Silly Einstein

[sjw40364]

Your questions remain unanswered because there is no answer for illogical questions. You can use all the charts and diagrams you like, fuzzy math etc, but it all remains irrelevant. Because you insist that two moving frames in free fall have clocks that tick the same, yet then insist on converting one frame to another. WHY? If the clocks tick the same why are you converting one frame to another? Your conversion makes no sense except for clocks that tick at different rates. If all values in the two frames are identicle, then no conversion is necessary except the subtraction of light propagation delays, which I have yet to see anyone that believes in relativity do or anyone that doesn't believe in it for that matter. Every frame not sharing your reference must be converted to yours, yet you insist the clocks tick the same, which means all values are the same. yet you then convert one for velocity to a stationary frame, regardless that you have just told me the clocks tick the same rate. Why did you not just subtract light propagation delay since the values are the same and only distance matters? You converted because in reality you KNOW the clocks are not even vaguely similar.

My essay is understood by those taking the time to open mindedly follow the logic. You demonstrate a lack of ability to do abstract reasoning. Clocks and their rates of regulation needn't be referenced in any but the source frame. You arguments are baseless. Every reference frame needn't be converted to "my" reference frame. You are wrong. You haven't taken the time to even read my essay, and insist on criticizing it. Sorry to rain on your parade! You continue to try to rule by proclamation. It don't work for me!

Excuse me? Who is the one ignoring reality? Are GPS satelites in free-fall just as a lab in Earth? You convert the clock rates, yet you just said every reference frame needn't be converted to your frame. Name just one frame situated at a different velocity than yours that does not need converted. Just one?????

You are excused to think what ever you wish! I have no idea what you are thinking. Frankly, I do not worry about "reference frames" at all when considering the speed of something relative something else, or what time it is any where. I just go by my time, and if that isn't good enough for you then sue me!

Please show me where in my essay that I was concerned with clock rates. I think you enjoy chasing rabbits. What will you do if you catch one? Bovine are slower, and they taste better (when properly aged!)

You my have hyperventilated. Put a bag over your head and breathe in slowly! I doubt that a lab stuck to the Earth is in free-fall. What part of reality do you insist that I don't understand?

Oh, never mind.

Don't rant, won't do no good, the data will still be the same. The whole topic about Silly Einstein is about relativity, relativity is all about clocks, the 4th dimension of his space-time. YOU may not concern yourself with clocks, but light isn't c without them and not a single calculation could be done.

I know you do not worry about what a clock at another location might read, otherwise you could not accept clocks in free-fall are constant.

Just one?

[Goldminer]

Your questions remain unanswered because there is no answer for illogical questions. You can use all the charts and diagrams you like, fuzzy math etc, but it all remains irrelevant. Because you insist that two moving frames in free fall have clocks that tick the same, yet then insist on converting one frame to another. WHY? If the clocks tick the same why are you converting one frame to another? Your conversion makes no sense except for clocks that tick at different rates. If all values in the two frames are identicle, then no conversion is necessary except the subtraction of light propagation delays, which I have yet to see anyone that believes in relativity do or anyone that doesn't believe in it for that matter. Every frame not sharing your reference must be converted to yours, yet you insist the clocks tick the same, which means all values are the same. yet you then convert one for velocity to a stationary frame, regardless that you have just told me the clocks tick the same rate. Why did you not just subtract light propagation delay since the values are the same and only distance matters? You converted because in reality you KNOW the clocks are not even vaguely similar.

My essay is understood by those taking the time to open mindedly follow the logic. You demonstrate a lack of ability to do abstract reasoning. Clocks and their rates of regulation needn't be referenced in any but the source frame. You arguments are baseless. Every reference frame needn't be converted to "my" reference frame. You are wrong. You haven't taken the time to even read my essay, and insist on criticizing it. Sorry to rain on your parade! You continue to try to rule by proclamation. It don't work for me!

Excuse me? Who is the one ignoring reality? Are GPS satelites in free-fall just as a lab in Earth? You convert the clock rates, yet you just said every reference frame needn't be converted to your frame. Name just one frame situated at a different velocity than yours that does not need converted. Just one?????

You are excused to think what ever you wish! I have no idea what you are thinking. Frankly, I do not worry about "reference frames" at all when considering the speed of something relative something else, or what time it is any where. I just go by my time, and if that isn't good enough for you then sue me!

