On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:58:20 -0400, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:47:07 -0400, "kenseto" wrote:


Here you are talking about absolute time.....the rate of flow of absolute
time is the same in all frames.. However, clock time flows at different
rates in different frames.

Why should clocks be affected by their inertial movement?

Because the time needed to complete a cycle in any clock is dependent on the
speed of arrival of the energy and the speed of arrival of energy is
dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock. The higher is the
state of absolute moiton of the clock the slower is the speed of arrival of
energy. If the clock is moving at the speed of light then there is no energy
arrive to complete a cycle. In this case SR interprets that time stands
still at the speed of light.

Generally there is no 'absolute motion'.

However, you are probably aware that I have never ruled out the possibility
that local 'EM control spheres' exists around massive objects. The existence of
such explains certain aspects of variable star curves as predicted by BaTh.
The spheres could conceivably exhibit 'locally absolute' properties.

The passage of a clock second in A's frame does
not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. That's why
a
clock second contains a different amount of absolute time in different
frames.

Prove it.

The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the
ground clock.

Atomic clock run faster in free fall ....it's purely coincidental.




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:58:20 -0400, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:47:07 -0400, "kenseto"
wrote:


Here you are talking about absolute time.....the rate of flow of
absolute
time is the same in all frames.. However, clock time flows at
different
rates in different frames.

Why should clocks be affected by their inertial movement?

Because the time needed to complete a cycle in any clock is dependent on
the
speed of arrival of the energy and the speed of arrival of energy is
dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock. The higher is the
state of absolute moiton of the clock the slower is the speed of arrival
of
energy. If the clock is moving at the speed of light then there is no
energy
arrive to complete a cycle. In this case SR interprets that time stands
still at the speed of light.

Generally there is no 'absolute motion'.

Assertion is not a scientific arguement.

However, you are probably aware that I have never ruled out the
possibility
that local 'EM control spheres' exists around massive objects. The
existence of
such explains certain aspects of variable star curves as predicted by
BaTh.
The spheres could conceivably exhibit 'locally absolute' properties.

The passage of a clock second in A's frame does
not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. That's
why
a
clock second contains a different amount of absolute time in different
frames.

Prove it.

The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the
ground clock.

Atomic clock run faster in free fall ....it's purely coincidental.

So you just proved that the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not
correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame.




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin
mother.

Bob Cain wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:

Light moves initially at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an object moving
at v
towards the source. It's all so simple really.

Here is some proof:

Here is some counter proof:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Search for the paragraph that starts with "What is the evidence for the
invariance of the speed of light?"

It's incontrovertible. How do you explain the simple observations other
than with the principle of the invariance of light speed?

Seto?


Bob

Henri. Ken. What happened? Did you fail to notice this post? A
response would seem to be in order since it collapses nearly
everything either of you say.

How do you explain the simple observations other than with the
principle of the invariance of light speed?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message ...
Bob Cain wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:

Light moves initially at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an object moving at v
towards the source. It's all so simple really.

Here is some proof:

Here is some counter proof:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Search for the paragraph that starts with "What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light?"

It's incontrovertible. How do you explain the simple observations other than with the principle of the invariance of light
speed?

Seto?


Bob

Henri. Ken. What happened? Did you fail to notice this post?

They hope you fail to notice their pretending to fail to notice it.

A response would seem to be in order since it collapses nearly everything either of you say.

You will not get a response.


How do you explain the simple observations other than with the principle of the invariance of light speed?

They don't.

Dirk Vdm

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:35:50 -0700, Bob Cain wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:

Light moves initially at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an object moving
at v
towards the source. It's all so simple really.

Here is some proof:

Here is some counter proof:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Search for the paragraph that starts with "What is the evidence for the
invariance of the speed of light?"

It's incontrovertible. How do you explain the simple observations other
than with the principle of the invariance of light speed?

Seto?


Bob

Henri. Ken. What happened? Did you fail to notice this post? A
response would seem to be in order since it collapses nearly
everything either of you say.

How do you explain the simple observations other than with the
principle of the invariance of light speed?

These are all TWLS considerations.
The BaTh provides the very reason why TWLS is always measured as constant.
The BaTh explains why RADAR works accurately. The BaTh explains why OWLS is
isotropic in single frame experiments.

