geistkiesel

Try this for proof, if you haven't already. Caveat Emptor Swansont. Geistkiesel

Is there any obvious way that x and y being at rest wrt each other can be in separate frames, meaning one of the two is moving wt the other? Ditto for Z and Y. Maybe I have been up too long. I cannot see that which motivated your reply.. If x and y are motionless wrt each other then x and Y can be considered welded together can they not? If z and y are also at rest wrt each other then the welding seam includes Z abd X also. If x and y are on a moving frame then Z would also have to be on that frame in order to be at rest wrt y wouldn't it? I am not arguing your point here. Please, if I missed something let me know. Geistkiesel

J.C.MacsewellI, I believe the last number I saw was 26 KM. If the SATS are not inertial frames what attributes of nature remove it from the inertial classification? Certainly no measureable forces are sensed by the SAT hardware once in orbit, but the SAT did experience considerable acceleration forces getting up there which could and probably does affect timing circuits. The SAT is changing direction at a rate of 360/24x3600 = 1.4 x 10^-4 degrees/sec which is not such a forceful number that cannot be easily corrected with the algorithims. I have seen the references to the non-inertial frame status of SATS, so how can there be any discussion of the application of SRT to GPS calculation My research tells me that SRT is the fundamental scheme in GPS calculations. Geistkiesel

Geistkiesel {Note:I tried to use VbCode to reference MacSwell above but couldn't get it to work. Any suggestions?}

I never forgive puns, it is a sign of weakness. Guth's "Inflationary Universe" discusses this issue in depth and makes the point that SRT is not violated here (expanding space at orders of magnitude in excess of c) because it is space that is expanding not matter or mass. Each mass unit can look in 6 directrions and see mass moving away at speeds much greater than the SOL yet not feel a ripple of acceleration. I wont ask you to define the attributes of space, but for space to have an affect on motion and physical reality, of which space is a fundamental element, then one must necessarily apply oor assign mechanical properties to the space, unless some entity or source has a bag of space he just dumps on us. But the expansion of "nothing" makes no sense in a scientific discussion. I have objections re SRT, but the expansion conundrum exceeds SRT problems by orders of magnitude; there isn't enough { } to hold all my objections. Geistkiesel

Here is the complete statement above that you shortened. Here is the direct question that you responded to: And here is your reply.

Is this an example of the equivalence of inertial frames where in one frame a light switch is turned on and seen for ten secinds; the receiver of the light sees the same light for 1 second? Besides the 9 secinds of reality, what else is missing here? I find it difficult to rationalize the shorter wavelength od teh photons, I do see that teh wavelength would pass through your cornea faster, so the measured frequency would increase. But to squish the wavelengths shorter requires the application of force on the material comprising the light, which would have a very local affect of decreasing the currently affected wavelength segment as it shortened. And this requires a force be applied. Look at Doppler from the point of view that he wavelength of the emitted light remains invariant throughout and only the frequency of the measured components will vary as the motion of the observer is included in the measurement of the light, but here also, the SRT profs say to negate the motion of the observer and consider the light wavelength shortened by some force - ignore what you observe, like motion for instance, is the mantra of the SRT crowd. Stumblebum, how could you see the space ship and determine it is ten seconds away? Would not the only thing you see is the light the ship turned on 10 of your seconds earlier, that you didn't know about? But you would not know this occured would you? All you see is the light that was turned on. Me thinks the responses to your posts were hurriedly assembled. If we assume some kind of standing wave for the lights turned on, the oncoming ship would continuously reflect that light it came in comtact with. Shine a laser beam intio the sky, you can see it from the side correct? Even lasers have side reflections/radiations. It is what, impossible (at least it would reqruire serious technological attention) to hide the side lobes ways and backways pieces of light? If the observers on the ship were looking they would see the light reflected in sidelobes and back and could measure the energy density of the emitted light as they collected it from their motion and then compare that energy density with with some v = 0 stationary standard, hence the ship's crew can determine their speed (velocity) wrt the emitted photons, known to move at 3x10^5 km/sec. But one doesn't learn this from SRT professors who negate the possibility of measuring a relative motion of frame and photon other than c. Unless later some one informed you of what was claimed to have happened all you would see is the pulse of light and some brief residual reflections and radiations. You would shrug your shouklders and . . . Geistkiesel

