Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Greg Neill
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
 |
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8ot9k.4011$Y84.3902@newsfe10.phx
| Quote: |
Dear Yuancur:
Yuancur@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d589abe2-7190-4927-9ba0-271d244c5d00@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 9:04 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
No. A known distance was used. Automatically
makes it TWLS measurement.
Surely in Romer's measurement the light only
goes One Way making it an OWLS measurement.
How did the distance get known? Two (and more for accuracy)
successive measurements, and clocks to determine velocity, and
angles to establish where in the trajectory. Jupiter becomes a
remote synchronized clock. The distance becomes a TWLS
established value.
|
Given Kepler's laws, the relative sizes of the orbits
were known. Pin down one distance and you scale the rest
accordingly. Various geometrical tricks were used to
determine the scale, including estimates of the Moon's
distance by shadow geometry during eclipses.
Add Newton and a local determination of G and you can
calculate the distances directly from observed periods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 27 jun, 22:03, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f33c4571-18c0-4d49-8c20-a3965b2552bd@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
...
... By the way, if we go to
history, the first measurements of light
speed were OWLS, Römer and Bradley
astronomical ones.
No. A known distance was used. Automatically
makes it TWLS measurement.
Why? I don’t see any light ray returning to
its origin that can be considered "a
second way".
They inferred a speed by... measuring the difference in time...
and dividing that into *a known distance*.
I continue without seeing any TWLS. To divide a time difference by a |
known distance is the more normal way to measure an OWLS.
| Quote: |
To know some parameter is a very common
resource in any kind of measurements.
... which carries a "payload" you are apparently not aware of, or
not willing to accept. A known distance is a "remote Einstein
synchronized clock", hence a TWLS measurement must result. So
you can only look for anisotropy.
A known distance is only that, a known distance. Read at the beginning |
of paragraph 1 of the 1905 Einstein’s Jun30 paper how he uses
Newtonian mechanics, Euclidean geometry and Cartesian co-ordinates.
Yes, Einstein established a procedure to synchronize two clocks
situated in any two different points of Euclidean space, but the
distance between the points exist with independence of if you
synchronize or not clocks in them. Your assertion about a known
distance being a “remote Einstein synchronized clock” is totally out
of place (I understand know why are you saying that a known distance
is related with a TWLS measurement).
| Quote: |
Resuming, possible or not an OWLS, this
is not for me a valid argument against
1905 Einstein’s Relativity theory.
Good, because this still is not at issue.
I don’t understand your short comment,
I get tired of being dragged away from the OPs "question", into
your interminable and single-minded discussion of a paper 103
years old.
You were the one introducing here TWLS and OWLS, claiming it as your |
solution of the Ops question about 1905 SRT, and I accepted to discuss
it with you. And now you feel dragged away from the Ops question?
| Quote: |
maybe owed to my deficient English. My
intention was to write “possible or not an
OWLS measurement”, and I have some
doubt about the meaning of the "at issue"
part. Please, clear it to me if you consider
necessary in a next post.
You cease to discuss the OPs question, and insist on discussing
something you feel to be related. I do not feel it to be
related, and the OP has stopped responding on this thread. I
have lost interest.
Notice you only now that the OP never put a second post? Now you said |
that TWLS and OWLS have nothing to be with the OP question, being you
precisely the one who introduced them here to solution the Ops
question? And after accepting me to discuss with you about what surely
you feel related, you then accuse me for doing what you do?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 27 jun, 14:31, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c10e94d-83ab-4d68-a11d-80969c2f2d9d@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 27 jun, 07:53, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:174948af-3a6b-4405-b75c-7e081f10ee7c@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On 25 jun, 17:46, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Dear rvall...:
On Jun 25, 12:47 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 jun, 11:13,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:> Dear rvallshg:
...
For me has no sense at all to demand a
measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.
There are many here that disagree with
you. Better to allow it, and let Nature
be the arbiter.
