vuquta

Not quite. Given, t' = ( t - vx/c² )λ t' = tλ - vxλ/c² The term tλ is the compensation for time dilation which is in GPS. The term vxλ/c² is the simultaneity shift which is not in GPS. If this term is correct, then the further a ground based clock is from the GPS clock, the more out of sync. That is SR. Thus, this crucial part of SR is disproven by GPS. Why is this so crucial? Because it is the artificial factor used to force two frames in different motions to measure the speed of light at the same speed. In partiicular, this term forces the light path to be exactly the path between the light emission point in the frame and the light receiver. Logically, the receiver will be moving in some unknown way while light proceeds toward because we live in a universe of motion. Yet, SR claims not. GPS confirms the receiver actually moves and thus that is why the clocks remain in sync. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am a firm believer in a constant speed of light. Sure, at the smallest quantum levels, things are discreet and so it may break down, but that does not matter at the galactic levels. So, there is plenty of evidence that light moves through space at one speed c. But, that is a completely different issue from setting up a valid experiment to measure it. We must remember, as light moves, the frame moves but no one knows how. In other words, when you shoot a laser at a target, that target is moving through space just like light does. For example, consider two satellites. One wants to shoot at the other. Now, light is very fast compared to the satellites, but, as light moves toward the satellite, will the satellite sit still in space as light proceeds toward it? Clearly, no. So, even if they are in the same frame for a small period of time, as light proceeds toward the satellite, the satellite moves through space and most likely, it will be missed.

correct. but the poster I responded to suggsted MMX as the standard for proving a measured c. I fixed that. Now, while you are on Sagnac, it does not prove the measured speed of light is always c in all directions. Though it does prove light travels at one speed regardless of source speed. So, where is your measured at c experiments with clocks? I want to see them.

No, common error. Modern Physics/Michelson-Morley Experiment Walter Ritz's emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Physics:Michelson-Morley_Experiment Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm One such attempt is known as the Emission Hypothesis (or the ballistic theory of light), and was developed partly by Walther Ritz (C&N p.353). According to this theory, light behaves like bullets shot from a gun, its speed with respect to the source being a universal constant and independent of any ether. This idea is consistent with the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and many others. http://laser.phys.ualberta.ca/~egerton/specrel3.htm

I am confused. Where in th above have you shown light has been measured at c in all directions and in different frames. In order to claim light is measured at c, you must actually be able to produce one way light transfer timing experiments. Do you have any?

Interesting, yea, let's say roots evolved on the ocean floor in a simulated 0 grav. That is reasonable. At this point, that seems very reasonable. Thanks for the interaction.

Another possible explanation is the density of roots/canopy structures respond to strain in general, which is generally caused by gravity. We discussed this. The canopy is stimulated by the root structure by a hormone. Thus, the root structure is the decision maker.

It's possible that life first originated on another planet and the Earth was "seeded" in some way, not necessarily by any intelligent process. I talked with an OSU prof in charge of an experiment on the space station. His experiment grew trees (small) from earth seeds in the "0' gravity. The canopy and root structures were significantly smaller than the earth counter parts indicating the plants knew how to adjust to zero gravity. Now, if life evolved in only a gravity environment, where did the seeds get the dna coding to alter correctly to zero gravity and not waste resources? This was 4 or 5 years ago and I wish I kept the correspondence but I did not, though I think you might be able to goggle the results. Anyway, even though he was a botanist, he had no opinion or logic on how the seeds adjusted this way. Also, future generations behaved the same way. In conclusion, either dna coding is more diverse than we could ever know or somehow the dna coding of the plant had zero gravity in its past.

The overwhelming evidence shows light speed cannot be changed from tests of moving light source. It is therefore deducible that light moves through empty space at one speed as stated in the SR light postulate. However, there are no timing experiments measuring the speed of light with one way transfer. It is quite a simple experiment but there are none measuring different directions except by some crackpot named Cahill and his experiment is logically inconsistent with his claims. Hence, you do not have one way light transfer timing experiments to justify the claim above. Oh, frequency based experiments do not qualify as proof since MMX are consistent with Ritz's theory of ballistic light. Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory, http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Well, because science is about testing. That means it is based on a posteriori logic. However, if all the digits cannot be written down, they can never be verified. I was simply showing a case which demarcates a priori and a posteriori logic. The reason it is part of this thread is that is shows some of the difficulties with proving existence and non-existence. No it is not and yes plants are more primitive than animals. Further, there is no comparison of photosynthesis to fundamental particles. Particles are simply material with properties whereas photosynthesis is a process. Moreover, photosynthesis is the gateway to all life on this planet. Without photosynthesis, there are no carbohydrates and thus no proteins. In addition, a carbohydrate is an excellent storage medium for energy. I made this statement because science draws conclusions on issues that are not logically decidable which in my world is faith based logic. If it is the case that the universe is indeed finite, then science cannot draw any conclusions unless they can be proven to be recursive functions.