The original Sagnac Effect has photons traveling in opposite directions around a circular path The circle is turning and therefore the photons do not arrive at the physical emission point simultaneously. Einstein suggsted that the Sagnac Effect be "unwrapped" into a linear form (avoiding the noninertial aspects of circlar motion, re AE), which is presented here. The circumferences are 'unwarapped' and described in linear form. The Sagnac Effect is invariant in this form as were all the other variations through the history of the effect. Some may recognize the experimental arrangement below in the schematic that is published in various forms as an educational deganken.As an aside, one of the references makes the point that Einstyein never mentioned the Sagnac effect even though it preceded his seminal SR paper. Photons emitted from the midpoint of L and R [the "R" inadvertently remioved from schematic] clock/reflectors attached to an inertial frame moving in the L to R direction. The L detector detects the lp, left photon, before the rp, right photon, is detected by R (SRT insists this is not possible). When reflected from L and R the photons arrive simultaneously at the physical midpoint in a time t' ,which is that extra time greater than the round trip of photons moving in a stationary inertial frame. A t' > 0 proves motion, a t' = 0 proves the frame is at rest. All clock values are measured in the moving inertial frame from which the absolute velocity is calculated. Distances and timing functions are derived from unambiguous locations of the photon wave train, by inspection. References: Virtually all the papers discuss special relativity, but this is not necessarily the primary focus of the papers. Describes the original Sagnac Effect Best written paper overall with excellect references Sagnac Laser Interferometer precursor? Reinterprets Michelson-Morely Experiment re Sagnac. Consise and informative focus on SRT. Brief but tells the story. Modied Lorentz Ether Theory (MLET) Need access to Physical review. If you prefer, simply google , "sagnac effect". Geistkiesel

You are claiming here that space is expanding at a rate that prevents the arrival of light at recognizable points in the universe, ever? If this were true then space as we observe it has mechanical properties and ergo must be expanding at speeds greater than the speed of light. The superluminal response sounds like an argument slipped out from the Physical Obfuscation File. Geistkiesel

Actually the physics says the converse. It is SRT that says the tick rates are not the same in all frames. Tick rates may be a function of forces applied to the timing mechanisms such as crystal oscillators and in this sense the measure "time" may have changed - relying on the technological accuracy of "the clock" is dangerous. However, the application of accelerating force on timing measurement systems does not alter time in the slightest, this is too obvious, Geistkiesel

Where in some other thread did you prove this Johnny5? : That time dilation and Lorentz contraction are false. Geistkiesel

If the clocks are ticking at different rates in different frames of reference, then the physics is not the same in all inertial reference frames and necessarily, using your rules space and time aren't relative they are absolute. I will restate the problem. Reference frame A moving at .9999c wrt reference frame Ve, the embankment and B moving at 10^-6c wrt Ve.The A and B frames are moving toward each other. Assume at time t = 0 the three inertial reference frames have their respective clocks set to zero at the instant the A and B frames are separated by 90 lh (light hours) measured by observers in the stationary frame or reference, Ve. The instant the clocks pass by each other the clocks are stopped and their total number of one second tick counts are printed on paper in all three frames All three clocks started simultaneously at t = 0 and all three frames stopped simultaneously The Ve, A and B frames transmit a continuous signal of consecutive one second clock ticks, measured within their own frames of reference, to the other frames. As I understand SRT both the A and B frames may consider themselves at rest with respect to the other frame. ISs this a correct assumption? My questions: What clock rate will each frame record in their respectrive frames of the other frame's received tick rate: A sees B rates faster or slower, the same? A sees Ve clock rates faster or slower, the same? B sees A tick rate faster or slower, the same? B sees the Ve clock rates faster or slower, the same? Ve sees the A rate faster than B, the B rate faster than A, the same. compare all three (at least the relative) rates to the Ve frame. What does a comparison of the A and B clock data show wrt the measured rate of the Ve clock rate? Absolute values are OK if you prefer. The only rates I am concerned with are the one second constinuous pulse the the three frames radiate. Geistkiesel