You said before that only TWLS measurements
are possible. Then, how can we know about
the Nature decision if it is a constant
vacuum light speed in any inertial frame?
As I have already said, we can't. All we can do is look for
anisotropy.
We are evaluating the supposed impossibility to measure an OWLS in
very different ways. For you it is an argument to support the
inadequacy of Einstein’s second postulate, but for me it is precisely
the contrary, an argument in favour of the presence of that postulate.
This is not a new type of problem in Physics. Since Newton’s
“Principia…” he considered the existence of the absolute space and
time as a pre-condition assumed valid, like a postulate, even
accepting him that it is out of any possible experimental measurement.
By the way, if we go to history, the first measurements of light speed
were OWLS, Römer and Bradley astronomical ones. Resuming, possible or
not an OWLS, this is not for me a valid argument against 1905
Einstein’s Relativity theory.
David A. Smith
(I notice that you skip many things of my last post, considered by me
very important ones, but I respect your decisions).
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
=========================================> > Why would you respect a fuckhead like Smiffy?
Oh wait... you are just another fuckhead.
You know that this is my usual behaviour in this group. I respect the
opinions or decisions of any person here, including yours. I never
insult a person or take into account an insult to me. By the way,
among the things that David doesn’t continue addressing with me are
the c ± v expressions in Jun30 1905 Einstein’s paper, the ones that
you are continually referring here. Why you reject to discuss this
topic with me? I remember yet our two months long dialogue that you
stopped precisely in this point some years ago, and I remain still
open to continue it.
==============================================
Mathematics has nothing to do with respect, opinion or decision, and
everything to do with proof.
IF Einstein said
some function of x'/(c+v) is equal to that same function of x'/(c-v)
THEN
Einstein was an idiot who didn't understand mathematics.
ELSE ... (there is no else, he did say it).
We can have y=x2 and also y=f(x) and y=f(-x), being f some function of |
x and at the same time being the same function f of –x. I don’t know
if this is related or not with your point. Better put a precise
reference about where in 1905 Einstein’s Jun30 paper you think there
exist an evident mathematical error. I get my copy at http://www.fourmilab.ch
. I will be very happy to analyse it jointly with you.
| Quote: |
Talking about actual experiments are irrelevant.
As far as you are concerned, you just want to argue and
your arguments get increasingly ridiculous as they go further
into mysticism and away from logic and mathematics.
I agreed with you. A mathematical error can’t be justified by any |
experimental measurement.
| Quote: |
Einstein's THIRD postulate, which you are too stupid to recognise
IS a postulate (and false) is:
Contrary to your expectations with me, I agreed with you about the |
postulate nature of what Einstein includes in his second postulate (a
new DEFINITION of time). But we haven’t agreement about it being
false.
| Quote: |
QUOTE
the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it
requires
to travel from B to A.
UNQUOTE
This is for me the most important Einstein’s assertion in all his |
paper. A new DEFINITION of time. Simultaneity defined for different
points of an Euclidean space. Explain to me why do you say that it is
false. I you are surprised for the word “Euclidean”, go to the
beginning of paragraph 1 and you will find it jointly with “Newtonian”
and also with “Cartesian”. As distance AB equals BA (Euclidean, no?),
declaring the times “equals” is compatible with a constant and
isotropic vacuum light speed c. I confess you that perhaps in my first
hundred readings of the paper, I didn’t realize the importance of that
definition. It seems to me so natural and evident, something so close
to human common sense, that the need for being a DEFINITION was
maintained obscure to me for many years.
