Silly Einstein

[Goldminer]

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with SJW's distance dependent clock speeds, but hey, Goldminer, I have replaced the spedometer cables on two of my vehicles in the past, and I guarantee you, they "count the spins"!!
I am however interested in the effect that acceleration has on clocks, especially the types of accelerations required to send a clock away from, say, the Earth, then bring it back again for comparison... also in the requirement of the moving bodies to reposition for reception of a return signal [and the subsequent required adjustment] from a distant moving clock.

The problem is Einstein and all others transform the moving frame to the stationary frame and foget one thing. If you change the reading on the other clock, what does it then read for c in it's own frame? Think about it before answering. The same value if you transformed your clock readings to it's frame and then used that value to measure light in your frame. And it will not equal c. And yet Einstein wants me to believe the clock has never changed.

The article to which you link is written by a very knowledgeable gentleman, if I were you I would not make too many claims about what I know relative to what he knows. If I could get his attention, I would like very much to review his criticism of my essay.

I have no idea what you mean that clocks are "transformed." The "Galilean Transform" is about locating various points in one coordinate system to positions in a different coordinate system. It has nothing to do with clocks, especially since Einstein added a separate meaningless axis to his fantasy, after the fact.

This is what GPS says, but I disagree with his interpretation of the data too.

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_1843.pdf

Did you even read your own link? I have the impression that he disagrees with our buddy Einstein. Thanks for the link, by the way. It's a good article.

[sjw40364]

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with SJW's distance dependent clock speeds, but hey, Goldminer, I have replaced the spedometer cables on two of my vehicles in the past, and I guarantee you, they "count the spins"!!
I am however interested in the effect that acceleration has on clocks, especially the types of accelerations required to send a clock away from, say, the Earth, then bring it back again for comparison... also in the requirement of the moving bodies to reposition for reception of a return signal [and the subsequent required adjustment] from a distant moving clock.

The problem is Einstein and all others transform the moving frame to the stationary frame and foget one thing. If you change the reading on the other clock, what does it then read for c in it's own frame? Think about it before answering. The same value if you transformed your clock readings to it's frame and then used that value to measure light in your frame. And it will not equal c. And yet Einstein wants me to believe the clock has never changed.

The article to which you link is written by a very knowledgeable gentleman, if I were you I would not make too many claims about what I know relative to what he knows. If I could get his attention, I would like very much to review his criticism of my essay.

I have no idea what you mean that clocks are "transformed." The "Galilean Transform" is about locating various points in one coordinate system to positions in a different coordinate system. It has nothing to do with clocks, especially since Einstein added a separate meaningless axis to his fantasy, after the fact.

This is what GPS says, but I disagree with his interpretation of the data too.

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_1843.pdf

Did you even read your own link? I have the impression that he disagrees with our buddy Einstein. Thanks for the link, by the way. It's a good article.

I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but it all has to do with velocity and energy. The clocks slow because the energy increases. The ruler seems smaller because increased energy causes smaller electron orbits. If I accept the explanation that the ruler shrinks due to motion, then what if I place the engine in the front, not back, will my ruler than expand instead of contract? Do I now have length expansion in tangent with clock slowing? Not observed, it is therefore the clock and receiver that has changed because of the energy input.

And where in anything I have said did you ever get the impression I agree with Einstein? He thinks all clocks in free fall tick the same and can be assumed to be stationary. Biggest fraud ever perpetuated.

[Goldminer]

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with SJW's distance dependent clock speeds, but hey, Goldminer, I have replaced the spedometer cables on two of my vehicles in the past, and I guarantee you, they "count the spins"!!
I am however interested in the effect that acceleration has on clocks, especially the types of accelerations required to send a clock away from, say, the Earth, then bring it back again for comparison... also in the requirement of the moving bodies to reposition for reception of a return signal [and the subsequent required adjustment] from a distant moving clock.

The problem is Einstein and all others transform the moving frame to the stationary frame and foget one thing. If you change the reading on the other clock, what does it then read for c in it's own frame? Think about it before answering. The same value if you transformed your clock readings to it's frame and then used that value to measure light in your frame. And it will not equal c. And yet Einstein wants me to believe the clock has never changed.

The article to which you link is written by a very knowledgeable gentleman, if I were you I would not make too many claims about what I know relative to what he knows. If I could get his attention, I would like very much to review his criticism of my essay.

I have no idea what you mean that clocks are "transformed." The "Galilean Transform" is about locating various points in one coordinate system to positions in a different coordinate system. It has nothing to do with clocks, especially since Einstein added a separate meaningless axis to his fantasy, after the fact.

This is what GPS says, but I disagree with his interpretation of the data too.

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_1843.pdf

Did you even read your own link? I have the impression that he disagrees with our buddy Einstein. Thanks for the link, by the way. It's a good article.

I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but it all has to do with velocity and energy. The clocks slow because the energy increases. The ruler seems smaller because increased energy causes smaller electron orbits. If I accept the explanation that the ruler shrinks due to motion, then what if I place the engine in the front, not back, will my ruler than expand instead of contract? Do I now have length expansion in tangent with clock slowing? Not observed, it is therefore the clock and receiver that has changed because of the energy input.

And where in anything I have said did you ever get the impression I agree with Einstein? He thinks all clocks in free fall tick the same and can be assumed to be stationary. Biggest fraud ever perpetuated.

