On June 28, Stan Fultoni wrote:
>>>> "My theory says that sticks contract and and time dilates for moving
>>>> objects. We've seen subatomic particles live longer when they move
>>>> fast. Therefore we know that sticks contract."
>
>>> No, the situation is that, by elementary logic, applied to the most thoroughly verified
>>> physical principles ever known,

'principles' are in the eye of the beholder, an invention of the
human mind. If they have any (tentative) validity, they must be based on
OBSERVATION; like, for instance, measuring the transformed lengths of moving sticks -

'principles' do not substitute for experiments, they're a GUIDE to new hypotheses,
and the planning of experiments. The experiments then STRENGTHEN the principles
(or not), not the other way round!

Grown up scientists understand this.

>>> it follows that standard inertial coordinate systems must
>>> be related by a transformation involving a constant k, and this is the only logical degree of
>>> freedom, and if k = 1/c^2, all the relativistic effects follow logically and unavoidably. Any
>>> measurement of k suffices to determine all these.

Measure k, good plan... like, by measuring the contracted length of moving sticks?

>>> Of course, you can deny logic and rationality,
>>> The empirical foundation of relativistic length contraction is no less firm
>>> than the empirical foundation of any other physical fact,
>>> all of which rely on logic and reason to bridge the gap between the solipsistic world of raw
>>> sense impressions and statements about an objective world.

We bridge the gap, between ourselves an objective world... you mean, the
objective world of Heisenberg and John Bell, which exists independently
of observers, consciousness, or measurements? It's just "out there", objectively,
and we learn of it, through logic and reason?

>> You construct a straw man, going off on tangents.
>> Relativity predicts that moving sticks shorten.
>
> Right.
>> No one has lab measured moving sticks to see if they shorten.
>
> False. For example, the arms of a Michelson interferometer are moving sticks,
> and they have been carefully measured and found to be shortened in the direction
> of motion, just as predicted. Your brain imagines that this is metaphysically “indirect”
> in a way that other measurements of other things are not, but that’s just thoughtlessly
> naïve.

The arms of an interferometer are moving, relative to some reference frame
and coordinate system? That's news to me.

Explain, please. Then let me decide what my brain classifies as indirect, or not.

--
Rich

Le 20/06/2022 à 22:11, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> Sorry, stupid Mike, having GPS we can be absolutely sure
> that clocks generally ignore your "proper time" idiocy.

Merci Maciej,

But, it's not nonsense. There really are notions of "proper time" and
"time observable by others" in our universe. But there are idiocies in the
theory of relativity in the sense that relativists don't explain things
clearly, or explain things that are downright wrong.
For example, they can say the right things, like the fact that a cosmonaut
goes into the stars at a constant speed of 0.8c (240000km/s), and over a
distance of 24 light years. They will calculate that the cosmonaut will
put an observable time in our terrestrial universe of To=x/v or 24/0.8=30
years.
They will also correctly calculate that the other twin will take 18 years
of his own time (or real time).
So they're not just talking nonsense. But it's when you ask them to
explain things clearly that it no longer works. There they gradually enter
into idiocies and paradoxes. That's what's annoying. They have a true
theory, but they completely smash his face thinking they're smarter than
Richard Hachel. In this they are arrogant.
Arrogant unaware of their arrogance, because they have "diplomas". But
very arrogant all the same, even mean when we show them their conceptual
errors, or when we explain certain natural phenomena much better than them
(quantum effect at a distance, absurdity of the time-gap in apparent
speed, proper time incorrectly calculated in accelerated repositories).
There, the problem is no longer scientific, but perfectly human, and
purely arrogant.

R.H.

