doesn't and Phuckwit Einstein didn't
know the difference.


| However, a NASCAR or Indy racer completing 100-500 laps around his
| favorite track (pick one: Indianapolis, Talledega, Atlanta,
| Sears Point), will indeed have an average velocity of zero, which
| is a little odd considering the effort to drive those cars around
| the track, with accelerations nearing 2.5-3 g, if memory serves,
| not to mention fuel consumption, tire wear, and horrific crashes,
| some of which result in driver's deaths. (Dale Earnhart -- #3 --
| was not the first, though he's arguably the most well known.)
|
| Mathematically, one might represent this as:
|
| average velocity = integral(t=0,t_end) v dt

= integral(t=0,t_end) dx/dt .dt

Integral (i.e. sum) of the dx's = 0.


| speed of average velocity = || integral(t=0,t_end) v dt ||

Wrong.
speed of average velocity = |dx/dt|

| average speed = integral(t=0,t_end) ||v|| dt
|
| (This is admittedly somewhat Newtonian, though v(t) might be
| construed as being observed by a stationary observer, who knows
| to compensate for the delay of light between x(t) and himself.

Of course its Newtonian, but the measurement is done at the start/finish line,
the delay in light time is ignored; even from my living room watching on TV
in Britain the delay at the start of the race equals the delay at the end of the race.


| Since the velocity is at most 3 * 10^-7 c the errors are
| minimal for NASCAR examples.)

Not mimimal for cosmic muons, their VELOCITY is 15c.

[snip irrelevant crap]
Androcles.

brian a m stuckless wrote:
ACCELERATiON = (MAGNiTUDE or DiRECTiON CHANGE of VELOCiTY) / DURATiON.

Could you please elucidate your theory of lowercase letters in
otherwise all-capitalized words?!?!!

"dearcilla" wrote in message oups.com...

brian a m stuckless wrote:
ACCELERATiON = (MAGNiTUDE or DiRECTiON CHANGE of VELOCiTY) / DURATiON.

Could you please elucidate your theory of lowercase letters in
otherwise all-capitalized words?!?!!

severe iNFERiORiTY complex.

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in message ...
"dearcilla" wrote in message
oups.com...

[brian a m stuckless aka BS]
ACCELERATiON =
(MAGNiTUDE or DiRECTiON CHANGE of VELOCiTY) / DURATiON.

[Cilla, dear and otherwise]
Could you please elucidate your theory of lowercase letters in
otherwise all-capitalized words?!?!!

[Dirk Vdm aka VD]
severe iNFERiORiTY complex.

Dirk Vdm

[hanson]
Cilla, VD probably does know BS since it appears that
both do sing in the same choir... as castrati.. One in tenor
the other one in semi-baritone.... ahahaha.... BUT,
Let'em sing!... All of'em... It's a beautiful choir....
ahahaha... ahahanson

$ Typo-corrected *ACCELERATiON* Frame-of-Reference (thanks Dirk):
ACCELERATiON = DiRECTiON, or (Velocity-MAGNiTUDE) / DURATiON, change.
o o o o
o o o vector
o o o PROjECTiON
A - - - VELOCiTY vector - - B - - - - - - C
o o o
o o o
o o ..ANY actual PATH o

GUESS *SPEED* is CLEARLY (..ANY actual PATH) / DURATiON.!!
VELOCiTY = (Any measured or imagined VECTOR) / DURATiON.!!
CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH.!!
Any *OTHER two POiNTs* on the *SAME PATH* is a *DiFFERENT* VECTOR.!!

$ Has the FAT lady sung Brian's song.?!!
NO, Dirk. YOU should've HEARD Premier Brian Tobin, TALKiNG.!! WOW.!!
WHAT a ONE-WAY communicator.!! How he STRESSED WORDs, in emphasis.!!

EVERY politician LOVEs to have PROPER emphasis on PRONOUNCED text.!!

You will read MY posts, as if SPEAKiNG, loud & CLEAR, with THRUST.!!
brian a m stuckless

tadchem wrote: David R Tribble wrote: brian a m stuckless wrote:
No.!! No no no.!! DP DooOP.!!
1. "A clock and a ruler are two different things" ..in REAL
life.!! but A clock and a ruler are BOTH objective POiNTmass
things, in GR.

A GR radius r = v^2 / g = v_escape^2 / 2*(n - 1)*g, from
a POiNT A, ON a WORLD-line in SPACE-time, is COMPLETELY
(GR's T_uv CANNOT BE mathematically RELATED to matter,
in any way).!!

PROFOUNDLY, G_uv NO matter ..means NO SPACE-time-curvature
in GR.!!

2. "The measurement of the time of two instants of a clock" ..here
in YOUR example, is Momentum-VELOCiTY *DURATiON* ..a time-duration.

3. You CANNOT know MEASURED CLOCK-POSiTiON A, within PLANCK-length.
$$ DoooOP DOooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De.!!

Show: 1986 VELOCiTY c or the SPEED c "as-MEASURED Least-Squares".!!

CALL.!! CALL iMMEDiATELY.!! iMMEDiATELY.!! ..if you happen to "fix"
any HUP, UP, or GR POiNT A closer than a PLANCK length, lp ..duh.!!

A. HUP, UP or GR Tivity POSiTiON A PLANCK UNcertainty
[ i CANNOT locate POSiTiON A ..to within (+) or (-) lp / 2. ]
[ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A closer than lp = hbar / Mp*c. ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY CLOCK." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY RULER." ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of ANY BALL." ]
*You CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A closer than PLANCK LENGTH.!!

THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT.

B. Heisenberg's UNnecessary UNcertainty Principle
[ HEiSENBERG UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ]
[i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector AT ONCE.]

Heisenberg was NOT WRONG ..just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN,
"Trying to ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vectors, at once!"
brian a m stuckless

Bilge wrote: I was wondering if anybody could help me, --

| PD wrote: 1. A clock and a ruler are two different things.

| wrote:
| 2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return
| to the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why?
| Because it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the
| location of the light ray simultaneously.
About MiRROR-delay Velocity-*DiRECTiON-change* (i.e. acceleration).?!!

Planck out of bag.!! HUP UP Tivity POSiTiON A PLANCK UNcertainty.