Light Time Clock

[Masanov]

who read this?

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Experiment(9).htm

[CPL.Luke]

all inertial frames are equivalent, the view from the LTC clocks are just as valid (1 time) as the view from an outside observer who would view different times.

 

why the hell is scotland yard investigating this? I wouldn't trust their ability to perform a real scientific investigation

 

 

 

You made up a postulate of special relativity though, Einstein postulated that all observers would see the speed of light as the speed of light, but because of time dilation events can happen at different times relative to eachother.

 

 

Times are observed I'll go dig up a reference

[Masanov]

all inertial frames are equivalent' date=' the view from the LTC clocks are just as valid (1 time) as the view from an outside observer who would view different times.

[/quote']

Inside observer and outside observer have LTC to view the different distances... mentioned. Judging by LTC these distances are the proof of relative speeds, but judging by postulates, these distances SHOULD BE DIVIDED BY C to receive calculated times.

Relative times cannot be seen, they are calculated!!! That is why S.Y.

[CPL.Luke]

you can't observe your own time traveling slower, you can only observe others times traveling slower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy-Thorndike_experiment

^proved time contraction through a variation of the MM experiment

 

also, heres something similar to your light clock that is neutral for SR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

 

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

^theres a reference to the atomic clocks.

 

if the effect weren't real then the GPS system wouldn't work as they currently all have the software to compensate for special relativity

[Masanov]

you can't observe your own time traveling slower, you can only observe others times traveling slower.

You do not observe others times slower, you calculate times so that to make them SLOWER and imagine LTC some 10 seconds ago. You take of million light pulses each pulse separately and give it separate time, different from LTC. So, you recalculate LTC time.

 

Returning to the experiment, only remains to remember:

For LTC time in S, we see all million pulses of S', going different distances with their different relative speeds. Say. You disagree? Then you recalculate this time LTC shows, and refer to "experiments", postulates and divide these distances by C!! YA? So, you do not receive real times, you do not observe you times, you make calculations and references.

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Experiment(9).htm

[CPL.Luke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity

 

^

Because of the freedom one has to select how one defines units of length and time in physics, it is possible to make one of the two postulates of relativity a tautological consequence of the definitions, but one cannot do this for both postulates simultaneously, as when combined they have consequences which are independent of one's choice of definition of length and time. For instance, if one defines units of length and time in terms of a physical object (e.g. by defining units of time in terms of transitions of a caesium atom, or length in terms of wavelengths of a krypton atom) then it becomes tautological that the law determining that unit of length or time will be the same in all reference frames, but then the invariance of c is non-trivial. Conversely, if one defines units of length and time in such a way that c is necessarily constant, then the second postulate becomes tautological, but the first one does not; for instance, if the length unit is defined in terms of the time unit and a predetermined fixed value of c, then there is no a priori reason why the number of wavelengths of krypton in a unit of length will be the same in all reference frames (or even in all orientations).

 

I think your just redefining everything as is explained above, as explained above this is illogical. Also you have not responded to my atomic clock reference

[Masanov]

Relative speeds are illogical? You cannot imagine LTC time of S for all million pulse in S'?

Then what you can imagine? Then leave it to Scotland Yard.

[CPL.Luke]

I would see a slightly different time for each pulse for when an event occurs. I think your making a logical mistake in saying that the speeds are relative rather than the time.

 

now please respond to what I consider proof of time dilation e.g.

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.../Unit5/gps.html

[CPL.Luke]

if the length of the distance is contracted, so it takes less time to traverse it, then if you divide d by t you get v (also known as (in this case) C

[Masanov]

I would see a slightly different time for each pulse for when an event occurs. I think your making a logical mistake in saying that the speeds are relative rather than the time.

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.../Unit5/gps.html

Thank you for references, before I answer your reference I need a break... one cannot pay for the internet and read at the same time.

 

No, you just imagine, that you see slight difference in time. All million times SEEN have vectors and are IMAGINED for common LTC time.

 

In the long run explaine, why times have angles. If your references do not explain this, so why you gave them to me. Explain by by your words.

[Masanov]

if the length of the distance is contracted, so it takes less time to traverse it, then if you divide d by t you get v (also known as (in this case) C

You see LTC in your system and in the system you are observing.