Le 29/06/2022 à 23:30, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> On Wednesday, 29 June 2022 at 19:36:34 UTC+2, Python wrote:
>> Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
>> > Le 29/06/2022 à 10:53, Mikko a écrit :
>> >>> You construct a straw man, going off on tangents.
>> >>>
>> >>> I state two facts:
>> >>> Relativity predicts that moving sticks shorten.
>> >>> No one has lab measured moving sticks to see if they shorten.
>> >>
>> >> As already noted, so far all evidence is indirect.
>> >>
>> >> However, if you assume that moving sticks don't shorten or shorten more
>> >> or less than predicted by Special and General Relevativity you cannot
>> >> understand what has been observed, in particular source independence of
>> >> the speed of light, Michelson-Morley experiment, and aberration of
>> >> star light.
>> >>
>> >> Mikko
>> >
>> > What I would like people to understand and admit is that the special
>> > theory of relativity can no longer be put, at least fundamentally in doubt.
>> >
>> > That would be the first thing.
>> >
>> > Too many people still doubt that "something is happening" when going
>> > very fast.
>> >
>> > But that's not all. There is the other side of the scale, that is to say
>> > those who, on the contrary, swallow everything.
>> >
>> > The truth is between the two.
>> >
>> > And what is most obvious is that the terms are often much too imprecise.
>> >
>> > We speak of the contraction of distances: that is badly said.
>> >
>> > We talk about time dilation: it's badly said.
>> >
>> > One speaks of aberration of the light of the stars, it is badly said.
>> >
>> > We must use truer and clearer terms, and the equations that go with them
>> > (and not truncated equations).
>> >
>> > I speak of elasticity of distances and lengths.
>> >
>> > I set L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)/(1+cosµ.v/c)
>> > and not L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>> >
>> > I talk about time elasticity and I put t'=t(1+cosµv/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and
>> > not t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>> >
>> > I speak of aberration of the POSITION of the stars and not of the "light
>> > of the stars", which does not mean anything.
>> >
>> > I have always tried to teach things that are clearer, simpler and truer.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, I didn't succeed.
>> This is not surprising. It is obvious that you don't even try
>
>
> Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
> and trying to pretend he knows something.

Oui.

C'est tout le problème.

R.H.

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
>
> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
>
> Here's the list of experiments:
> 1. Hafele-Keating
> 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> 4. Muon experiments
> 5. University of Maryland
> 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> 9. Van Baak - 2005
> 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> 11. Van Baak - 2016
> 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
>
> Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?

These experiments assumed that a clock second represents a constant amount of time in different frames......it does not. For example:
Delta (A) = gamma*Delta(B)
This equation says that a second on the A clock is worth gamma seconds on the B clock. The means that a clock second does not represent a constant amount of time in different frames.
CONNCLUSION:
A CLOCK SECOND DOES NOT REPRESENT A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN DIFFERENT FRAES.

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 9:09:00 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> >
> > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> >
> > Here's the list of experiments:
> > 1. Hafele-Keating
> > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> > 4. Muon experiments
> > 5. University of Maryland
> > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> > 9. Van Baak - 2005
> > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> > 11. Van Baak - 2016
> > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
> >
> > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?
>
> These experiments assumed that a clock second represents a constant amount of time in different frames......it does not. For example:
> Delta (A) = gamma*Delta(B)
> This equation says that a second on the A clock is worth gamma seconds on the B clock. The means that a clock second does not represent a constant amount of time in different frames.
> CONNCLUSION:
> A CLOCK SECOND DOES NOT REPRESENT A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN DIFFERENT FRAES.

Your statements are gibberish. You seem to be arguing against YOURSELF.

The experiments assumed that a clock second represents a DIFFERENT
amount of time in different frames. The difference is determined by the
velocity and/or gravity present in different frames. In all frames, the speed
of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. But velocity and gravity change
the length of a second.

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 9:09:00 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> > > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> > > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> > > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> > >
> > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> > >
> > > Here's the list of experiments:
> > > 1. Hafele-Keating
> > > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> > > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> > > 4. Muon experiments
> > > 5. University of Maryland
> > > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> > > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> > > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> > > 9. Van Baak - 2005
> > > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> > > 11. Van Baak - 2016
> > > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
> > >
> > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> > > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?
> >
> > These experiments assumed that a clock second represents a constant amount of time in different frames......it does not. For example:
> > Delta (A) = gamma*Delta(B)
> > This equation says that a second on the A clock is worth gamma seconds on the B clock. The means that a clock second does not represent a constant amount of time in different frames.
> > CONNCLUSION:
> > A CLOCK SECOND DOES NOT REPRESENT A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN DIFFERENT FRAES.
>
> Your statements are gibberish. You seem to be arguing against YOURSELF.
>
> The experiments assumed that a clock second represents a DIFFERENT
> amount of time in different frames. The difference is determined by the
> velocity and/or gravity present in different frames. In all frames, the speed
> of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. But velocity and gravity change
> the length of a second.
>
> Ed

Are you're sure time dilation is caused by time and not...by gravity?

i mean, if you drop a ball on the moon, it drops slower than if
you dropped the ball on the earth.