| Quote: |
Now what possible opinion could you have that can change that?- Ocultar texto de la cita -
In 1905 vacuum light speed was supposed to have the constant c value |
only in the ether, and a different one (c±v) in any of the other
frames (remember the design of the M&M experiment). This was a
consequence of the assumed unique time for all the frames. To say that
vacuum light speed is the same in all frames was a contradiction with
that. Einstein resolved that contradiction incorporating his new time
DEFINITION in the second postulate, making it compatible with the
first postulate (the same vacuum light speed c for all frames, but now
a different time in every frame, making the ether superfluous, being
now the bodies themselves the unique ones able to be related in
inertial systems). In that way Einstein extended Galileo’s Principle
of Relativity to be valid also for electrodynamics, obtaining his 1905
Einstein’s Principle of Relativity, that jointly with the new second
postulate formed 1905 Relativity. I don’t pretend, Androcles, that you
will understand all of this in a single first reading. You are in a
different road since many years. I am sure you will be interested in
proving me wrong.
| Quote: |
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
|
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear rvallshg:
<rvallshg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:936ad153-b222-4e0b-b773-a49d7f20df02@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 27 jun, 22:03, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f33c4571-18c0-4d49-8c20-a3965b2552bd@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
...
No. A known distance was used. Automatically
makes it TWLS measurement.
Why? I don’t see any light ray returning to
its origin that can be considered "a
second way".
They inferred a speed by... measuring the
difference in time... and dividing that into *a
known distance*.
I continue without seeing any TWLS. To
divide a time difference by a known distance
is the more normal way to measure an OWLS.
|
There is no possibility of measuring OWLS with a known distance,
when that distance is "tuned" to yield a TWLS result. And that
is how such "meter sticks" are formed, be it a PtIr transfer
standard, or the orbit of Jupiter. "A remote Einstein
synchronized clock"... can only return c. "What we know about
Jupiter's orbit" is such a circumstance.
....
| Quote: |
You cease to discuss the OPs question, and
insist on discussing something you feel to be
related. I do not feel it to be related, and the
OP has stopped responding on this thread. I
have lost interest.
Notice you only now that the OP never put a
second post?
|
And? If you want to discuss something else, start a new thread.
| Quote: |
Now you said that TWLS and OWLS have
nothing to be with the OP question,
|
I did NOT say that. I was clear with what I extracted from his /
her post. It related to how do we know light travels at c for
all observers (or words to that effect).
| Quote: |
being you precisely the one who introduced
them here to solution the Ops question?
|
And?
| Quote: |
And after accepting me to discuss with you
about what surely you feel related, you then
accuse me for doing what you do?
|
No, I accuse you of drifting off into your favorite (and only)
subject, 1905 relativity.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:20 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
<rvallshg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3d15d5c-40ae-481d-a639-c5eaa3e8d74f@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On 27 jun, 14:31, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c10e94d-83ab-4d68-a11d-80969c2f2d9d@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 27 jun, 07:53, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:174948af-3a6b-4405-b75c-7e081f10ee7c@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On 25 jun, 17:46, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Dear rvall...:
On Jun 25, 12:47 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 jun, 11:13,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:> Dear rvallshg:
...
For me has no sense at all to demand a
measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.
There are many here that disagree with
you. Better to allow it, and let Nature
be the arbiter.
You said before that only TWLS measurements
are possible. Then, how can we know about
the Nature decision if it is a constant
vacuum light speed in any inertial frame?
As I have already said, we can't. All we can do is look for
anisotropy.
We are evaluating the supposed impossibility to measure an OWLS in
very different ways. For you it is an argument to support the
inadequacy of Einstein’s second postulate, but for me it is precisely
the contrary, an argument in favour of the presence of that postulate.
This is not a new type of problem in Physics. Since Newton’s
“Principia…” he considered the existence of the absolute space and
time as a pre-condition assumed valid, like a postulate, even
accepting him that it is out of any possible experimental measurement.
By the way, if we go to history, the first measurements of light speed
were OWLS, Römer and Bradley astronomical ones. Resuming, possible or
not an OWLS, this is not for me a valid argument against 1905
Einstein’s Relativity theory.
David A. Smith
(I notice that you skip many things of my last post, considered by me
very important ones, but I respect your decisions).