OOPs' date=' got off track. The ship's clock will read "6 years" is this correct? Geistkiesel[/indent']

Electrons that are filtered through two hole diffraction arrangments exhibit intrinsic and ordered motion capability upon exiting the transition through the holes. Particles on an elementary level are assumed to have intrinsic vibration states, that is internal motion capability. Also, in beta decay, are there not reactions to the radiated particles in beta decay? Likewise, particles exhibiting spin attributes certainly have intrinsic direction correcting potential. Geistkiesel

Transdecimal, Gravity is the least understood of the forces, or so the claim. Now gravity wave actrivity has been observed, thiough the theories abound. An arguement can be constructed that all the forces are misunderstood as they in fact are, but the confession of ignorance only extends openly to gravity. I have been toying with the concept that gravity is nothng more (which is in fact A LOT) than the manifest operation of the conservation iof angular momentum of the solar system, with possible peripheral forces resulting from all curved stellar motion external to the solar system-- all motion of stellar objects, stars, galaxies, clusters, etc is in curved trajectories, though locally the trajectories are often, more than otherwise, indistinguishable from straight-line motion. This implies that 'gravity forces' [conservation of angular momentum, COAM forces] is strictly a local effect, measurably. The distances between even the closest stellar body external to the solar system is some star approximately 7 light years away has not been seen to affect the solar system motion i.e. the motion of the planets are insulated from external gravity activity, or "universal conservation of angular momentum constraints", unless someone knows something I don't, re gravitational dynamics. There are indeed a plethora of gravity theorues and current continuous gravity experiments to consider. Interestingly enough the sun contains more than 1000x the mass of all the planets and satellite mass of the solar system combined, yet the sun contributes a mere 1-2 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system. Gravity aside, the forces observed in the maintenance of the conservation of angular momentum, easily enough verified, has not been given serious consideration as far as my cursory review of the subject has led me to believe. Methinks thee is a significant ;nionlocdal; thread tot he story. By nonlocal, I do not mean "disgtanr mass effects' as I did above using the word "local effect". I mean nonlocal forces in the context of quantum descriptions of the small world. Of course gyroscopic motion has been studied in depth, but even here, there seems to be an unsatisfactory model, in terms of completeness, as the literature has an inherent insecurity thread regarding the dynamics of the forces involved. A lot of "whys" are unanswered and are filled in with mathematical contrivances that sweep the unknown aspects of guroscopic activity, GA, into oblivion with the claim of that gyroscopic forces are known to a certainty, i.e. the claim of completeness of the model. Geistkiesel

If the object under scrutiny had been accelerated, the force causing the measured relative motion exclusively (as in trains accelerating and train stations not accelerating) would this not be sufficient to establish "which object is moving with respect to another object"? An unaccelerated observer in a lab observing an electron acceleration process can tell from all the instrumentations, plus his lack of feeling any personal accelerations, unambiguously observes known forces accelerating the electron which is observed to undergo some "mass" perturbation. What do you mean the observer cannot determine if he is moving or if the electron is moving? I thought the "twin paradox" was resolved by an acceleration explanation: the accelerated twin is the slower aging wrt his twin which was unaccelerated; Of course this does pose a serious problem to the equivalence of inertial frames and the embedded "reciprocity" aspects of SRT anad the expected results from scrutinizing the inertial frames motion and effects of motion. Geistkiesel

Swansont, Can you give a reference for the gravitational potential changes regarding GPS clocks. Geistkiesel