Please show me where in my essay that I was concerned with clock rates. I think you enjoy chasing rabbits. What will you do if you catch one? Bovine are slower, and they taste better (when properly aged!)

You may have hyperventilated. Put a bag over your head and breathe in slowly! I doubt that a lab stuck to the Earth is in free-fall. What part of reality do you insist that I don't understand?

Oh, never mind.

Don't rant, won't do no good, the data will still be the same. The whole topic about Silly Einstein is about relativity, relativity is all about clocks, the 4th dimension of his space-time. YOU may not concern yourself with clocks, but light isn't c without them and not a single calculation could be done.

I know you do not worry about what a clock at another location might read, otherwise you could not accept clocks in free-fall are constant.

Just one?

Yes! Data! All I am asking from you is data or evidence that make your point. You continue to lecture repetitiously with your rant. I've heard it over and over. If I memorized it, it would still not make sense.

Relativity is not "all about clocks." Einstein thought he had a point with his "synchronizing of clocks" but it is actually a failure. The GPS system does not use his "system" for synchronizing clocks. His "fourth dimension" is a cock-up, an unnecessary impossibility. The accurate speed we have for the latency of light is determined in the source frame, since the radiation of it is centered on the source. I accept "clocks in free-fall" being constant because light in any inertial frame is the measured c, away from its source there, as far as we know. It has nothing to do with the nearness of an "EM source." All light starts out "near" its source, so I have no idea what you keep rambling on about.

Relativity is about the fact that there is no absolute reference with which to measure the speed of something. All speed known is relative speed. Relativity is about the latency of light, and once you understand that the latency is about a foot per nanosecond, there is no need for clocks, since the distance traveled by light, in feet, is also the latency of light over said distance. Hence, no need for clocks at all!

I hope you catch some rabbits, meanwhile I'll be enjoying a nice medium Spencer steak, a freshly baked potato, and a glass or two of Napa's choice Burgundy or Pinot Noir. I'd invite you to join me but I don't want you to overturn the table.

I actually enjoy your banter, too bad it is at your expense.

[sjw40364]

How much data do you need Gold? GPS not enough? Clocks at polar latitudes not enough? Clocks on board all spacecrafts and probes not enough?

You didn't understand what I said about nearby receivers and clocks, because you do not want to understand. You vibrate at the same proportional rate as the clock near you. The sensors on board GPS are next to it's clock, they vibrate proportionally. The two clocks only read a value of c in their own frame. When the GPS is synchronized to the clock on earth, it no longer reads the speed of c for light in it's frame only earth's. yet both are in free fall and should read the exact same time, but the GPS has a different velocity and a different distance from the earth and vibrates differently.

I hope you do not believe that all they do is subtract light delay propagation for the signals to synchronize them?

No need for clocks? How long is a nanosecond without a clock? Just how do you measure speed again? Please describe any velocity to me without using time terms???

[Goldminer]

How much data do you need Gold? GPS not enough? Clocks at polar latitudes not enough? Clocks on board all spacecrafts and probes not enough?

You didn't understand what I said about nearby receivers and clocks, because you do not want to understand. You vibrate at the same proportional rate as the clock near you. The sensors on board GPS are next to it's clock, they vibrate proportionally. The two clocks only read a value of c in their own frame. When the GPS is synchronized to the clock on earth, it no longer reads the speed of c for light in it's frame only earth's. yet both are in free fall and should read the exact same time, but the GPS has a different velocity and a different distance from the earth and vibrates differently.

I hope you do not believe that all they do is subtract light delay propagation for the signals to synchronize them?

No need for clocks? How long is a nanosecond without a clock? Just how do you measure speed again? Please describe any velocity to me without using time terms???

You haven't read my essay have you?

[Goldminer]

Sjw, I have already pointed out that my comments on this thread concern Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity." There is enough silliness there to discredit his theory. This part of his theory does not concern itself with acceleration caused by gravity or any other force. It is the basis for all his silliness in his "General Theory of Relativity," which does concern these forces, but with which I am not interested in discussing in my posts. So, as I have already pointed out, your comments concerning my posts are off topic. Now, I understand that I don't own this forum or even this thread. Neither do you.