A clock runs slower on the moon than the earth.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Le 01/07/2022 à 19:00, Ed Lake a écrit :

> In all frames, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.

It is enough to forget a single word for your sentence to be false or
incomprehensible.

You forgot the word "transversal".

"In all frames, the transversal speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER
SECOND" is better.

> Ed

R.H.

On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 2:51:39 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> 'principles' ... must be based on OBSERVATION...

Of course they are. Physical principles, like conservation of momentum or Galileo's principle of relativity are distillations of the most solidly confirmed observational facts. The notion that they're merely postulated out of thin air is idiotic.

> ...like, for instance, measuring the transformed lengths of moving sticks -

No, that's idiotic, as has already been explained to you. Again, all of the relativistic effects combined have just a single degree of observational freedom, given the empirically established physical principles along with simple logic and reason, neither of which are dispensable for doing science.

>> it follows that standard inertial coordinate systems must be related
>> by a transformation involving a constant k, and this is the only logical
>> degree of freedom, and if k = 1/c^2, all the relativistic effects follow
>> logically and unavoidably. Any measurement of k suffices to determine all these.
>
> Measure k, good plan...

Right.

> like, by measuring the contracted length of moving sticks?

Again, that's idiotic. Try to concentrate: What is length? It is the spatial distance between the leading and trailing ends of the object *at the same time*, meaning the same value of the time coordinate. But we are not referring to arbitrary coordinate systems, we are referring to systems in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good in the low speed limit. Now, we obviously get different values of length in terms of mutually skewed temporal foliations (exercise), so the existence of length contraction is logically equivalent (exercise) to the relativity of simultaneity, which is logically equivalent (exercise) to the inertia of energy.

So, to measure length contraction, it is both necessary and sufficient logically (exercise) to show that an object subjected to a constant force does not undergo constant acceleration as in Newtonian physics, but actually asymptotically approaches the speed c. See particle accelerator experiments, beginning in the early 1900's with Kaufmann, et al. This determines that k=1/c^2, which determines that the standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which determines time dilation, length contraction, and the skew of simultaneity.

>> Of course, you can deny logic and rationality...The empirical foundation of
>> relativistic length contraction is no less firm than the empirical foundation
>> of any other physical fact, all of which rely on logic and reason to bridge the
>> gap between the solipsistic world of raw sense impressions and statements about
>> an objective world.
>
> ... you mean, the objective world ... which exists independently of observers,
> consciousness, or measurements? It's just "out there", objectively,

Right, the concept that solipsists like you and other 14-year old boys deny, and which they try to defend with your mangled sound bites from discussions of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Yawn.

> The arms of an interferometer are moving, relative to some reference frame
> and coordinate system? That's news to me.

Is it? That's remarkable. I urge you to acquaint yourself with the subject you are talking about... preferably before you talk about it.

> Explain, please.

Explain that Michelson's interferometer is moving in terms of some system of coordinates? Is your incredulity at this fact an example of the quality of your thought processes?

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> In all frames, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.

To be precise, in terms of every standard inertial reference system, the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value of c.

> But velocity and gravity change the length of a second.

Special relativity accounts for the invariance of the speed of light in terms of standard inertial reference systems by means of time dilation and length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity. Time dilation ("the length of a second") by itself is not sufficient to account for this invariance. All three ingredients that Einstein described in his 1905 paper are required.

Le 01/07/2022 à 21:08, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>> In all frames, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.
>
> To be precise, in terms of every standard inertial reference system, the speed
> of light (in vacuum) has the value of c.
>
>> But velocity and gravity change the length of a second.
>
> Special relativity accounts for the invariance of the speed of light in terms of
> standard inertial reference systems by means of time dilation and length
> contraction and the relativity of simultaneity. Time dilation ("the length of a
> second") by itself is not sufficient to account for this invariance. All three
> ingredients that Einstein described in his 1905 paper are required.

Even what Einstein says in his paper is not enough.

You have to read what Hachel says (but for that, you have to have an open
mind, that is to say not arrogant; and you have to have an intelligent
mind, that is to say not to be stupid).

Let's take the dilation of time, and put ourselves in the place of the
cosmonaut in the Langevin. And a few hours, it will arrive close to the
estre to circumvent, it will circumvent it, and to return towards the
ground.

What happens in terms of time?

Nothing, or not much.

He is nine years old when he begins his U-turn, and he is still nine years
old when he completes his U-turn.

