I gave a link, you cannot be bothered to read it, so I won't bother to explain it. Find an error in the proof at the link, then come back. I will now be waiting forever, for this person to come back (with error in hand). See i know the future. Hence it follows that I know things you do not, since you are unable to know bits of the future which i know.
that can't be. the clocks A and B are moving WRT (with respect to) clock L. clocks A and B cannot be synchonised with eachother and clock L. can anyone back me up on this?
I have not read Johnny5's postyou are replying to, so I cant be sure of the details, but think you are on solid ground. It is impossible to make clocks indifferent frame stay in sync; however you must understand that this does not prevent you from using SRT to make a correction, {which in case MacM is reading needs only the relative velocity (gravity effects being neglected as with gravity also different it is a GR correction) between the two frames to calculate this correction}, that will permit them to both stay in sync after the corrections is applied. E.g. If I view the clocks in the moving frame as ticking only 1000 times when my identical clock has made 1100 ticks, then to "sync" the moving frame clocks with mine, I just add 10% to his total of ticks. NOte and this is important, now single correction exist that will make the moving frames clocks sync with both the clocks on Earth and Mars (unless the Mars clocks have had a correction applied to them to "sync" them to Earths first; but that is two different "corrections" so not an exception to the statment that no single correction will sync clocks in three different frames.) PS: I no long read any of Johnny5's posts, I will add him to my "don't display" list soon as I can get arround to it. His nonsense, poorly explained, and illogical posts are taking up to much space in my display of posts.
Baloney. On the end points of the two frames we can install clocks that will be trggered, synchronized by mechanical switches as the frames move wrt each other as described. The switrhes cannot possibly reflect what SRT predicts, this is beyond "counter intutitve" this is attermpted scientific fraud. Simply install mechanical switches at the end points of the two frames such that when end points are colocated (A'B, B'B B'A A'A) the mechanical switches trigger detection of the respective points. Thee is nothing about simultaneity applicable here here, as we are looking only at one measurement at a time and single event processes are not subject to a simultaneity difference, are they? Moment in time X A____________________B ..................................A`____B` Moment in time Y A____________________B ........................A`____B` Moment in time Z A____________________B A`____B` There is one measurement at a time if there is such a thing as frame contraction. Each frame can make detections and compare the results as there can be only one measurement at a time. Fee dundt knead eine Uberzeitplatz, ja, vertlich. There seems to be a contradiction of sorts among us, bigger than a paradox certainly, and fatal if swallowed, or even tasted. The disagreement is more than "realtivity". The disagreement describes the bullshit claims of SRT.Can you demonstrate the physics that supports your claim, or is the word "relativity" enough science for you to offer us today? Geistkiesel
I jhave traveled on the same road J5, You got banned because you were getting too close to their "precious", you probably weren't properly "humble", you prolly showed some sarcasm when they threw bull shit at you, you weren't opened up to the acceptance of their acceptance. How could anyone reject what they have accepted? This is an insult, so they punish. Prolly the biggest fault of your exile commission is that they tried to open uo their minds just a little bit too far and their brains fell out. Having only a half dozen or so brain cells to begin with, you can appreciate the extent of the perturbation to their "thinking" (though I am sure they didn't refer to the process as "thinking" as they don't know what that is, they hadn't a clue ) when all spilled onto the floor . Sometimes, though one can sense a disturbance seeping through the cracks, a quizzical look perhaps, a pasty faced confused expression as they contemplate the 'sense of a glimpse' of something more, something seeping through the craxxckssss a tad of biggerness than that which they have experienced thus far. When Jimii Hendrix sang his most famous song did he sing,"Excuse me while I kiss the sky", or did he sing "Excuse me while I kiss this guy"? Geistkiesel
Billy T, I am indeed reading and find it a surprise that you could make such innuendo. I have never said clocks in motion could not be synchronized. I have infact presented considerable detail as to how GPS synchronizes such clocks and have also pointed out that the ONE way synchronazation by prelaunch adjustment of the orbit clock invalidates the reciprocity claim of SRT as advocated by James R and others. If indeed reciprocity were physical fact THEN such clocks could not be synchronized.