I think you missed the point of my post. This problem is not logically decidable.

But you said transcendental numbers can be conceived but not created. False, I said they cannot be described. Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. This "comes from the universe." Well, in science, I would like you to write down all the digits of Pi to examine them so that I can make sure you are correct. Can you do this? Further, photosynthesis, Energy transfer rates between pigments are very rapid, and charge separation in reaction centers occurs in 3-30 picoseconds http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/education/photointro.html If the plant fails to operate in the pico second range, photosynthesis fails and electron transport is not completed for the photosynthic factory. Now, humans just entered the pico second range in the last decade, but plants have depended on this accuracy for photosynthesis for billions of years. Now, since plants are the most primitive liife on the planet, I am quite sure science can write the recipe book for this sequence of operations. If science cannot do this, then science needs to take its correct role as high priest.

The original post I replied to is: The origin of a supreme deity or a set of deities appears to be related to some ‘hallucinatory phenomenon' Conceived and created are basically the same and similar to the posters concept of a supreme deity. This deity appears to not be realizable in the finite material universe. So, I brought up the transcendental numbers. The digits of one transcendental number cannot be written down in the finite material universe. Likewise, transcendental numbers are not be realizable in the finite material universe. So, I questioned the hallucinogenic part of the posters conclusion. Finally, the finite material universe is all the matter and energy in the universe.

Sorry, unclear, transcendental number.

It is not that simple. Transcendental numbers are conceived by elements of the finite material universe, ie humans. Yet, Transcendental numbers cannot be completely described by any method in the finite material universe. So, how does the universe imagine an object that cannot possibly be created in the universe?

Yes, GPS contains Sagnac, GR and time dilation. This paper is the leading one showing relativity and GPS. At low orbits, time dilation is dominant, at high orbits, GR gravity is. Now, what is clear is that the simultaneity shift term of LT is missing from GPS. t' = ( t - vx/c^2)λ t' = λt - λvx/c^2 λvx/c^2 is the simultaneity shift term. GPS contains GR and the time dilation term λt. So, if I shoot light and time it as in the example, the experiment turns out as I said. Then, you can apply GR and time dilation, that what is applied to the satellite prior to launch such that the satellite clocks would be in sync with the earth clocks. In a reverse way to discover what the clocks would have been due to GR and SR time dilation, you could apply the inverse operations but you will not get the simultaneity shift term λvx/c^2 as part of the equation. Therefore, the simultaneity shift term λvx/c^2 is not valid. And no, this does not mean I do not understand SR. It just means using GPS and ground based clocks as an actual laboratory, the logic of LT does not hold up. In particular, given two GPS clocks and one ground based clock, the further a gps satellite is away, the worse you would expect it to be out of sync with the ground based clock using LT. But, that is not the case. They all remain in sync. Therefore, if a GPS satellite and ground clock are vertical and a laser is shot freom GPS1 to GPS2, you know for a fact, a corresponding ground clock vertical with GPS2 will read the same exact time as GPS2 when light strikes the GPS2.

This will show two different calculations under SR for one way light transfer and will support one of them. Link Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere is an alternative. High orbit GPS satellites are programmed to beat with the ground based clocks by changing their their clock frequency using the λ factor. Here is the setup. GPS1 ->v GPS2 | Ground The ground clock, earth based station, and GPS satellite 1 will be located at the same vertical position at say time t0 for both. There is a second satellite GPS2 located a distance d from GPS1. At that time t0 when the ground clock and the GPS1 are vertical, GPS1 fires a laser at GPS2. GPS2 records the time the light is received. After any time t1, the ground knows the position of the GPS2 relative to the earth. So, GPS2 beams the recorded time, t1, to the earth based station. The earth will be able to determine the exact position of GPS2 at that time. So, GPS1 is located at v(t1-t0) from the original position when the laser was shot and GPS2 is located at v(t1-t0) from its original position when the light strikes GPS2 at time t1. Since the clocks are all in sync, from the earth frame, the light moved from the station to v(t1-t0) + d in time t1-t0. The GPS frame concludes light moved a distance d in time t1-t0. As such, they cannot measure the same one-way light speed

In your paper your write, A theory proposing that the domain of an observers Universe stretches from the observers hypothetical Schwarzschild radius near its centre of gravity, to a point on the distant horizon Now, let's place one observer at one end of the observable universe and one at the max point away to the other side. Each observer satisfies your Schwarzschild radius. Yet, this radius for each will extend into the non-observable universe, if there exists such a thing. Further, your observer's mass will be unbalanced with your sphere of logic for the limit on the size of the universe since much of the sphere will contain empty space with no mass. How do you deal with this?