And for the earth (hold on tight to the ramp my friends), the cosmonaut
sees that it marks three years when he is about to start his half-turn,
and it ALWAYS marks three years when he ends his half-turn.

Nothing (or almost) happens at the TIME level.

The reciprocal contractions and expansions of time take place DURING the
journey.

I've explained it a thousand times here.

But what about DISTANCES?

This is where the point of the argument lies (Richard Hachel Copyrights).

If the distance in the terrestrial reference frame is 12 ly, there will be
an extraordinary relativistic zoom effect for the twin when it goes from
0.8c to -0.8c.

That is to say that before turning he sees the land at 4ly ​​(I say 4
ly, there is no mistake on my part), and when he has finished his turn, he
sees the land at 36ly (I'm not mistaken, I said 36ly).

This Einstein did not say.

Why?

Because he hadn't understood it.

His relativistic work is mathematical, mine is physical.

I SEE and I conceive my space-time.

It allows me to talk about it and teach it.

R.H.

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 1:07:25 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 9:09:00 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> > > > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> > > > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> > > > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> > > >
> > > > Here's the list of experiments:
> > > > 1. Hafele-Keating
> > > > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> > > > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> > > > 4. Muon experiments
> > > > 5. University of Maryland
> > > > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> > > > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> > > > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> > > > 9. Van Baak - 2005
> > > > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> > > > 11. Van Baak - 2016
> > > > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
> > > >
> > > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> > > > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?
> > >
> > > These experiments assumed that a clock second represents a constant amount of time in different frames......it does not. For example:
> > > Delta (A) = gamma*Delta(B)
> > > This equation says that a second on the A clock is worth gamma seconds on the B clock. The means that a clock second does not represent a constant amount of time in different frames.
> > > CONNCLUSION:
> > > A CLOCK SECOND DOES NOT REPRESENT A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN DIFFERENT FRAES.
> >
> > Your statements are gibberish. You seem to be arguing against YOURSELF.
> >
> > The experiments assumed that a clock second represents a DIFFERENT
> > amount of time in different frames. The difference is determined by the
> > velocity and/or gravity present in different frames. In all frames, the speed
> > of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. But velocity and gravity change
> > the length of a second.
> >
> > Ed
> Are you're sure time dilation is caused by time and not...by gravity?

Time dilation is caused by velocity AND gravity.

>
> i mean, if you drop a ball on the moon, it drops slower than if
> you dropped the ball on the earth.

That's because there is less gravity on the moon. The moon has
only 1.2% of the mass of the earth.

>
> A clock runs slower on the moon than the earth.

No, a clock runs FASTER on the moon than on the earth because
there is less gravity on the moon.

The moon is moving at 2,300 mph around the earth, while the
earth spins at 1,040 mph. But the moon's mass is only 1.2% of
the earth's mass. So, clocks will definitely run FASTER on the moon.

Ed

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 1:18:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 01/07/2022 à 19:00, Ed Lake a écrit :
>
> > In all frames, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.
> It is enough to forget a single word for your sentence to be false or
> incomprehensible.
>
> You forgot the word "transversal".
>
> "In all frames, the transversal speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER
> SECOND" is better.
>
> > Ed
>
> R.H.

I shouldn't have mentioned "frames." In the "frame" of an oncoming
moving body, light from another body will hit at c+v. But if someone is
stupid enough to consider that moving "frame" to be stationary, they
will also claim that the light is arriving at a speed faster than the speed
of light.

"Transversal" is defined as "a line that intersects a system of lines."
Only a mathematician would want to use that word.

Ed

On Friday, 1 July 2022 at 21:47:10 UTC+2, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> > Are you're sure time dilation is caused by time and not...by gravity?
> Time dilation is caused by velocity AND gravity.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your insane bunch GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:08:32 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > In all frames, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.
> To be precise, in terms of every standard inertial reference system, the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value of c.

If you are in a "standard inertial reference system" moving AWAY from
the sun, light from the sun will APPEAR to travel at c. And YOU will
emit light at c.

If you are in a "standard inertial reference system" moving TOWARD the
sun, if you measure the speed of light from the sun as arriving at c, you
are doing something wrong. It should arrive at c+v, where c is the speed
of the light from the sun and v is your speed toward the sun.