I welcome relevant comments. I am going to stick to the illogic I see in Einstein's STR. Unless the moderators feel this is not contributing to the general furtherance of science from the Electric Universe paradigm, and lock the thread, I will keep on until a logical argument is made that directly conflicts with my logic, and I have no logical rebuttal. More than a few who have read my essay understand it and are impressed with it. I have a longer version which I had to shorten to get it published a FQXI. The longer version makes my point even more obvious IMHO. You are welcome to request that version, although I doubt you are interested.

Either you are not interested in following my logic, or else you are incapable of following it. It doesn't matter to me. I thought I could explain my point to you, but you are only interested in reciting , ever more insistently, your proposition without examining anything I have to say. It was a mistake on my part to even engage your posts. You and MJV must be related. What does the milkman know?

Analog speedometers are available everywhere that do not incorporate "clocks." They are essentially a scale that measures tension produced by a spinning magnet inside a cup attached to a spring. This alone refutes your claim. So take you claim that "every speed measurement requires a clock" to some other thread. You have recited it too many times here.

[sjw40364]

Analog speedometers are available everywhere that do not incorporate "clocks." They are essentially a scale that measures tension produced by a spinning magnet inside a cup attached to a spring. This alone refutes your claim. So take you claim that "every speed measurement requires a clock" to some other thread. You have recited it too many times here.

You are evading the issue. Your anolog speedometers tell you exactly how fast you are traveling in mph or kph, that is hours Gold, as in time. because your anolog device has already been adjusted to coincide with a specific distance in a specific time, the clock is already incorporated into the device, you just fail to see that (or choose to ignore that). You are of course entitled to believe what you will, but when you can explain any velocity to me without using time, then I may indeed agree with you, but the task is an impossible one, so I do not see me agreeing any time soon.

Edit: And your spinning magnet spins at different rates depending on velocity, just as a clock ticks at different rates depending on velocity. Make your magnet spin at the same rate regardless of velocity as you want your clock to tick the same rate regardless of velocity, and let me know how useful your anolog device becomes.

[Goldminer]

Analog speedometers are available everywhere that do not incorporate "clocks." They are essentially a scale that measures tension produced by a spinning magnet inside a cup attached to a spring. This alone refutes your claim. So take you claim that "every speed measurement requires a clock" to some other thread. You have recited it too many times here.

You are evading the issue. Your anolog speedometers tell you exactly how fast you are traveling in mph or kph, that is hours Gold, as in time. because your anolog device has already been adjusted to coincide with a specific distance in a specific time, the clock is already incorporated into the device, you just fail to see that (or choose to ignore that). You are of course entitled to believe what you will, but when you can explain any velocity to me without using time, then I may indeed agree with you, but the task is an impossible one, so I do not see me agreeing any time soon.

Edit: And your spinning magnet spins at different rates depending on velocity, just as a clock ticks at different rates depending on velocity. Make your magnet spin at the same rate regardless of velocity as you want your clock to tick the same rate regardless of velocity, and let me know how useful your anolog device becomes.

At first I thought I might be conversing with a tree, now I realize it is a brick.

[webolife]

C'mon G-minor, he's right about your spinning magnets and cups --- those are just forms of periodicity dependent systems, ie clocks. All you need to add is a counting agent for the spins, right?

[Goldminer]

C'mon G-minor, he's right about your spinning magnets and cups --- those are just forms of periodicity dependent systems, ie clocks. All you need to add is a counting agent for the spins, right?

I give up.

The needle on your dashboard immediately registers the speed. It does not "count the spins." Yes, any instrument needs to be calibrated. No, no clock is present. It just gives the impression of being one. sjw claims your speedometer is subject to lying to you by being near some "EM source." Come on!

I have a number of posts here about "Time" and how merely distance from WWV, for example, makes any "time" information stale right in the "at rest with the source" reference frame. You guys believe in magic. Why don't you all go through the thread and pick out the posts of mine that don't make sense, and post them along with the logic of why they don't make sense. Not some litany like: "distance from an EM source" "slows time" stated with out any logic or evidence. Where, but in the mind and postings of sjw, is his theory even mentioned?

The music of the spheres would immediately go out of tune if his theory had any basis in reality!

His idea is that I should just go away, since I reject his irrelevant harping. Have you attempted to download my essay and tried to understand it? If not, then don't try to criticize it. If not, you have no idea what the charts show, or the logic behind them, and neither does sjw.