I am OK with anything in logic. I just want to make sure communication is established also. I think you do have the model down. If not, I will continue until it is established. It is two rigid body spheres that are coincident when light is emitted at their common origins. One is in relative motion.

I said exactly what I wanted to say here and was completely accuracte. I just think the model I am talking about is non-standard and perhaps not readily seen. But, we will communicate. The only thing I change above is that there is only one light emitter and only one is needed under the light postulate. Otherwise, this is exactly the case. I think you are confused because you believe two light sources are necessary. By the light postulate, only one is needed to exhibit this behavior described. If you need two of them to think about it, I am OK with that because it makes no difference with the outcome according to the light postulate. I can show this if you want me to. Stationary and moving are terms I use when there exists two frames and I am taking the view that one is stationary. I am OK and able to communicate using frame A and B though. You tell the me the terminology and I will use that.

Agreed. When each of the frames looks at its own light sphere, it is spherical. Yet, the moving frame will have one that is an ellipsoid. Agreed. No, there is one emitter. The light postulate is as follows, Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ It says any ray of light, so that means spherical in the stationary coordinates. It also says, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. Therefore, whether the light source is moving, or not, the light will proceed spherically from the emission point in the frame. So, when the two rigid body spheres are coincident, the moving sphere emits. In the at rest frame, the light sphere proceeds from its origin since the motion of the light source has no effect. Also, in the moving frame, since the light souce is at rest with it, the light proceeds spherically from the emission point inside that frame as well.

I just have one emitter for the spheres. It is located in the moving frame. But, it emits when the origins of the rigid body sphere are coincident. Then, it each frame, I am using the emission point in the frame as the origin of the light sphere for the frame since this is SR. That would make it appear like I have two emitters then.

I completely agree with you. But, the observer in each frame concludes the light is spherical from its emission point in the frame. That is what I am saying. I am talking only about what each individual frame concludes about itself. Now, if a frame were to look at another frame, then it would see an ellipsoid. I actually think on these particular issues, we are all in agreement. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged OK, this is in the coords of the stationary frame. The moving sphere will be origined (vt,0,0) in the coords of the stationary frame after any time t. I think I have answered them, but please, if I did not seem to, let me know. Thanks Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Please look at figure 2 in the pdf file. pdf file It shows the context of the stationary frame, the light spheres and also this point.

Well, the sphere points of the moving frame will not be struck simultaneously from the context of the stationary frame. But, the moving frame concludes its sphere points are struck simultaneously. Relative to each. There are only two frames. LT calculates that t' = t when this point is struck in each frame. So, by the SR light postulate, t = r/c for all points on the stationary rigid body sphere. Also, LT calculates this point is hit in O', the moving frame, at t' = t. Wait, sorry, I'm not sure I understand you, so here's my attempt to be clearler: SR states that each frame of reference will see the light emanating at their individual frame of reference as spherical. Each frame of reference will NOT NECESSARILY (or, likely not!) see the light emanating from the *OTHER* frame of reference as spherical. Your sentence was less clear, I'm not sure I understand which frame you mean sees what as spherical. Individually, each frame sees its own light sphere as spherical and then sees the other's as an ellipsoid. Oh, there is a clock at the origin of each frame or anywhere for that matter. Inside the frame, that clock will read t = r/c when the sphere points are struck. But, it will read various different times as to when it calculates the moving sphere points are struck by the stationary light sphere. But, SR tells us that the moving frame, even though it cannot be seen for some unknown reason, will experience simultaneity for its sphere points also. So, here is the question. What will the clock in the stationary read when this simultaneity occurs in the moving frame? That is what I am attempting to answer. It just means LT calculates t' = t for that point. So, with the point, you are allowed to talk about the "same time". You cannot with any other, but you can with this one. Let me be more specific. Assume a light timer. This device is synched to 0 when the light is flashed in a frame and the clock stops when it is hit by light. If I install one of the in the stationary frame at that x point and install one in the moving frame at x' = -x, then each are synched in their respective frames when the light is emitted. Now run the experiment and bring the clocks back together at some later time. They will read the exact same time.

Yes, I am going through your stuff. It will take a little while.

No, I did not mix frames. I am only stating a fact that within each frame, the light sphere emerges spherically. I am not doing a frame comparison. If I did a frame comparison, I would find the light sphere in the moving frame to be an ellipsoid. But, I would also find its center located at (vt,0,0). That is the basic problem, the light sphere in the moving frame emerges at vt at any time t in the coords of the stationary frame and thus, that light sphere is moving because its center is moving. But, the one in the stationary frame emerges at (0,0,0) and does not move.