> > But velocity and gravity change the length of a second.
> Special relativity accounts for the invariance of the speed of light in terms of standard inertial reference systems by means of time dilation and length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity. Time dilation ("the length of a second") by itself is not sufficient to account for this invariance. All three ingredients that Einstein described in his 1905 paper are required.

The faster an object moves, the longer a second is for that object.
All you need to have is some object to compare your speed against.

Ed

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:55:41 PM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 1 July 2022 at 21:47:10 UTC+2, wrote:
>
> > > Are you're sure time dilation is caused by time and not...by gravity?
> > Time dilation is caused by velocity AND gravity.
> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> by your insane bunch GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t,
> just like all serious clocks always did.

How the GPS system is MADE to agree with clocks on earth has been
explained to you many times.

There are 400 clocks in the TAI system. Each ticks at its own rate,
depending upon its altitude and latitude. TAI time is an AVERAGE time.

"TAI does not take into account the variations in Earth's rotation speed,
which determines the true length of a day."

Source: https://www.timeanddate.com/time/international-atomic-time.html

Ed

Le 01/07/2022 à 21:54, Ed Lake a écrit :
> I shouldn't have mentioned "frames." In the "frame" of an oncoming
> moving body, light from another body will hit at c+v. But if someone is
> stupid enough to consider that moving "frame" to be stationary, they
> will also claim that the light is arriving at a speed faster than the speed
> of light.
>
> "Transversal" is defined as "a line that intersects a system of lines."
> Only a mathematician would want to use that word.

You don't understand the relativist idea.

You speak of an "other person" who is heading towards me at speed v, and
who is sending me an electromagnetic signal.

There are two errors of thought.

The first is to believe that v'=v+c
That's not how it works.

I gave, a long time ago, the general addition equation of relativistic
velocities.

This equation has been accepted by all relativistic physicists in the
world.

I therefore do not reconsider its validity.

Second, tell you about another person who is coming towards me, sending a
signal.

I told you that in this case the light moves infinitely fast, hence the
aphorism "From the horse in this meadow, to the most distant galaxies, we
observe the universe directly-live".

In this case, whatever the speed v of this other person, we instinctively
understand that the infinite speed of light will remain constant and
infinite.

Thank you for listening.

R.H.

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 3:29:13 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 01/07/2022 à 21:54, Ed Lake a écrit :
> > I shouldn't have mentioned "frames." In the "frame" of an oncoming
> > moving body, light from another body will hit at c+v. But if someone is
> > stupid enough to consider that moving "frame" to be stationary, they
> > will also claim that the light is arriving at a speed faster than the speed
> > of light.
> >
> > "Transversal" is defined as "a line that intersects a system of lines."
> > Only a mathematician would want to use that word.
> You don't understand the relativist idea.
>
> You speak of an "other person" who is heading towards me at speed v, and
> who is sending me an electromagnetic signal.
>
> There are two errors of thought.
>
> The first is to believe that v'=v+c
> That's not how it works.
>
> I gave, a long time ago, the general addition equation of relativistic
> velocities.
>
> This equation has been accepted by all relativistic physicists in the
> world.
>
> I therefore do not reconsider its validity.
>
> Second, tell you about another person who is coming towards me, sending a
> signal.
>
> I told you that in this case the light moves infinitely fast, hence the
> aphorism "From the horse in this meadow, to the most distant galaxies, we
> observe the universe directly-live".
>
> In this case, whatever the speed v of this other person, we instinctively
> understand that the infinite speed of light will remain constant and
> infinite.
>
> Thank you for listening.
>
> R.H.

No, constant and having an upper bound in space terms, with respect to
motion, in terms of the image component, and, the energy component.

Which in the classical are one component, that any difference is
"infinitesimal", in continuous terms, and "quantized" or "after
the quantization effect" in discrete terms. (Between the coherency
of image and coherency or state, of energy.)

The image is basically intangible. It has a real source -
where imaging points to the image while gravity points to the source.

In theories with gravity, ....

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 1:07:19 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> If you are in a "standard inertial reference system" moving AWAY from
> the sun, light from the sun will APPEAR to travel at c. And YOU will
> emit light at c.

The correct statement is that, in terms of every standard inertial reference system, the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value of c. As Einstein emphasized, this is true regardless of the state of motion of the standard inertial reference system.

> If you are in a "standard inertial reference system" moving TOWARD the
> sun, if you measure the speed of light from the sun ... it should arrive at c+v,
> where c is the speed of the light from the sun and v is your speed toward the sun.