[Goldminer]

My essay, titled "A Logical Analysis of Albert Einstein's Mirror-Light-Clock Gedankin," takes place within a ten foot distance between two mirrors. The laser source is right against one of the mirrors. There is no appreciable distance involved. Therefore sjw's theory about "distance from an EM source" would have no effect anyway, even if it were valid.

The charts are scaled down so that the ten foot distance can be drawn on a standard letter sized page, drawn on grid graph paper, to scale. Any law against that? The Source graph is the only one that needs the grid, since all other "coordinate systems" are drawn on velum, or tracing paper. They use the same original grid. All velocities are in fractions of the speed of light, since that is the subject of the analysis. Every two intersections of the grid equal one nanosecond. So, the light pulse travels two intersections per nanosecond. The various observer in relative motion reference frames move at one intersection per nanosecond, for instance, to produce relative motion at 1/2 c. Very simple. sjw has no idea what he is criticizing.

[sjw40364]

It is useless as Gold wants to apply a device that only works in contact with a surface to the speed of c. His device could never measure the orbital velocity of Venus, but wants to apply the concept to measuring light.

The only way light could be constant for every observer regardless of their velocity, is if the device changed its rate of measurement depending on the velocity. Gold wants to restrict measurement to only one observer. He has yet to explain why an observer at his second point measures light traveling away from them at c, while the first observer measures it traveling away from that same observer at 1/2 of c. He wants the clocks to tick the same, but also wants to ignore what the second observer reports, as if that second observers data is irrelevant.

If the clocks ticked the same the second observer should get the same results as the first observer, but they do not measure light traveling away from them at 1/2 of c, but c itself.

Now that is magic Gold especially with 2 clocks that tick the same yet read different results!!!

[webolife]

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.

[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.

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

[Goldminer]

It is useless as Gold wants to apply a device that only works in contact with a surface to the speed of c. His device could never measure the orbital velocity of Venus, but wants to apply the concept to measuring light.

I never said that.

The only way light could be constant for every observer regardless of their velocity, is if the device changed its rate of measurement depending on the velocity.

I never said that either. What I think is that the speed of light is the same in all directions whenever it leaves a source. This is verified in the "at rest with the source" reference frame. What I think is that the detector's/observer's relative velocity is added or subtracted from the speed of light at the point of observation.

Gold wants to restrict measurement to only one observer. He has yet to explain why an observer at his second point measures light traveling away from them at c, while the first observer measures it traveling away from that same observer at 1/2 of c. He wants the clocks to tick the same, but also wants to ignore what the second observer reports, as if that second observers data is irrelevant.

You haven't read my essay, or else you don't understand English. You don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of observers I used in the essay. I don't want clocks to do anything except keep accurate time in the "at rest with the source" reference frame. The observers in the reference frame opposite the "at rest with the source" reference frame, all of them, do not report to the "at rest with the source" reference frame.

They simply measure the distance and angles the detector's/observer's in their own reference frame find for those detector's/observer's which actually found the same place the detectors/observers "at rest with the source" that found where the light pulse was at any particular time, in the "at rest with the source" reference frame. This is the important data, not what time it is.

If the clocks ticked the same the second observer should get the same results as the first observer, but they do not measure light traveling away from them at 1/2 of c, but c itself.

You are yammering on about nothing in my essay or that I wrote. Nobody can measure light traveling away from them because light cannot be seen opposite its direction of travel. Your pathetic comments prove you have still not read the essay.

Now that is magic Gold especially with 2 clocks that tick the same yet read different results!!!

You make up straw arguments, I suppose, to try and make me look foolish. Instead, you look like the fool.

[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.

"Digital" speedometers, like the one in my old Diesel Dodge pickup, do convert the rpm of the transmission output to pulses, which are converted electronically to an analog readout on the instrument panel. The ones with "speedometer cables" just work in total analog fashion all the way from the transmission to the instrument cluster. You are conversing with someone who worked in a speedometer shop, before they went out of business because the computer took over the job of measuring the speed. IMHO, you are wrong.

As far as discussing acceleration, as I have explained, is off the topic I am discussing as far as I am concerned. You are welcome to comment on it however you wish. I may make some comments as you go. I am trying to get the idea in the essay across, as simple as it is and as hard as some of you are making it.