Baloney. On the end points of the two frames we can install clocks that will be trggered, synchronized by mechanical switches as the frames move wrt each other as described. The switrhes cannot possibly reflect what SRT predicts, this is beyond "counter intutitve" this is attempted scientific fraud. There seems to be a contradiction of sorts among us, bigger than a paradox certainly, and fatal if swallowed, or even tasted. The disagreement is more than "realtivity".The disagreement describes the bullshit claims of SRT.Can you demonstrate the physics that supports your claim, or is the word "relativity" enough science for you to share with us today? You must prove that you cannot synchronize clocks correct? What if there had been careful experiments that were able to detect the amount of frame contraction on both frames when movng at the velocity stated such that the end points were carefully determined to within a wavelength of an x-ray from the styationary embankment frame? Then the calibration of clocks wouldd be a trivial matter would it not?. Or could not the moving frames do the "sycnch" themselves. Simply conduct the experiment as J5 described it, when the points meet (are colocated) have the mechanical connection trigger the appropriate end of each frame that is disturbed. For instance an A'B combination is unique and different than an AA' contact yet all have a common zero and as both ends of both frames can be detected simultabneously wrt the embankment at least, each frame can test the events thought to occur in their respective frames.. Basically, you cannot hide this thread in some simultaneity context especially when it is inapplicable as defined by SRT. I did not use the "scientific fraud" statement above lightly (pun intended). Either I am completely wrong about the use of your simultaneity argument using SRT or you are wrong. You cannot be both "merely mistaken" and consciously mistaken", where the latter "mistake" would make you a bad person [if uttered knowing the SRT description of simultaneity is other than you expressed]. Is the matter worth persuing on the question of simultaneity. I am not seeking to prove you in the latter catagory whioch would be most diffivcult a task to acomplish. GThe onkly waay I could oprove you ophonied up thje argument would be by a confession, so do that only with extreme caution. I soaked myself in the subject a while back and feel competent to challenge you. I make one promise, if I am in error here I will be the first to admit it, errori in misreading SRT interpretation of the subject in the cirrent context (which I feel is bogus to begin with). This is not what would be doing, however, I mean attacking simultaneity itself. I will confine myself to the simple application you asserted in the current context oK? . I start by asserting the single point contact is smultaneous in all inertial frames as described by the J5 gedanken., hence simultaneity arguments offered in opposition to J5's claim are inappropriate. Geistkiesel
sorry, I am still having trouble with this. how can clock A start at the same time as L, read the same as L at the end of motion, and tick at the same speed? that is basically saying the dilation never happens.
I did not mean any "innuendo" - I was trying to be specific and clear. I did not say you telling that clocks in motion could not be sychronized. Read my post again. I think you have made it very clear that clock in two different frames can be sychronized if a correction is applied to one, and I agree with you here. But the point I was making is that the "correction" need only consider SRT and the relative velocity between the two frames (again with the simplifcation that they are both in the same gravity field - lets not get into GR, which i do not fully understand.) It is this that I understand you do ot agree with. I think you want the correction to be made with "component velocities" and some, at least for me, very ill defined frame wrt which these "component velocities" must be measured. Sorry I could not edit immediately - hope you see this revised post. Quite farnkly, you are the smartest "crackpot" I know (with possible exception of my self in the field of cognitive science, not physics, where I am deinitely a "crackpot" also.)
He wasn't replying to anything I wrote, his response was to someone else. Your assumption that he was responding to me, which is false, has now led you to ignore my posts, which if you would have actually bothered to read, would have kept you from making your error. My main post comes at the beginning of this thread, and you have not written a single thing throughout the thread, which addresses a blatant error in SR theory. Well done.
sorry if I just assumed it was you because of you frequent activity. As penance, I will read some more of your post.
Here is where your assumptions go wrong. I agree we are arbitrarily limiting this discussion to velocity affects and not GR but FYI the GR affect induces a +45us/day gain in the orbit clock. The velocity affect causes a -7.2us/day loss or dilation in the orbit clock and consequently the net prelaunch correction calibration is to slow the orbit clock by approximately 38us/day. The error I mention is your inclusion of SRT in the statement highlighted in red. To include SRT you must be referring to a two point referance where reciprocity would be advocated. It is only velocity affect and the gamma it induces. The velocity being considered is not within any SRT relative velocity frame between clocks. This is a three point referance having a common preferred rest frame. That is there is no direct gamma calculation due to relative velocity between clocks but only a gamma due to velocity relative to the center of the earth. This is a form of "Absolute" velocity, since the center of the earth is taken as a local rest frame. Which prohibits the claims of SRT of there being reciprocity in time dilation. This has nothing to do with what I want but how it physically works and why. A clock on the earth's surface located on the equator has a velocity some 400 m/s (V1) and the velocity of orbit some 3,800m/s (V2). The relative velocity between these two is approximately 3,400 m/s (V3). If you use SRT and take the gamma of V3 (direct relative velocity) you get -5.8us/day, and incorrect value. GPS uses the gamma of V2, along with many other factors and gets the correct value (which matches emperical data). GPS does not use my system entirely which is Gamma Effective = Gamma V2 / Gamma V1 but I note that Gamma V1 only makes less than a 0.1 us/day change. That is gamma of orbit is sufficient but more importantly my view is still measureably consistant with emperical data and most importantly the SRT view of direct relative velocity is measureably excluded as a methodology. HeHe, I'll accept that as a compliment.
What is so difficult to understand about "They Did" but that it was GR and Lorentz Velocity affect but NOT Einstien's Special Relativity.?