You skip my posts, and still haven't read the essay. Einstein's "measure the moving train" gedanken, which I mention in the essay, explains why he thinks the moving train is measured shorter. I explain that if the technician on the platform at the rear of the passing train signals the forward technician just as the caboose passes his position, the train measures longer, instead of shorter than if the forward technician signals to the rear, as Einstein presents the scenario. Either method is permissible. So, his explanation is ambiguous. The finite speed of the light signal involved in trying to measure the moving train has nothing to do with how long the moving train actually is. Lengths do not contract or expand, just because the object being measured is in relative motion with those trying to measure it.

The article in your link expresses the fact that the GPS data shows that Einstein's formulas are ambiguous. The reason Einstein thinks clocks in relative motion run slow is because he thinks there is a diagonal going "photon" in the reference frame opposite the source-mirror reference frame, than can only travel at the speed of light. It has nothing to do with his thinking that "all clocks in free fall tick the same and can be assumed to be stationary." He never stated anything of the sort. You put straw ideas into other's work, and then try to demolish an idea that they never held.

My essay demonstrates that there is no diagonal going "photon," and his theory is a sophomoric fantasy. I have no idea why you refuse to read it.

Einstein's predecessors, who for the most part actually did real experiments, (Einstein did none) sensed the idea that something seems compressed when things are in relative motion. I show how the idea may have arisen. Einstein thought he had discovered why that idea happens, by making up scenarios that cannot happen through physical reality.

[sjw40364]

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

According to time dilation it is not the clock but the bending of space time that causes clocks to tick differently. There is no bending of space time, there is only energy and distance from an energy source. Velocity increases energy. Yet when you convert one frame to another you are converting a moving frame to a stationary frame. Is not the earth in motion as well? Now can I not go to the GPS location and convert the earths moving clock to my stationary frame?

The only explanation is it is not the clocks that tick differently, even though they just said they did, but that space is warped. Bull, the clocks are receiving different energies and do tick at different rates just as they appear to do. There is no discrepency, it is the technical nature of the clock.

If you actually read Einstein's paper you will notice he always converts any frame to a stationary one. He wanted to have a universal time, just as you do, when there exists no such thing. Each time is dependent on its velocity through space. How would a clock following a force free trajectory along bent space slow? Why would it slow from following a curved path? The only logical explanation is that one receives more or less energy due to its velocity, not from following a force free path in space. And how does my rocket ship cause space to bend simply because it is under thrust? You want to increase energy while accelerating, then forget about it as soon as thrust is stopped, as if the energy from acceleration magically went away. You are now vibrating at a rate consistent with the energy input from the velocity you obtained from acceleration, which is why your clock ticks differently than another, but you do not notice it.

You all want light to magically travel at c regardless of your velocity, yet you want the clocks to read the same. It is impossible for two clocks to read different times at different velocities yet obtain the same value for for c. They tick at a rate proportional to c and velocity, so that c remains constant to all observers regardless of their velocity. At 1/2 of c light is traveling away from you at 1/2 of c, but your clock rate has changed proportionally with that velocity so it only appears to you to travel at c.

Yes, this means there is no constant time or any way to determine one's true velocity through space, nor is there any way to determine the true value of c without a truly stationary point, which does not exist. Light travels at c relative to my velocity through space, just as it travels at c relative to every other observer regardless of their velocity.

This is only possible if our clocks tick at different rates depending on that velocity. There is no logical explanation but that energy input changes clock rates.

They tell you that in their explanation of GPS. Clocks further from earth tick faster, while the velocity of the craft causes it to tick slower, then try to convince you it isn't the clock. They tell you a rocket traveling at 1/2 of c would experience slower time, showing velocity matters, then want you to believe you can convert tha result to a stationary frame, even though the earth is or any other object has its own velocity through space.

All frames for all observers are considered at relative rest in his theory. Read it.

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/100/elecmovbodeng.pdf

I'll tell you what, take your chart, move your stationary coordinate at an unknown velocity along with the moving coordinate as nothing is at rest, the do your calculations, let me know the results?

[Goldminer]

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

According to time dilation it is not the clock but the bending of space time that causes clocks to tick differently. There is no bending of space time, there is only energy and distance from an energy source. Velocity increases energy. Yet when you convert one frame to another you are converting a moving frame to a stationary frame. Is not the earth in motion as well? Now can I not go to the GPS location and convert the earths moving clock to my stationary frame?

The only explanation is it is not the clocks that tick differently, even though they just said they did, but that space is warped. Bull, the clocks are receiving different energies and do tick at different rates just as they appear to do. There is no discrepency, it is the technical nature of the clock.

If you actually read Einstein's paper you will notice he always converts any frame to a stationary one. He wanted to have a universal time, just as you do, when there exists no such thing. Each time is dependent on its velocity through space. How would a clock following a force free trajectory along bent space slow? Why would it slow from following a curved path? The only logical explanation is that one receives more or less energy due to its velocity, not from following a force free path in space. And how does my rocket ship cause space to bend simply because it is under thrust? You want to increase energy while accelerating, then forget about it as soon as thrust is stopped, as if the energy from acceleration magically went away. You are now vibrating at a rate consistent with the energy input from the velocity you obtained from acceleration, which is why your clock ticks differently than another, but you do not notice it.