Nope, as Einstein stressed, and as has been thoroughly verified by experiment, the speed of every pulse of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. This is possible only because the relationship between standard inertial reference systems entails time dilation, length contraction, and the skew of simultaneity. Time dilation ("the length of a second") by itself is not sufficient to account for this invariance. All three ingredients that Einstein described in his 1905 paper are required.

> The faster an object moves, the longer a second is for that object.

Well, the rate of proper time along a moving worldline in terms of a standard inertial reference system is indeed lower for faster moving worldlines, but time dilation *by itself* is far too small (and even in the wrong direction in some cases) to account for the fact that a closing speed of c +- v has the value c in terms of the every standard system of inertial coordinates. The only way to account for the invariance of light speed is as Einstein explained, i.e., by length contraction, time dilation, and the skew of simultaneity. So far you've only glimpsed one of the three ingredients.

Le 02/07/2022 à 01:35, Stan Fultoni a écrit :
> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 1:07:19 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
>> If you are in a "standard inertial reference system" moving AWAY from
>> the sun, light from the sun will APPEAR to travel at c. And YOU will
>> emit light at c.
>
> The correct statement is that, in terms of every standard inertial reference
> system, the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value of c. As Einstein
> emphasized, this is true regardless of the state of motion of the standard
> inertial reference system.
>
>> If you are in a "standard inertial reference system" moving TOWARD the
>> sun, if you measure the speed of light from the sun ... it should arrive at c+v,
>>
>> where c is the speed of the light from the sun and v is your speed toward the
>> sun.
>
> Nope, as Einstein stressed, and as has been thoroughly verified by experiment,
> the speed of every pulse of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every
> standard inertial reference system. This is possible only because the
> relationship between standard inertial reference systems entails time dilation,
> length contraction, and the skew of simultaneity. Time dilation ("the length of a
> second") by itself is not sufficient to account for this invariance. All three
> ingredients that Einstein described in his 1905 paper are required.
>
>> The faster an object moves, the longer a second is for that object.
>
> Well, the rate of proper time along a moving worldline in terms of a standard
> inertial reference system is indeed lower for faster moving worldlines, but time
> dilation *by itself* is far too small (and even in the wrong direction in some
> cases) to account for the fact that a closing speed of c +- v has the value c in
> terms of the every standard system of inertial coordinates. The only way to
> account for the invariance of light speed is as Einstein explained, i.e., by
> length contraction, time dilation, and the skew of simultaneity. So far you've
> only glimpsed one of the three ingredients.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?wLbQUlJ2dph2kCcCg2Ek1RWAWf8@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H.

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 4:35:01 PM UTC-7, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 1:07:19 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > If you are in a "standard inertial reference system" moving AWAY from
> > the sun, light from the sun will APPEAR to travel at c. And YOU will
> > emit light at c.
> The correct statement is that, in terms of every standard inertial reference system, the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value of c. As Einstein emphasized, this is true regardless of the state of motion of the standard inertial reference system.
> > If you are in a "standard inertial reference system" moving TOWARD the
> > sun, if you measure the speed of light from the sun ... it should arrive at c+v,
> > where c is the speed of the light from the sun and v is your speed toward the sun.
> Nope, as Einstein stressed, and as has been thoroughly verified by experiment, the speed of every pulse of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every standard inertial reference system. This is possible only because the relationship between standard inertial reference systems entails time dilation, length contraction, and the skew of simultaneity. Time dilation ("the length of a second") by itself is not sufficient to account for this invariance. All three ingredients that Einstein described in his 1905 paper are required.
> > The faster an object moves, the longer a second is for that object.
> Well, the rate of proper time along a moving worldline in terms of a standard inertial reference system is indeed lower for faster moving worldlines, but time dilation *by itself* is far too small (and even in the wrong direction in some cases) to account for the fact that a closing speed of c +- v has the value c in terms of the every standard system of inertial coordinates. The only way to account for the invariance of light speed is as Einstein explained, i.e., by length contraction, time dilation, and the skew of simultaneity. So far you've only glimpsed one of the three ingredients.

It makes me happy that Stan started posting because he knows things.

Here though "skew of simultaneity", is underdefined.

I think it refers to a modern "SR is local" convention,
not that that's necessarily so but it's what to assume
in terms of "relativity of simultaneity".

Some people though get "RoS" but not the second part, ....

Anyways I think Stan would find a usual reception as agreed,
and without necessarily having to be so generous in
support of the under-defined.