When light appears on the exit of the LTC tube in your system, it should be on the exit of the system observed. = if you contract or stretch the distance passed by the light pulse, then you sctretch or contract the speed, with which the light has passed this distance. Not to pass, has passed!

[CPL.Luke]

you may want to take a look at this animation of how space works in SR

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lorentz_transform_of_world_line.gif

[Masanov]

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.../Unit5/gps.html

does not work

You did not answer the question: if you see different distances light pulses passed for one LTC time, you have relative speeds or times?

[Masanov]

Masanov - Now explain how an observer travelling with the tube S' (let's call him O') calculates the time of the light progressing up the tube to be 20s without playing with t' if the length of the tube to O' is 1m and the speed of light is c.

Good. Nice. But i did not propose length contraction. See the following explanation, why in your case you should rescale LTC if it is contracted

 

Only to Halucinigenia

because the proposed is not

in the course of discussion:

his layout is different

SUPERANSWER SUPERANSWER SUPERANSWER SUPERANSWER SUPERANSWER SUPERANSWER

Your calculations can be done alternatively in both frames S and S'. You just install 2 LTCs into each of the frames.

One - shows real time of the frame[you are in] and the other shows the relative time of the opposite frame.

You [in S], or you [in S'], judging your real time LTC data

see that light in the relative LTC tube is slower vertically, because of its tube's length change. So, because longitudinal light speeds in the real time LTC and in the relative time LTC are proportionately different, then time is common.

 

So, the length change is a FACTOR TO CONSIDER not to use

relative light time clocks for observations and measurements of other inertial systems times. Use non-relative LTC of your frames. For example, LTC of your frames can exactly measure the speed of light moving vertically in a relative LTC tube.

 

Though your proposal deviates the discussion that relative times instead of relative speeds of the light pulses are pure calculations and not seen, it's very nice of you to help.

 

Generally, your task is the same as water clocks of different diametres but with the same speed of water flow. If the time ruler on these water reservoirs remain the same, and you will get lazy to rescale a ruler, you will have problems with time data. As in water clocks [where time flows with the speed of water in tubes], in LTCs time also flows with the speed of light, and the postulates demand C to be constant in all systems, so in your case just rescale LTC with bigger diametre.

SUPERANSWER SUPERANSWER SUPERANSWER SUPERANSWER SUPERANSWER SUPERANSWER

[Masanov]

Also you have not responded to my atomic clock reference

PLS discuss atomic clocks in yourOWNthread.

atomic clocks have some distances for electrons or light to pass them? It's Geiger clock?, so why are you thinking that dilations of tickings is the proof of relativity, it's the proof of accelerations in the orbit.

The article you mentioned stated, that the nav system would have had the problem if clocks had not been slowed down beforehand. So, when you are together with the clock really slowed down, you see this slowing in your inertial system, not in the system you are observing. Then this is not relativity.

 

Moreover, LTC thread is just to discuss the miracle, that light can move inside the tube with the speed 1 cm per second. That is it. So, if you have built LTC already, then show how it works. Does light speed change in the LTC tube, if you move in a train?

When someone builds LTC and explains, how it works, and if light really can move inside the tube of LTC like a murcury, discussion is closed! If you want to prove with LTC or atomic clocks that you observe different time peeping into another inertial system, show it. Your atomic clocks showed data of pilots moving with clocks, these pilots did not peeped into other inertial systems.

[Masanov]

[i']Good. Nice. But i did not propose length contraction. See the following explanation, why in your case you should rescale LTC if it is contracted[/i]

OR STRETCHED

[Masanov]

...

Why you argues about the fates of my thread. Go make yours and prove it.

Say, you were not on that trip. You did not mentioned how much tickings there were on the Earth, how much in flight.

 

Make LTC and go checking. I would be greatful to you, if you do this.

You mentioned only seconds, how much tickings there should be in a seconds. What is the connection between your TICKINGS and postulates?

 

You see it is the theme of your separate thread. There should not be a thread in a thread, hampering development.

 

You uttered your opinion that you see not relative speeds, but times.

OK, use LTC to show them. Place orders to make it, or you may place here plausible plan, I will place order, if you plan will convince ONE FIRM I KNOW.

 

I am not going to discuss tickings!