You all want light to magically travel at c regardless of your velocity, yet you want the clocks to read the same. It is impossible for two clocks to read different times at different velocities yet obtain the same value for for c. They tick at a rate proportional to c and velocity, so that c remains constant to all observers regardless of their velocity. At 1/2 of c light is traveling away from you at 1/2 of c, but your clock rate has changed proportionally with that velocity so it only appears to you to travel at c.

Yes, this means there is no constant time or any way to determine one's true velocity through space, nor is there any way to determine the true value of c without a truly stationary point, which does not exist. Light travels at c relative to my velocity through space, just as it travels at c relative to every other observer regardless of their velocity.

This is only possible if our clocks tick at different rates depending on that velocity. There is no logical explanation but that energy input changes clock rates.

They tell you that in their explanation of GPS. Clocks further from earth tick faster, while the velocity of the craft causes it to tick slower, then try to convince you it isn't the clock. They tell you a rocket traveling at 1/2 of c would experience slower time, showing velocity matters, then want you to believe you can convert tha result to a stationary frame, even though the earth is or any other object has its own velocity through space.

All frames for all observers are considered at relative rest in his theory. Read it.

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/100/elecmovbodeng.pdf

I'll tell you what, take your chart, move your stationary coordinate at an unknown velocity along with the moving coordinate as nothing is at rest, the do your calculations, let me know the results?

So now, Wikipedia, the encyclopedia you yourself can help edit, is your authority? The very first paragraph there is a mess of ambiguity!

In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.

1. ". . . an actual difference of elapsed time between two events." I suppose they are referring to two events, in the same reference frame, that an observer halfway between sees happen at the same time. The problem here is that an observer at one of these events will see the event there happen before the other event that is actually simultaneous with it. Einsteinians fail to discriminate between actual simultaneity, and observed simultaneity. Furthermore, everything we see in our own environment is an example of things being observed to happen simultaneously, that actually do not happen simultaneously. This lack of simultaneity is the result of the finite speed of radiation, or latency of the signal. The more distant actions you see have already happened by a nanosecond per foot distance from you. How many deaf ears and eyes fail to understand this simple fact? Webo wants to promote his opinion, you don't seem to "get it," I suppose MJV doesn't either. Maybe Sparky and Siggy do, Idunno.

2. " . . . as measured by observers either moving relative to each other . . . " Observers at different distances from two events will disagree on the elapsed times between the events whether they are in relative motion with each other or not. Please read my comment #1. Motion causes nothing but changing latency between observers and events. Einsteinians are convinced that motion itself "warps spacetime." This is not because they stepped in some bull stuff, it's because they are full of it!

3. " . . . differently situated from gravitational masses . . . " You will be overjoyed to learn that I am still considering what gravity does to radiation. We know that in the source frame, a pulse of isotropically radiated energy expands spherically/hemispherically, centered upon the source. So, if the speed of light is constant, then gravity must suck the energy out of the radiation in order to cause "gravitational red-shift." Or, gravity slows the speed of light down to do the dirty trick. A rotatable vertical interferometer (similar to the horizontal MM interferometer) fails to show that the speed of light is affected by gravity. So that sorta rules out the slowing of time or contraction of distance that Einsteinians are climaxing over. Maybe, just maybe, swj, you could apply your theory here on this situation. I dunno.

I do know that your constant litany about what I write is baseless. Read my essay.

All frames for all observers are considered at relative rest in his theory. Read it.

Come on Stevie, how many times have I read your hero's sophomoric fantasy? Way more that once. I admit that I don't have it memorized, do you?

Your comments reveal that you didn't comprehend what you read there. The highlighted comment demonstrates that you don't understand. Please quote where Einstein's theory promotes anything like what you claim. I think you do not comprehend the idea of inertial motion. As I pointed out to you already, you cannot make up straw concepts and plant them in someone elese's theory, and then laugh at your own conception of what they hold. Well, I guess you can, but it is you that look silly to those of us who really understand.

[sjw40364]

1) you still don't get it do you. It is an actual difference of elapsed time, yet had you quoted the rest it would have told you that this difference of elapsed time had nothing to do with the technical nature of the clock OR the finite speed of propagation of light, but of warped space. I see you must agree that space is warped, since you agree it is not the clock or finite propagation speed. What you fail to grasp is that when all 3 adjust time of light delay from their clocks, the clocks still do not agree that the event occurred at the same time,nor do the clocks agree that c is c according to the other clocks, even after light propagation is subtracted.

2) and yet if the clocks tick the same as you believe, then subtraction of time of light delay from either clock would cause them to read a simultaneous event. 5 minutes is 5 minutes on both clocks is it not if they tick the same?

3) or gravity (or the EM force) changes the rate at which each clock ticks. You are willing to consider it might change the speed of c or suck its energy, but won't even consider it may change the rate at which clock ticks, which solves all discrepancies. Funny since no gravitational only EM force has been modeled for the atom. Yet you want me to believe that atoms will never change vibrational rate with more or less energy. Now who is ignoring everything we know? Energy excites atoms, causing them to move faster or slower based on energy input. This is why hot gasses move faster than cool gasses. Why supercool the cesium atom and attempt to shield it from outside effects if it always ticks the same regardless of energy input???