Incidentally, the reason why radar takes longer to bounce off Venus when it in
front of the sun is that the Solar wind and radiation slow the light up on the
first leg.

Bob



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On Jun 30, 3:08 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
[...]

Incidentally, the reason why radar takes longer to bounce off Venus when it in
front of the sun is that the Solar wind and radiation slow the light up on the
first leg.

....and is somehow exactly consistent with the Shaprio delay, as
calculated from general relativity. Interesting.


Bob

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:35:50 -0700, Bob Cain wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:

Light moves initially at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an object moving
at v
towards the source. It's all so simple really.

Here is some proof:
Here is some counter proof:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Search for the paragraph that starts with "What is the evidence for the
invariance of the speed of light?"

It's incontrovertible. How do you explain the simple observations other
than with the principle of the invariance of light speed?

Seto?


Bob
Henri. Ken. What happened? Did you fail to notice this post? A
response would seem to be in order since it collapses nearly
everything either of you say.

How do you explain the simple observations other than with the
principle of the invariance of light speed?

These are all TWLS considerations.

Which two ways? They observed from here something that happened there. Nothing
was bounced back and forth. Would've taken far too long to do that even had
there been a reason to do so, which there wasn't.

The BaTh provides the very reason why TWLS is always measured as constant.
The BaTh explains why RADAR works accurately. The BaTh explains why OWLS is
isotropic in single frame experiments.

Nothing to do with the question I asked.

How do you explain the observations, which were all one way, other than by the
constancy of the speed of light?


Incidentally, the reason why radar takes longer to bounce off Venus when it in
front of the sun is that the Solar wind and radiation slow the light up on the
first leg.

That's incidental for sure but of no relevance.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:52:04 -0700, Bob Cain wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:35:50 -0700, Bob Cain wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:

Light moves initially at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an object moving
at v
towards the source. It's all so simple really.

Here is some proof:
Here is some counter proof:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Search for the paragraph that starts with "What is the evidence for the
invariance of the speed of light?"

It's incontrovertible. How do you explain the simple observations other
than with the principle of the invariance of light speed?

Seto?


Bob
Henri. Ken. What happened? Did you fail to notice this post? A
response would seem to be in order since it collapses nearly
everything either of you say.

How do you explain the simple observations other than with the
principle of the invariance of light speed?

These are all TWLS considerations.

Which two ways? They observed from here something that happened there. Nothing
was bounced back and forth. Would've taken far too long to do that even had
there been a reason to do so, which there wasn't.

The BaTh provides the very reason why TWLS is always measured as constant.
The BaTh explains why RADAR works accurately. The BaTh explains why OWLS is
isotropic in single frame experiments.

Nothing to do with the question I asked.

How do you explain the observations, which were all one way, other than by the
constancy of the speed of light?

Not one of them is a OW light speed experiment involving a moving source.

I doubt if you would know why.

Incidentally, the reason why radar takes longer to bounce off Venus when it in
front of the sun is that the Solar wind and radiation slow the light up on the
first leg.

That's incidental for sure but of no relevance.


Bob



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

Henri Wilson wrote:

Not one of them is a OW light speed experiment involving a moving source.

It is an observation, not an experiment and what was observed was lots of moving
sources originally having the nearly the same location in space and having
accelerated to their speeds relative to that location at very close to the same
point in time.

The observation showed that their motion was not additive to the speed of the
light that they emitted. The light only traveled one way: from there to here.

Did you actually read the part of what Ned Wright wrote about that which I cited?

I doubt if you would know why.

Your doubt is well founded. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:39:01 -0700, Bob Cain wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

Not one of them is a OW light speed experiment involving a moving source.

It is an observation, not an experiment and what was observed was lots of moving
sources originally having the nearly the same location in space and having
accelerated to their speeds relative to that location at very close to the same
point in time.

Hahaha!
Which experiment was that?


The observation showed that their motion was not additive to the speed of the
light that they emitted. The light only traveled one way: from there to here.

Did you actually read the part of what Ned Wright wrote about that which I cited?

I doubt if you would know why.

Your doubt is well founded. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why.


Bob



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.