Lots of experiments in upper bounds are very similar the
phonic, and the optical. (Phonons/photons.) But, there are very
central defining rules in either regime, that are basically opposite
each other. I.e., the "classical" model in the one is some "super-classical"
model in the other. It's similar with fluid model and skin effect / core effect.

Then for dredging up "London-Lorentz-Einstein-Einstein-Einstein-Lagrange",
basically is for tacking on Kelvin after that. (I.e. "GR first".)

Then though 2'nd law thermo is "classical", that it's still for some
gradient (i.e. "the unified gravity"). The 2'nd law thermo is the
usual derivation of "open" in kinetics.

A "space-contraction" effect includes this "local time dilation, local length contraction,
local skew of simultaneity, SR is local".

On 6/27/22 2:18 PM, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 9:04:12 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> The clocks each run (tick) at the same rate.
>
> Your assertion is senseless, because you've not specified (and
> evidently have not even considered) what you mean by the word
> “rate”.

Nonsense. Everybody knows what a second is, because it is well defined
by the CGPM; a rate is merely some number of ticks per second. That's
what these words mean.

> [... long-winded diversion to a different meaning of words, ignored]

> For example, near a large spherical massive body like the Earth we
> typically use the essentially unique time coordinate of the
> Schwarzschild (or isotropic) coordinates.

This is especially narrow-minded -- a "we" that includes very few people
compared to other users. Certainly for a handful of abstract and
theoretical analysis such coordinates are used. But every physics
experiment, and every more casual user of "time", uses TAI, UTC, GPS
time, or local clocks traceable to a Cs-133 standard. Astronomers use
other time systems. None of these are related to either Schwarzschild or
isotropic coordinates.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 8:10:29 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > The clock on top of the mountain just runs faster.
>
> No, it doesn't. The clocks each run (tick) at the same rate.

Your assertion is senseless, because you have not specified (and evidently have not even considered) what you mean by the word “rate”. Among grown-ups, a “rate” is a quantity of the form dtau/dt where tau is proper time and t is some specified coordinate time, and we ordinarily deal with stationary temporal foliations, meaning time coordinates such that the metric coefficients are independent of t. For example, near a large spherical massive body like the Earth we typically use the essentially unique time coordinate of the Schwarzschild (or isotropic) coordinates. In terms of this foliation we can evaluate dtau/dt for any worldline, and we find the expected variations depending on speed and elevation. This is the relevant information. Your habitual proclamations that dtau/dtau = 1 are devoid of value, an empty tautology that would be true in Galilean relativity as well, so it tells us nothing about the relativistic spatio-temporal relations.

> Everybody knows what a second is, because it is well defined by the CGPM....

Your understanding is inadequate, because you fail to distinguish between a second of proper time and a second of coordinate time, and you fail to grasp how they are related and how they differ, and the physical significance of various coordinate systems, in particular the essentially unique coordinate time of a system of coordinates for which the metric is independent of the time coordinates, which of course is the basis for all terrestrial time coordinates. Your brain seems to be simply incapable of grasping this. Strange.

> a rate is merely some number of ticks per second.

The stupidity of that remark couldn't possibly be over-stated. Hint: Define tick. Sheesh.

Again, (please try to concentrate): A rate is a quantity of the form dtau/dt where tau is proper time and t is some specified coordinate time, and we ordinarily deal with stationary temporal foliations, as explained above (and as explained to you many times before).

> [... careful and patient explanation of my idiocies ignored, as always...]

That's why you never make any progress. You habitually disregard the patient explanations of your idiotic misconceptions.

> > For example, near a large spherical massive body like the Earth we
> > typically use the essentially unique time coordinate of the
> > Schwarzschild (or isotropic) coordinates.
>
> ...every physics experiment, and every more casual user of "time", uses
> TAI, UTC, GPS time... None of these are related to either Schwarzschild or
> isotropic coordinates.

Of course they are. How do you think we make adjustments for elevation? When grown-ups talk about the rates of clocks at different elevations, they are referring to quantities of the form dtau/dt (remember?), and the only sensible "t" to use in those expressions (for most purposes) is the unique stationary time coordinate for which the metric coefficients are independent of time time coordinate. That's implicitly the basis for all the coordinate times you named, when applied over a range of elevations (to the precision that is relevant). Mind you, this isn't something that an ordinary hack needs to understand explicitly, but any mentally competent being understands that his time coordinate remains stationary, i.e., there is no accumulating increasing deviations in the coordinate times at fixed spatial locations. Do you understand this now?