I know you don't want to consider that if clocks change, no calculation is correct except in that frame, which is exactly the way it is. Two people differently situated using the exact same math, get two different answers to the same equation. But because all things sharing that reference also change, each is correct in his own frame, but only his own frame.

[Goldminer]

1) you still don't get it do you. It is an actual difference of elapsed time, yet had you quoted the rest it would have told you that this difference of elapsed time had nothing to do with the technical nature of the clock OR the finite speed of propagation of light, but of warped space. I see you must agree that space is warped, since you agree it is not the clock or finite propagation speed. What you fail to grasp is that when all 3 adjust time of light delay from their clocks, the clocks still do not agree that the event occurred at the same time,nor do the clocks agree that c is c according to the other clocks, even after light propagation is subtracted.

Steve, I knew you wouldn't get it. I was pointing out all the ambiguities in just the first paragraph of the Wiki page on time dilation. You gloss right over what I have to say. Yes it is an actual difference of elapsed time. Yes, they believe is is a result of their warped ideas. I explained that the actual difference in elapsed time happens between observers and/or events (sources emitting radiation,) whether any or all are in motion or not. (All subjects mentioned, sources and observers, can be at rest with each other ((motionless) and still report actual differences in elapsed times of the various events, i.e. the order of events.)

There is no such thing as adjusting the time delay (latency) of the travel of a light pulse. It will take its own sweet time to get where it is going. If the pulse runs into a transparent block of matter, it will slow down, but it will take the fastest path through said matter, said path not necessarily the shortest distance path (this is known as refraction.)

When two clocks are being compared, and don't count the same number of cycles for a given duration of time, they are not regulated the same. Yes, to regulate each one of them requires a Master Clock. Clocks marking the same duration of time, differently, has nothing to do with latency/time delay of light over distance.

2) and yet if the clocks tick the same as you believe, then subtraction of time of light delay from either clock would cause them to read a simultaneous event. 5 minutes is 5 minutes on both clocks is it not if they tick the same?

To compare different delays, the start or emission time stamp is subtracted from the received/detected time stamp, and then the delays are compared. Or it could be done with several channels on an expensive very short time division, multichannel oscilloscope. I have no idea how you subtract the time delays from clocks. Do you?

3) or gravity (or the EM force) changes the rate at which each clock ticks. You are willing to consider it might change the speed of c or suck its energy, but won't even consider it may change the rate at which clock ticks, which solves all discrepancies. Funny since no gravitational only EM force has been modeled for the atom. Yet you want me to believe that atoms will never change vibrational rate with more or less energy. Now who is ignoring everything we know? Energy excites atoms, causing them to move faster or slower based on energy input. This is why hot gasses move faster than cool gasses. Why supercool the cesium atom and attempt to shield it from outside effects if it always ticks the same regardless of energy input???

These efforts are made in the reference frame of the clocks because the clocks in the same frame will not stay regulated with each other, get it? It is why some atomic clocks are unstable, and others are more reliable. Get it? That is why Hafele–Keating experiment is BS (they took readings from the unstable clocks and ignored the stable one.

Atoms and molecules vibrate, and move faster in a gas, when an increase in the energy (temperature) is applied. Momentum is kinetic energy and is relative just like motion is relative. The observer's motion has no effect on the source's internal energy, otherwise, the source's energy would keep changing at every instant, caused by the motion of everything else.This has nothing to do with the overall motion of source and observer.

The signals from clocks in relative motion vibrate faster or slower when the receiver is moving towards or away from the source clock. It is these Doppler shifted signals which Einsteinians confuse with clocks being deregulated by motion. If they went back and understood Einstein's relativistic triangle, they would realize (I doubt it) that the transverse distance is identical in both his reference frames. They rely upon his fantasy photon, the "diagonal going" cock-up that is the foundation of his theory.

I know you don't want to consider that if clocks change, no calculation is correct except in that frame, which is exactly the way it is. Two people differently situated using the exact same math, get two different answers to the same equation. But because all things sharing that reference also change, each is correct in his own frame, but only his own frame.

And if the math formulas have no relation to reality? Steve, quit making Einstein's stuff apply to my comments, it doesn't apply. I have demonstrated (many times in this thread and others) that fixed observer's locations determine the latencies from fixed sources, all in the same reference frame. The order of events as reported by the various fixed location observers in this one reference frame will be different from each other, no one seems to acknowledge that, you included. Motion only changes the latency between sources and observers, not the regulation of clocks in motion. Since relative motion allows either reference frame to be declared "stationary," each observer can say the clock in her reference frame is regulated faster than the clock in the (arbitrarily chosen) "moving reference frame." This is a contradiction of logic, get it?

[sjw40364]

Because you do not understand what GPS clocks are telling you. If I move two perfectly synchronized clocks to a distance that it takes light 2 minutes to reach it, and send out a pulse at 12 pm, then when the pulse reaches the other clock it should read 12:02. The pulse is sent back and I receive it at 12:04. Since light is always c I subtract 4 minutes and I verify the other clock was set to 12 pm at the exact time as mine. No discrepancies, everything is fine in wonderland.