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
==========================================
Why would you respect a fuckhead like Smiffy?
Oh wait... you are just another fuckhead.
You know that this is my usual behaviour in this group. I respect the
opinions or decisions of any person here, including yours. I never
insult a person or take into account an insult to me. By the way,
among the things that David doesn’t continue addressing with me are
the c ± v expressions in Jun30 1905 Einstein’s paper, the ones that
you are continually referring here. Why you reject to discuss this
topic with me? I remember yet our two months long dialogue that you
stopped precisely in this point some years ago, and I remain still
open to continue it.
===============================================
Mathematics has nothing to do with respect, opinion or decision, and
everything to do with proof.
IF Einstein said
some function of x'/(c+v) is equal to that same function of x'/(c-v)
THEN
Einstein was an idiot who didn't understand mathematics.
ELSE ... (there is no else, he did say it).
We can have y=x2 |
=============
No we can't, apples are not oranges and we are not discussing y here.
Drivel snipped.
====================================
| Quote: |
Talking about actual experiments are irrelevant.
As far as you are concerned, you just want to argue and
your arguments get increasingly ridiculous as they go further
into mysticism and away from logic and mathematics.
I agreed with you. A mathematical error can’t be justified by any |
experimental measurement.
===================================
Good.
===================================
| Quote: |
Einstein's THIRD postulate, which you are too stupid to recognise
IS a postulate (and false) is:
Contrary to your expectations with me, I agreed with you about the |
postulate nature of what Einstein includes in his second postulate
=============================================
Did I mention any second postulate?
What are you changing the subject for?
==============================================
(a
new DEFINITION of time). But we haven’t agreement about it being
false.
| Quote: |
QUOTE
the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it
requires
to travel from B to A.
UNQUOTE
This is for me the most important Einstein’s assertion in all his |
paper. A new DEFINITION of time.
=============================================
Nobody gives a hoot what's important for you, crank.
Your opinions count for shit, it's what you can PROVE that matters.
=============================================
Simultaneity defined for different
points of an Euclidean space. Explain to me why do you say that it is
false.
=============================================
Sure: An experimental measurement can’t be justified by any
mathematical error.
=============================================
I you are surprised for the word “Euclidean”, go to the
beginning of paragraph 1 and you will find it jointly with “Newtonian”
and also with “Cartesian”. As distance AB equals BA (Euclidean, no?),
declaring the times “equals” is compatible with a constant and
isotropic vacuum light speed c.
================================================
What the FUCK is wrong with you, babbling about "surprise" ?
================================================
I confess you that perhaps in my first
hundred readings of the paper, I didn’t realize the importance of that
definition.
==============================================
Right. It went right over the top of your head as Einstein wanted it to.
===============================================
It seems to me so natural and evident, something so close
to human common sense, that the need for being a DEFINITION was
maintained obscure to me for many years.
================================================
So YOU were surprised and that makes you hallucinate I might be.
The real time x'/(c-v) clearly does NOT equal the real time x'/(c+v),
so the fake "time" (in quotation marks) which is a supposedly a
function of the real time cannot be a linear function as the liar Einstein
claimed.
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account
of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time." -
Einstein.
In the second place the equations are NOT linear.
In the third place Einstein was a babbling idiot that failed mathematics.
In the fourth place I suspect you don't even know what "linear" means.
We establish by definition that you are an idiot.
================================================
| Quote: |
Now what possible opinion could you have that can change that?- Ocultar
texto de la cita -
In 1905 vacuum light speed was supposed to have the constant c value |
only in the ether, and a different one (c±v) in any of the other
frames (remember the design of the M&M experiment).
