"kenseto" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 11:07 am, PD wrote:
On Jan 3, 9:29 am, kenseto wrote:





On Jan 2, 11:33 am, PD wrote:

On Jan 2, 10:31 am, PD wrote:

On Jan 2, 9:22 am, kenseto wrote:

On Jan 1, 1:11 am, The Ghost In The Machine

No the new standard is circular. It uses the clock second to
measure
length when they know full well that a clock second has different
duration in different frames.

That's OK. The standard isn't supposed to work in different frames.
It
is only supposed to work in the frame in which the reference is at
rest. That is explicitly written in the instruction manual.

PD

BTW, this was true for the platinum-iridium bar standard as well. It
only works as a standard in the frame in which it is at rest. In any
other reference frame it is not a good standard. Everyone knows that.

The platium-iridium bar is a much better universal standard for length
than the rubber standard based on a light-second.

Not true. The instructions for the platinum-iridium bar are exactly
the same as the present standard. It can only be taken to be standard
if it is used at rest. It is no better in this regard, and it is
inferior in other regards (precision, durability, reproducibility).
You apparently have no understanding of the latter and why that's
important.


Hey idiot....the light based standard is a rubber standard.

No .. it uses the constant speed of light (which you agree is a constant in
all iFoR) and the constant second (which is also the same in every iFoR as
it is defined for a clock at rest in that frame) and calculates the metre
length from that. There is nothing 'rubber' about it, as neither the speed
of light, nor a second, varies dependant on the iFoR in which it is
measured.

Each
observer claims that the light path length of his meter stick is one
meter long

Because it is .. its length is 1m and the path light travels along that
stick (at rest) is 1m (it has to be)

.....that's why an observer predicts that other light based
standard is foreshortend.

What other light based standard?