But in reality when I subtract the time of light propagation of 4 minutes I find the clocks did not both read 12 pm at the same time. You then want me to believe that it has nothing to do with the rate the clocks tick. Delude yourself all you want, the clocks tick at different rates, proven since the first satellite was launched. You want me to believe that magically 4 minutes isn't 4 minutes, that the clocks tick the same but subtraction of light delay propagation gives incorrect results, yet I am to accept that anyways as meaning the clocks tick the same. 2 + 2 = 4. 4 - 4 = 0, yet clocks show they are not synchronized with the subtraction of light propagation delays. Do you really want to continue to believe all clocks tick the same, when the very data shows otherwise?

I know you don't agree with Einstein, and neither do I, but the reason he is wrong, as well as you, is it is because the clocks do not tick the same because their energy input is different. The reason why nearness to a gravity source affects them as well as velocity is that more atoms = more energy, they are pushed to larger orbits (greater elapsed time between orbit points, less vibration, emitted waves are longer).

Likewise more velocity = more energy = they are pushed to larger orbits (greater elapsed time between orbit points, less vibration, emitted waves are longer). The end output, clocks slow closer to more atoms and also under velocity (not only acceleration, but velocity). And that is why no matter your velocity light always travels at c. It does not speed up or slow down, your clock speeds up and slows down as does every single atom sharing that reference frame. Because atoms are governed by the EM force, not gravitationally. Although not technically correct since IMO gravity is nothing more than a misunderstood aspect of the EM force. There is no mystery of a magical c except for those wanting all clocks to tick the same regardless of distance or velocity in relation to another. As if two atoms together are expected to behave the same as two separated by distance. Next you'll be telling me the electrons in carbon molecules vibrate the same as the ones in diamonds, umm aren't diamonds carbon molecules?


The only thing I am unsure about is if they are pushed to larger orbits which makes the wavelength longer by the orbital distance, or if they are confined to tighter orbits and can absorb more energy before emitting the excess before they would break free. The problem is if the current is not steady the emitting radiation would be emitted at different points in the orbit, making the detection of the electrons obit near impossible due to its vibrational and distance of orbit variation. Hmmm, can't seem to pin that rascal down can we.

Variable clocks is the only solution, and one day you will come to that realization, that there is no paradox, just two different times.

I am not the one that thinks light travels at c away from a stationary object and at c away from one traveling at 1/2 of c, yet is somehow still magically constant. I realize the clock has changed on the one traveling at 1/2 of c, which is why it still reads a velocity of c for light. But in reality the stationary object isn't, so it's clock is a variable too, not a constant. Light is not c and also c + 1/2c for two different observers, the clock has changed with its increase in velocity.

[Goldminer]

Because you do not understand what GPS clocks are telling you. If I move two perfectly synchronized clocks to a distance that it takes light 2 minutes to reach it, and send out a pulse at 12 pm, then when the pulse reaches the other clock it should read 12:02. The pulse is sent back and I receive it at 12:04. Since light is always c I subtract 4 minutes and I verify the other clock was set to 12 pm at the exact time as mine. No discrepancies, everything is fine in wonderland.

I have no idea what scenario this represents! I don't know who you know at DOD, but I cannot access any of the clocks on board any of the "Birds." You might think that bouncing a pulse off a "bird" would tell you some exact time, but the "Birds" are not in geosynchronous orbit, so GPS satellites would not suffice for your experiment. You obviously do not understand how GPS works, so quit telling me what I don't know. You don't have the means to do your experiment yourself, and wouldn't understand the data you received anyway.

You still have not read the essay, have you?

[sjw40364]

Because you do not understand what GPS clocks are telling you. If I move two perfectly synchronized clocks to a distance that it takes light 2 minutes to reach it, and send out a pulse at 12 pm, then when the pulse reaches the other clock it should read 12:02. The pulse is sent back and I receive it at 12:04. Since light is always c I subtract 4 minutes and I verify the other clock was set to 12 pm at the exact time as mine. No discrepancies, everything is fine in wonderland.

I have no idea what scenario this represents! I don't know who you know at DOD, but I cannot access any of the clocks on board any of the "Birds." You might think that bouncing a pulse off a "bird" would tell you some exact time, but the "Birds" are not in geosynchronous orbit, so GPS satellites would not suffice for your experiment. You obviously do not understand how GPS works, so quit telling me what I don't know. You don't have the means to do your experiment yourself, and wouldn't understand the data you received anyway.

You still have not read the essay, have you?

I have read everything you posted, and nothing I read leads me to believe it is anything other than the clocks that are not in sync, especially when you are so willing to dismiss the most basics of math to skip over the data. So you are telling me if I send a light pulse out to the "bird" and it takes 4 minutes to return, I can't figure out the exact distance of the satellite and have its time sent with the return pulse? That I then can't subtract time of light propagation delay to verify that the clocks were in sync? Are you that delussional Gold? Are you so willing to ignore the basic concepts of math in order to ignore the data? You seem to like charts and math, so I gave a very simple mathmatical problem. Yet you want to pretend because it is not in geosynchronous orbit it somehow changes the equation. Is your moving train/vehicle/coordinate system in your example in geosynchronous orbit? And as for your train one could say "You don't have the means to do your experiment yourself, and wouldn't understand the data you received anyway."

I do not care what orbit it is in, what trajectory it is taking, what velocity it is moving at. If light takes 4 minutes to get there and back I know its exact distance when the beam contacted it and the exact time the clock on board read when it sent the return pulse. Combined with angular data I could even tell you its exact velocity relative to me, but never could I tell you its velocity through space, nor could a NASA expert. And i do not care who does the math, when all the calculations are done, the two clocks will not be in sync.