On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 05:10:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> Nonsense. Everybody knows what a second is, because it is well defined
> by the CGPM; a rate is merely some number of ticks per second. That's
> what these words mean.

In your dreams, poor halfbrain. Anyone can check GPS, TAI, UTC
Outside of your gedanken delusions your wannabe "second"applies
nowhere.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:

> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 1:07:25 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 9:09:00 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> > > > > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> > > > > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> > > > > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the list of experiments:
> > > > > 1. Hafele-Keating
> > > > > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> > > > > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time differ
ence)
> > > > > 4. Muon experiments
> > > > > 5. University of Maryland
> > > > > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> > > > > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> > > > > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> > > > > 9. Van Baak - 2005
> > > > > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> > > > > 11. Van Baak - 2016
> > > > > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> > > > > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?
> > > >
> > > > These experiments assumed that a clock second represents a constant amou
nt of time in different frames......it does not. For example:
> > > > Delta (A) = gamma*Delta(B)
> > > > This equation says that a second on the A clock is worth gamma seconds o
n the B clock. The means that a clock second does not represent a
constant amount of time in different frames.
> > > > CONNCLUSION:
> > > > A CLOCK SECOND DOES NOT REPRESENT A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN DIFFERENT
FRAES.
> > >
> > > Your statements are gibberish. You seem to be arguing against YOURSELF.
> > >
> > > The experiments assumed that a clock second represents a DIFFERENT
> > > amount of time in different frames. The difference is determined by the
> > > velocity and/or gravity present in different frames. In all frames, the sp
eed
> > > of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. But velocity and gravity change
> > > the length of a second.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > Are you're sure time dilation is caused by time and not...by gravity?
>
> Time dilation is caused by velocity AND gravity.
>
> >
> > i mean, if you drop a ball on the moon, it drops slower than if
> > you dropped the ball on the earth.
>
> That's because there is less gravity on the moon. The moon has
> only 1.2% of the mass of the earth.
>
> >
> > A clock runs slower on the moon than the earth.
>
> No, a clock runs FASTER on the moon than on the earth because
> there is less gravity on the moon.
>
> The moon is moving at 2,300 mph around the earth, while the
> earth spins at 1,040 mph. But the moon's mass is only 1.2% of
> the earth's mass. So, clocks will definitely run FASTER on the moon.

On any satellite, as seen from Earth.
(escape velocity > orbital velocity)

Jan

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 1:00:04 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 9:09:00 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > Over the years, I've accumulated a list of 12 major Time Dilation
> > > experiments which CONFIRM that Time Dilation is REAL, and that
> > > time does run at different rates for an object depending upon an
> > > object's speed and its proximity to a gravitational mass.
> > >
> > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
> > >
> > > Here's the list of experiments:
> > > 1. Hafele-Keating
> > > 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> > > 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> > > 4. Muon experiments
> > > 5. University of Maryland
> > > 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> > > 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> > > 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> > > 9. Van Baak - 2005
> > > 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> > > 11. Van Baak - 2016
> > > 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
> > >
> > > Is there anyone here who seriously claims that Time Dilation
> > > has NOT been fully verified by these experiments?
> >
> > These experiments assumed that a clock second represents a constant amount of time in different frames......it does not. For example:
> > Delta (A) = gamma*Delta(B)
> > This equation says that a second on the A clock is worth gamma seconds on the B clock. The means that a clock second does not represent a constant amount of time in different frames.
> > CONNCLUSION:
> > A CLOCK SECOND DOES NOT REPRESENT A CONSTANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN DIFFERENT FRAES.
> Your statements are gibberish. You seem to be arguing against YOURSELF. the

No, the GPS second is off-setted to have 4.1617 more periods of the Cs 133 radiation than the earth secon.. This is designed so that the passage of the redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard earth second. This makes the GPS and the earth clock are in synch with each other in terms of absolute time.
>
> The experiments assumed that a clock second represents a DIFFERENT
> amount of time in different frames.
So there is no time dilation......A clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in diff
event frames.

>The difference is determined by the
> velocity and/or gravity present in different frames. In all frames, the speed
> of light is 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND. But velocity and gravity change
> the length of a second.

The real cause of the differences is because a second in different frames does not represent a constant amount of absolute time.

Ken