=============================================
You want ME to remember? I wrote this, fuckhead:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
AND this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
===============================================
This was a
consequence of the assumed unique time for all the frames. To say that
vacuum light speed is the same in all frames was a contradiction with
that. Einstein resolved that contradiction incorporating his new time
DEFINITION in the second postulate, making it compatible with the
first postulate (the same vacuum light speed c for all frames, but now
a different time in every frame, making the ether superfluous, being
now the bodies themselves the unique ones able to be related in
inertial systems). In that way Einstein extended Galileo’s Principle
of Relativity to be valid also for electrodynamics, obtaining his 1905
Einstein’s Principle of Relativity, that jointly with the new second
postulate formed 1905 Relativity. I don’t pretend, Androcles, that you
will understand all of this in a single first reading.
==============================================
No, you pretend to know mathematics, and you don't. You are
a babbling cretin.
An experimental measurement can’t be justified by any
mathematical error.
==============================================
You are in a
different road since many years. I am sure you will be interested in
proving me wrong.
==============================================
I have no interest in proving you wrong, you are a clown.
I have proven Einstein wrong and then moved forward.
That you are too stupid to understand that is your problem, not mine.
Oh, and remember the design of the M&M experiment and
remember the design of the Sagnac experiment and
remember the design of THE RING LASER GYROSCOPE IN
USE TODAY ON MANY AIRCRAFT AND SHIPS.
It's not an "experiment" anymore, cretin, it's now technology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 30 jun, 19:38, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:936ad153-b222-4e0b-b773-a49d7f20df02@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 27 jun, 22:03, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
Dear rvallshg:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f33c4571-18c0-4d49-8c20-a3965b2552bd@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
...
No. A known distance was used. Automatically
makes it TWLS measurement.
Why? I don’t see any light ray returning to
its origin that can be considered "a
second way".
They inferred a speed by... measuring the
difference in time... and dividing that into *a
known distance*.
I continue without seeing any TWLS. To
divide a time difference by a known distance
is the more normal way to measure an OWLS.
There is no possibility of measuring OWLS with a known distance,
when that distance is "tuned" to yield a TWLS result. And that
is how such "meter sticks" are formed, be it a PtIr transfer
standard, or the orbit of Jupiter. "A remote Einstein
synchronized clock"... can only return c. "What we know about
Jupiter's orbit" is such a circumstance.
Jupiter's orbit was well-known a long before 1905 Relativity. Your |
assertion about it being related with "A remote Einstein synchronized
clock" have no sense at all. It is a typical anachronism.
I skip the rest, related only with who is drifting off from the OPs
question, me talking about 1905 Relativity or you introducing OWLS and
TWLS. I don’t care more about it.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear rvallshg:
<rvallshg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:685283b6-426a-4989-8ece-bfdfb18f5d70@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 30 jun, 19:38, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:936ad153-b222-4e0b-b773-a49d7f20df02@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 27 jun, 22:03, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f33c4571-18c0-4d49-8c20-a3965b2552bd@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
....
They inferred a speed by... measuring the
difference in time... and dividing that into *a
known distance*.
I continue without seeing any TWLS. To
divide a time difference by a known distance
is the more normal way to measure an OWLS.
There is no possibility of measuring OWLS
with a known distance, when that distance is
"tuned" to yield a TWLS result. And that is
how such "meter sticks" are formed, be it a
PtIr transfer standard, or the orbit of Jupiter.
"A remote Einstein synchronized clock"... can
only return c. "What we know about
Jupiter's orbit" is such a circumstance.
Jupiter's orbit was well-known a long before
1905 Relativity. Your assertion about it being
related with "A remote Einstein synchronized
clock" have no sense at all.
|
The procedure of allocating parameters to Jupiter's position, and
its moons positions, *is* clock synchronization, whether
Einstein's great grandfathers were still gleams in his
great-great grandfathers' eyes.
I used the term because you know what it means. I used the term
because it is exactly applicable. I used the term, because it is
well known that it can only return a TWLS result. That you can
ignore the payload, does not mean there isn't one.
As to drifting from the topic, you challenge that it is possible
to measure OWLS (the heart of the OPs question). I contend that
Nature thinks we are fools to consider what cannot be measured.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