[Goldminer]

Because you do not understand what GPS clocks are telling you. If I move two perfectly synchronized clocks to a distance that it takes light 2 minutes to reach it, and send out a pulse at 12 pm, then when the pulse reaches the other clock it should read 12:02. The pulse is sent back and I receive it at 12:04. Since light is always c I subtract 4 minutes and I verify the other clock was set to 12 pm at the exact time as mine. No discrepancies, everything is fine in wonderland.

I have no idea what scenario this represents! I don't know who you know at DOD, but I cannot access any of the clocks on board any of the "Birds." You might think that bouncing a pulse off a "bird" would tell you some exact time, but the "Birds" are not in geosynchronous orbit, so GPS satellites would not suffice for your experiment. You obviously do not understand how GPS works, so quit telling me what I don't know. You don't have the means to do your experiment yourself, and wouldn't understand the data you received anyway.

You still have not read the essay, have you?

I have read everything you posted, and nothing I read leads me to believe it is anything other than the clocks that are not in sync, especially when you are so willing to dismiss the most basics of math to skip over the data. So you are telling me if I send a light pulse out to the "bird" and it takes 4 minutes to return, I can't figure out the exact distance of the satellite and have its time sent with the return pulse? That I then can't subtract time of light propagation delay to verify that the clocks were in sync? Are you that delussional Gold? Are you so willing to ignore the basic concepts of math in order to ignore the data? You seem to like charts and math, so I gave a very simple mathmatical problem. Yet you want to pretend because it is not in geosynchronous orbit it somehow changes the equation. Is your moving train/vehicle/coordinate system in your example in geosynchronous orbit? And as for your train one could say "You don't have the means to do your experiment yourself, and wouldn't understand the data you received anyway."

I do not care what orbit it is in, what trajectory it is taking, what velocity it is moving at. If light takes 4 minutes to get there and back I know its exact distance when the beam contacted it and the exact time the clock on board read when it sent the return pulse. Combined with angular data I could even tell you its exact velocity relative to me, but never could I tell you its velocity through space, nor could a NASA expert. And i do not care who does the math, when all the calculations are done, the two clocks will not be in sync.

by Aardwolf » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:59 am
Probably because the ESA engineers realised from the outset that clock adjustments are unnecessary. The only requirement for the satellite clocks is that they are synchronised to a common time. In fact a particular time isnt even necessary; you could just make them send a pulse every second and just make sure that is synchronised.

I remember some years ago that they put out a statement that the receivers software will account for the relativity adjustments which is completely absurd. For mutilateration you don't even need a clock on the receiver itself; the position is mathematically derived from the various differences of the time taken from each of the satellites, caused by the length of delay. I suspect the statement was put out just to appease relativists.

Aardwolf is exactly right here. Your theory wouldn't allow the system to work. I can't post my essay here, it's too long, and the charts wont fit. So, I doubt you have read it. If you have a disagreement with the points the essay demonstrates, I'd like to hear them. A suggestion that I do some impossible experiment of yours, for you no less, is not criticism. I have no idea which "maths" I have skipped over. Einstein's "maths" are derived from a faulty diagram. I am supposed to use that?

[sjw40364]

Because you do not understand what GPS clocks are telling you. If I move two perfectly synchronized clocks to a distance that it takes light 2 minutes to reach it, and send out a pulse at 12 pm, then when the pulse reaches the other clock it should read 12:02. The pulse is sent back and I receive it at 12:04. Since light is always c I subtract 4 minutes and I verify the other clock was set to 12 pm at the exact time as mine. No discrepancies, everything is fine in wonderland.

I have no idea what scenario this represents! I don't know who you know at DOD, but I cannot access any of the clocks on board any of the "Birds." You might think that bouncing a pulse off a "bird" would tell you some exact time, but the "Birds" are not in geosynchronous orbit, so GPS satellites would not suffice for your experiment. You obviously do not understand how GPS works, so quit telling me what I don't know. You don't have the means to do your experiment yourself, and wouldn't understand the data you received anyway.

You still have not read the essay, have you?

I have read everything you posted, and nothing I read leads me to believe it is anything other than the clocks that are not in sync, especially when you are so willing to dismiss the most basics of math to skip over the data. So you are telling me if I send a light pulse out to the "bird" and it takes 4 minutes to return, I can't figure out the exact distance of the satellite and have its time sent with the return pulse? That I then can't subtract time of light propagation delay to verify that the clocks were in sync? Are you that delussional Gold? Are you so willing to ignore the basic concepts of math in order to ignore the data? You seem to like charts and math, so I gave a very simple mathmatical problem. Yet you want to pretend because it is not in geosynchronous orbit it somehow changes the equation. Is your moving train/vehicle/coordinate system in your example in geosynchronous orbit? And as for your train one could say "You don't have the means to do your experiment yourself, and wouldn't understand the data you received anyway."

I do not care what orbit it is in, what trajectory it is taking, what velocity it is moving at. If light takes 4 minutes to get there and back I know its exact distance when the beam contacted it and the exact time the clock on board read when it sent the return pulse. Combined with angular data I could even tell you its exact velocity relative to me, but never could I tell you its velocity through space, nor could a NASA expert. And i do not care who does the math, when all the calculations are done, the two clocks will not be in sync.

by Aardwolf » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:59 am
Probably because the ESA engineers realised from the outset that clock adjustments are unnecessary. The only requirement for the satellite clocks is that they are synchronised to a common time. In fact a particular time isnt even necessary; you could just make them send a pulse every second and just make sure that is synchronised.