[CPL.Luke]

you have been claiming throughout this thread that time-dilation isn't real, in fact you called me a liar when I said it had been observed

 

Call the reference pls. It's not true. If you place LTC into that spaceship, according to postulates C and cos alpha [as vector of speed] will remain the same in all inertial systems. So, your saying is a scientific lie, not investigated.[/quote}

 

you've been talking about relative speed of light this whole time in an attempt to show that relativity really should be based off of a relative speed of light or some such.

 

now the atomic clocks are run slower than normal by 38 microseconds because of the combined affects of GR and SR would make them run 38 seconds fast normally. The sattelite is in a different frame compared to the GPS reciever, and so these effects would have an effect.

 

In the GPS system an inacurracy in the times of 38 microseconds would result in GPS readings going false after approximatly 2 minutes. In fact the GPS readings would drift by 10 km per day if Relativity weren't right.

 

because the clocks in orbit are pre-slowed by 38 microseconds, if you were to compare an earth clock with a clock on a sattelite, they would be running at the same speed. Whereas if SR and GR weren't right, you would see the clocks lag by about 48 microseconds.

 

if you refuse to accept time dilation after being confronted with proof that it occurs, then this thread really isn't science anymore.

[Masanov]

Masanov - Now explain how an observer travelling with the tube S' (let's call him O') calculates the time of the light progressing up the tube to be 20s without playing with t' if the length of the tube to O' is 1m and the speed of light is c.

See Luke, people like LTC and are trying to discuss how to use it as a checking device. So far I have noticed only calculations and references. And tickings, . All we need is clinkings, clunking sounds here and a good plan. So far there has been no good propositions to SEE relative times by LTC, except for once by Halucinogenia. Halucinogenia is good in calculations. Calculate the speed with which one should move with S' to see LTC of S half filled with light, when LTC in S' is full. Light moves in LTC very slowly like a mercury, or like that. Even observer should have the possibility to notice that.

If you do not know how to use LTC, then sorry, I can't help it.

Let us speak in another way. LTC is a clock? Apply it in Relativity! Why you speak of other clocks? Propose to pilots this device and ask them to make a diary day by day.

[CPL.Luke]

a pilot wouldn't notice anything. GO READ HOW AN ATOMIC CLOCK WORKS

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

 

If what your thinking is real these wouldn't work.

 

a light clock is useful for deriving SR nothing more

[CPL.Luke]

you do realise that C is constant all the time right? the reason its constant is because time dilates. C never slows or changes, only T

 

a second is an amount of time that over the centuries has taken on a strict definition which follows as:

 

the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

 

now an atomic clock in orbit lags by 38 millionths of this number of oscillations per day.

[Masanov]

a pilot wouldn't notice anything.

a light clock is useful for deriving SR nothing more

In your own tread.

If LTC is not useful for checking Relativity' date=' then relative time is not seen.

You have to calculate it. How? next time, slowly.

I read about atomic clock many times... By the way there was a remark that in devices like LTC seen from another inertial systems (IS) there should be less waves [less chains'] observed, which is a very biased assertion. So, I read your URLS. So, one can build LTC and demand to show, where, when and why they observe LTC in other IS with not full amount of waves.

[CPL.Luke]

first

In your own tread.

 

all threads are public, no one "owns" this thread. This is not a statement forum, you can't just have people respond in support of what your saying

 

If LTC is not useful for checking Relativity, then relative time is not seen.

 

relative time is seen I've demonstrated this several times, its a well known fact thatt time dilates, and it is used in dozens of applications.

 

I read clock many times... By the way there was a remark that in devices like LTC there should be less waves [less chains] observed, which is a very biased assertion.

 

two things, A: the reference never said anything about light clocks. B: if your trying to say that my ascertion that an atomic clock in space will lead (I made a typo and said lag in my previous post) an atomic clock on earth by 38 millionths of 9,192,631,770 periods per day is biased, you have yet to grasp the fact that if it didn't bombs wouldn't land where there supposed to (since they do it can be assumed that the system works).

 

Also if you want to see time dilation for yourself wire up two electromagnets and stick them together and marvel at time dilation. Magnets wouldn't exist if time dilation didn't happen

[CPL.Luke]

also please stop misquoting me, a copy and paste from one of my posts will do just fine.

[Masanov]

So, you want to star in my thread? You like the word LTC?