[dutch]

On a related note, all the arguments put forward for my measurement of the one way tipped of light seem independent of the fact that it was light.
So,
How do I determine the one way speed of  Usain Bolt?
I look forward to being told this is impossible.

Do you understand the math or what I wrote? Do you understand how I defined velocity?

And no you can't measure the one-way speed of anything without making assumptions. We don't know what "now" is somewhere else so we can only do two-way measurements. Did I ever say any different? This thread was about the one-way speed of light......

The below has three variables that give a v we can define and it's not that hard to understand.

v = c (1 - (f’/f)²) / (1 + (f’/f)²) 

c is the well understood and directly measured two-way speed of light. Very few people dispute this value (unless they're wearing tin foil hats). f' is the output frequency of the Relativistic Doppler Shift which is symmetric regardless of viewpoint and we can locally measure the f' we receive from another reference frame. f is the frequency measured within one's own reference frame. f is locally measured and f' is symmetric regardless of viewpoint chosen (and locally measured). f and f' don't give any one-way information and neither does the two-way speed of light c.

We can define a very non-arbitrary v as I've done but it's NOT one-way. It's the average of the two-way speed. I already gave all the math for this.

Read this:

Although the average speed over a two-way path can be measured, the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is "the same time" in two different locations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

Why are you going against physics? I've never heard of a rational well-educated physicists say anything other than the one-way speed of light (or anything) isn't defined without resorting to convention. Relativity is a LOCAL theory. One-way speeds are inherently non-local and they don't have any definite meaning. You are free to choose ε = ½ because either:

1) We can't tell what the right ε is but it doesn't matter in any experiments we've done so were free to choose.

2) ε actually is ½ so we're right. Good for us.

3) It simply doesn't matter because it doesn't have a true meaning.

Could it possibly be that Relativity showed us that we don't know what now is in two different locations? I thought this was old news. This means we can't measure the one-way speed of anything no matter how much we think we can. We do what we do best... we make useful shortcuts to rationalize the world and many don't easily see these shortcuts for what they are.

You keep on saying the same thing but you give no sources or math whatsoever.

Tell me where the math or logic is wrong... Give me some source or relativistic math that backs you up.

[guest39538]

We don't know what "now" is somewhere else

Now here is the same now as somewhere else.  Now is a universal simultaneous event always.

Einstein never considered the two way journey of light in his ideas .  If he had , he would of known and realised that simultaneity is nothing to do with different now's or different rates of time.

In example lets look at the sun, it takes approx 8 minutes and 24 seconds for the light to travel distance X.  We can say that we see the Sun 8 minutes 24 seconds after the first wave-packets have left the Sun. 

However if we look at the reverse and simultaneous the events.  The Light from us takes approx 8 minutes and 24 seconds to reach the Sun. 

An observer on the Sun and the Earth in this instant observe each other at the same time. Now remains synchronous.

+ve=8 mins 24 seconds

-ve=8 mins 24 seconds

Vector analysis shows now remains synchronous , the present now is the present now of the entire Universe and always synchronous, regardless of Einsteins 1 way thinking and the mythology involved as the outcome of this.

This means we can't measure the one-way speed of anything no matter how much we think we can.

I disagree, using tP we could , it would be very accurate.

[Bored chemist]

you can't measure the one-way speed of anything without making assumptions.

OK, but we do it all the time- Mr Bolt being one of the better known examples.
So, using the same assumptions as we use in the 100 metres, can we measure the 1 way speed of light?


Re this- (which you asked me to read)
" unless one can define what is "the same time" in two different locations.".
I went to some lengths to define "the same time in two different locations.".
Did you not notice?
All that stuff about indefinitely slow bicycles and long flat roads?

[dutch]

Vector analysis shows now remains synchronous , the present now is the present now of the entire Universe and always synchronous, regardless of Einsteins 1 way thinking and the mythology involved as the outcome of this.


Quote
This means we can't measure the one-way speed of anything no matter how much we think we can.

I disagree, using tP we could , it would be very accurate.

Thebox...  your entire analysis shows that you don't understand Relativity. Please read up on it. There's too many mistakes to correct.

you can't measure the one-way speed of anything without making assumptions.

OK, but we do it all the time- Mr Bolt being one of the better known examples.

Yes, that's the human condition to make assumptions all the time. So what? We make shortcuts to make our lives easier and often don't even realize it. How does this change the fact that we cannot measure the one way speed of light without convention? This is what I've said since the start.

Are you saying we can measure the absolute one-way speed of light? If so then you are very much wrong. We only measure the one-way speed of light via arbitrary convention.

Re this- (which you asked me to read)
" unless one can define what is "the same time" in two different locations.".
I went to some lengths to define "the same time in two different locations.".
Did you not notice?
All that stuff about indefinitely slow bicycles and long flat roads?

You aren't defining the "same time" in two different locations. You are assuming what the same time is in two different locations based on convention. Conventions don't define something absolute they are an agreement to assume something or some system as standard (like always choosing ε = ½ for your own point of view). Defining what the same time is in two locations would require you to know what absolute time is and absolute time may or may not exist. Definitions are definite and cannot rely on an arbitrary agreed upon convention.

Why can't I decide to use ε = ¼ for my own point of view? I get all the correct answers for everything observable but I have different one-way speeds.

All that stuff about indefinitely slow bicycles and long flat roads?

Do you really understand any of this? I don't care about slow bikes. If κ → 1 in the below:

v- = c/(1 - κ)  (1 - (f’/f)²) / (1 + (f’/f)²)  →   v- = ∞ c (1 - (f’/f)²) / (1 + (f’/f)²)

v- → ∞     even if (f’/f)² goes arbitrarily close to one. Even a hair above/below one would still bring v- → ±∞.