I remember some years ago that they put out a statement that the receivers software will account for the relativity adjustments which is completely absurd. For mutilateration you don't even need a clock on the receiver itself; the position is mathematically derived from the various differences of the time taken from each of the satellites, caused by the length of delay. I suspect the statement was put out just to appease relativists.

Aardwolf is exactly right here. Your theory wouldn't allow the system to work. I can't post my essay here, it's too long, and the charts wont fit. So, I doubt you have read it. If you have a disagreement with the points the essay demonstrates, I'd like to hear them. A suggestion that I do some impossible experiment of yours, for you no less, is not criticism. I have no idea which "maths" I have skipped over. Einstein's "maths" are derived from a faulty diagram. I am supposed to use that?

Aardwolf is exactly wrong there, not right. Claims of synchronization to a common time are not correct. The clocks are not only synchronized before liftoff, but adjusted mathmatically to account for velocity and distance from the earth. They have sent synchronized clocks into orbit, and found they do not stay synchronized. Synchronized means setting both clocks so they read the same here on earth. If you synchronized the clocks here on earth for GPS as they currently do and left both clocks on earth it would not read the same time as the clock sitting right next to it, because it is mathmatically adjusted to account for distance and velocity. Aardwolf is correct in that all the satelites can be synchronized and will agree light is c in the other satelites frames, but not earth's. likewise satelites that are syncronized with each other are still not syncronized with clocks on earth. So now matter how you want to play the game the clocks still do not agree and read different times.

[Goldminer]

Because you do not understand what GPS clocks are telling you. If I move two perfectly synchronized clocks to a distance that it takes light 2 minutes to reach it, and send out a pulse at 12 pm, then when the pulse reaches the other clock it should read 12:02. The pulse is sent back and I receive it at 12:04. Since light is always c I subtract 4 minutes and I verify the other clock was set to 12 pm at the exact time as mine. No discrepancies, everything is fine in wonderland.

I have no idea what scenario this represents! I don't know who you know at DOD, but I cannot access any of the clocks on board any of the "Birds." You might think that bouncing a pulse off a "bird" would tell you some exact time, but the "Birds" are not in geosynchronous orbit, so GPS satellites would not suffice for your experiment. You obviously do not understand how GPS works, so quit telling me what I don't know. You don't have the means to do your experiment yourself, and wouldn't understand the data you received anyway.

You still have not read the essay, have you?

I have read everything you posted, and nothing I read leads me to believe it is anything other than the clocks that are not in sync, especially when you are so willing to dismiss the most basics of math to skip over the data. So you are telling me if I send a light pulse out to the "bird" and it takes 4 minutes to return, I can't figure out the exact distance of the satellite and have its time sent with the return pulse? That I then can't subtract time of light propagation delay to verify that the clocks were in sync? Are you that delussional Gold? Are you so willing to ignore the basic concepts of math in order to ignore the data? You seem to like charts and math, so I gave a very simple mathmatical problem. Yet you want to pretend because it is not in geosynchronous orbit it somehow changes the equation. Is your moving train/vehicle/coordinate system in your example in geosynchronous orbit? And as for your train one could say "You don't have the means to do your experiment yourself, and wouldn't understand the data you received anyway."

I do not care what orbit it is in, what trajectory it is taking, what velocity it is moving at. If light takes 4 minutes to get there and back I know its exact distance when the beam contacted it and the exact time the clock on board read when it sent the return pulse. Combined with angular data I could even tell you its exact velocity relative to me, but never could I tell you its velocity through space, nor could a NASA expert. And i do not care who does the math, when all the calculations are done, the two clocks will not be in sync.

by Aardwolf » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:59 am
Probably because the ESA engineers realised from the outset that clock adjustments are unnecessary. The only requirement for the satellite clocks is that they are synchronised to a common time. In fact a particular time isnt even necessary; you could just make them send a pulse every second and just make sure that is synchronised.

I remember some years ago that they put out a statement that the receivers software will account for the relativity adjustments which is completely absurd. For mutilateration you don't even need a clock on the receiver itself; the position is mathematically derived from the various differences of the time taken from each of the satellites, caused by the length of delay. I suspect the statement was put out just to appease relativists.

Aardwolf is exactly right here. Your theory wouldn't allow the system to work. I can't post my essay here, it's too long, and the charts wont fit. So, I doubt you have read it. If you have a disagreement with the points the essay demonstrates, I'd like to hear them. A suggestion that I do some impossible experiment of yours, for you no less, is not criticism. I have no idea which "maths" I have skipped over. Einstein's "maths" are derived from a faulty diagram. I am supposed to use that?

Aardwolf is exactly wrong there, not right. Claims of synchronization to a common time are not correct. The clocks are not only synchronized before liftoff, but adjusted mathmatically to account for velocity and distance from the earth. They have sent synchronized clocks into orbit, and found they do not stay synchronized. Synchronized means setting both clocks so they read the same here on earth. If you synchronized the clocks here on earth for GPS as they currently do and left both clocks on earth it would not read the same time as the clock sitting right next to it, because it is mathmatically adjusted to account for distance and velocity. Aardwolf is correct in that all the satelites can be synchronized and will agree light is c in the other satelites frames, but not earth's. likewise satelites that are syncronized with each other are still not syncronized with clocks on earth. So now matter how you want to play the game the clocks still do not agree and read different times.

Steve, I see! You have a consulting contract with the U.S. Department of Defense. They call you whenever the GPS system needs an update! Wow, I didn't know with whom I was in dialog. What do they think about your spelling?

Check your dipstick, you maybe a little low.

Yet you want to pretend because it is not in geosynchronous orbit it somehow changes the equation. Is your moving train/vehicle/coordinate system in your example in geosynchronous orbit? And as for your train one could say "You don't have the means to do your experiment yourself, and wouldn't understand the data you received anyway."

It's not my train, Stevie, it's Einstein's. It has nothing to do with being in orbit, that is your theory. The "Measuring the Moving Train Gedanken" criticism is about logic, not "math" per se. But then, at this point I don't expect you to fathom logic. I don't understand why you don't "get it." Other posts"of yours on other topics are quite on point.

[sjw40364]

I don't understand why you don't "get it." Other posts"of yours on other topics are quite on point.

That's just it, I get it, it is you that has not. I know light does not magically travel at c when you are stationary, and again magically at c when you are moving at 1/2 of c, yet somehow is still constant. Best definition of a variable I have ever seen.

Take 3 cars: A=light and travels at a constant 100 mph. B is stationary, C is moving at 1/2 of A. How fast does car A move in relation to B and C??? Grade school arithmetic. That is what constant means. So if A never varies speed (is constant), how does car C see car A moving away at 100 mph just the same as B?

You and Einstein both want me to believe my clock does not change in free fall regardless of velocity, light is constant, yet reads the same velocity for two observers traveling at different velocities. He wants to twist space to explain it, you want to ignore what the other clock says until after you adjust it.

I know that because of my velocity through space, even in so-called "free fall", it is the increased energy of that travel that causes my clock to actually slow, so that light does indeed travel at a constant speed to an object that (if possible) was completely at rest. Because my clock, as well as everything sharing my location also changes in relation to c and velocity (energy increase), c will always read c regardless of your velocity.

This is also why there is no magical power source somewhere in the universe powering it all, as if somewhere physics was different than it is to the furthest extent of our detection. The power source is all around you, and you are a part of it. It is this very movement that generates energy, the only way we scientifically know how to create energy. Move a conductor in a magnetic field. And the only way we know how to create a magnetic field is by moving charges and atoms are made up of these very things. What is a charge? Who knows, I've read enough debates on it to know no one actually knows, but we all have our theories. I just choose to accept the only scientific plausible explanation. Charge is being generated all around you as I type this and you read it. Light is constant, it is the clock, and detector that has changed, which is why even when you are traveling at variable speeds it always appears to be c. Doubt that? How fast is car A moving in relation to car B and C again???

[Goldminer]

I don't understand why you don't "get it." Other posts"of yours on other topics are quite on point.

That's just it, I get it, it is you that has not. I know light does not magically travel at c when you are stationary, and again magically at c when you are moving at 1/2 of c, yet somehow is still constant. Best definition of a variable I have ever seen.

Take 3 cars: A=light and travels at a constant 100 mph. B is stationary, C is moving at 1/2 of A. How fast does car A move in relation to B and C??? Grade school arithmetic. That is what constant means. So if A never varies speed (is constant), how does car C see car A moving away at 100 mph just the same as B?

You and Einstein both want me to believe my clock does not change in free fall regardless of velocity, light is constant, yet reads the same velocity for two observers traveling at different velocities. He wants to twist space to explain it, you want to ignore what the other clock says until after you adjust it.

I know that because of my velocity through space, even in so-called "free fall", it is the increased energy of that travel that causes my clock to actually slow, so that light does indeed travel at a constant speed to an object that (if possible) was completely at rest. Because my clock, as well as everything sharing my location also changes in relation to c and velocity (energy increase), c will always read c regardless of your velocity.

This is also why there is no magical power source somewhere in the universe powering it all, as if somewhere physics was different than it is to the furthest extent of our detection. The power source is all around you, and you are a part of it. It is this very movement that generates energy, the only way we scientifically know how to create energy. Move a conductor in a magnetic field. And the only way we know how to create a magnetic field is by moving charges and atoms are made up of these very things. What is a charge? Who knows, I've read enough debates on it to know no one actually knows, but we all have our theories. I just choose to accept the only scientific plausible explanation. Charge is being generated all around you as I type this and you read it. Light is constant, it is the clock, and detector that has changed, which is why even when you are traveling at variable speeds it always appears to be c. Doubt that? How fast is car A moving in relation to car B and C again???

You are trying to claim that I believe Einstein's theory, which is that the velocity of a moving observer does not add into the picture. You claim to not believe Einsteins theory, and yet you are trying to justify his claims. You seem a bit addled to me.

The source is primary. Light propagates from it at the measured speed of light that we all know and love. You doubt what I am saying, so take the first diagram from my essay and you tell me what the elapsed time is between each photo detector, and why your times are different from what I describe.

You have no comment on whether the pith ball can leave its charge behind?