"Slow" bikes simply don't matter.

Again you gave no math and no links to support your claims.

[Bored chemist]

I don't define the time at all.
Someone did that for us.
It's something to do with caesium atoms.
And the point is that (at least ideally) any caesium clock defines time locally exactly- by definition. (as long as nothing upsets it locally- if you happen to have a black hole in your lab, you need to allow for that- but even in that case, the clock is right, but only for its own position)
Now, we know that two clocks in different gravitational fields will tick at different rates. But then again, I said that (by the amusing magic of a thought experiment) we know that gravity is the same all across the experimental area.
We also know that moving  clocks don't run at the right speed, but we know that the extent of that "wrongness"  falls to zero if the speed is zero. (And, if we like, we can move them quickly, calculate the error, and allow for it).
So, since there's only one thing perturbing the clock, and we can make that perturbation as small as we like - and then allow for it- we do know when "now" is at a a distant location.
I know when the distant clock say 12 o'clock- because it's the same as when my local clock says 12 (give or take a small calculable correction which I can make as small; as I like, then allow for).

[guest39538]

Vector analysis shows now remains synchronous , the present now is the present now of the entire Universe and always synchronous, regardless of Einsteins 1 way thinking and the mythology involved as the outcome of this.


Quote
This means we can't measure the one-way speed of anything no matter how much we think we can.

I disagree, using tP we could , it would be very accurate.

Thebox...  your entire analysis shows that you don't understand Relativity. Please read up on it. There's too many mistakes to correct.

And quite clearly you do not understand reality, there is so many faults in relativity there is too many mistakes to correct. However you are not willing to listen to the mistakes.  You want to continue the discussion blindly under some sort of subjective illusion.  I am objective, you are not being objective at all. Please try to read up on reality , I have made enough posts about it.

Start with time, I have it correct, Einstein had it wrong. Please find appropriate thread.

[dutch]

And quite clearly you do not understand reality, there is so many faults in relativity there is too many mistakes to correct. However you are not willing to listen to the mistakes.  You want to continue the discussion blindly under some sort of subjective illusion.  I am objective, you are not being objective at all. Please try to read up on reality , I have made enough posts about it.

Start with time, I have it correct, Einstein had it wrong. Please find appropriate thread.

I know the limits to what I can absolutely say about reality in this case. OUR view is subjected to a convention because we can't pin down ε in experiments. Please tell me what ε I should apply, why, and prove to me its the only possible ε I could possibly apply. If you can't then at least our view is subjective. I've treated LET and SR equally in this thread. I don't care if you think Einstein's convention is right or wrong we are still free to use it (or not to use it). If you think differently please provide the experimental evidence.

I don't define the time at all.
Someone did that for us.

Unless it was God (and you can prove it) or an ε was experimentally proven then it doesn't matter. Einstein and his convention is not God nor does his choice of convention result from experiment. If it did it wouldn't be a convention.

It's something to do with caesium atoms.

How enlightening...........

And the point is that (at least ideally) any caesium clock defines time locally exactly- by definition. (as long as nothing upsets it locally- if you happen to have a black hole in your lab, you need to allow for that- but even in that case, the clock is right, but only for its own position)

Yes, you can define clocks locally. So? Relativity is a local theory.

We also know that moving  clocks don't run at the right speed, but we know that the extent of that "wrongness"  falls to zero if the speed is zero. (And, if we like, we can move them quickly, calculate the error, and allow for it).

By what convention do we know this? I gave you very clear math you fail to use.

So, since there's only one thing perturbing the clock, and we can make that perturbation as small as we like - and then allow for it- we do know when "now" is at a a distant location.
I know when the distant clock say 12 o'clock- because it's the same as when my local clock says 12 (give or take a small calculable correction which I can make as small; as I like, then allow for).

And how do you know what it says in some distant location without arbitrarily picking ε? Can you send a message to that location instantly? No? Go back and read my classical thought experiment with the Doppler Shift in this thread.

After we arbitrarily set ε then we can know the clock de-synchronization to any level our equipment allows. We still must choose first and our choice is circularly giving us the one-way value of c.

[Bored chemist]

By what convention do we know this? I gave you very clear math you fail to use.

We know it buy observation. The "clock on a jet plane" experiment.

And how do you know what it says in some distant location without arbitrarily picking ε?

because it's a godforsaken clock. It's going to tell the same times as the local one because there's no reason for it not to, and that's what clocks do.

If you like I can (in this thought experiment,
Set my watch to the first clock, walk to the distant clock check that they agree (to an arbitrary degree of precision as long as I walk slowly enough, then walk back and check that my watch still agrees with the first clock.
The two clocks and my watch all stay arbitrarily close to synchronised (My watch, is, of course also a "perfect" clock.)

[guest39538]

ε

You are asking me what is epsilon? If I knew in what context you were asking , I might be able to provide an answer.

I don't care if you think Einstein's convention is right or wrong we are still free to use it (or not to use it). If you think differently please provide the experimental evidence.

You are free to use all the subjective thinking you like, however this will not give the objective answers .   What error would you like me to show?

The problem all starts with time, an objective and logical truth about time shows relativity to be mostly a pile of rubbish.

Most of relativity is based on time, if the version of time collapses so does the after thought.   

You know very well that time forward is directly proportional to time passed.  You also know very well that time is continuous and not in discrete packets of 1.s increments. You also know very well that Einstein did not consider time passing at small increments such as time Planck (tP).
All this adds up to the conclusion that time can not slow down or speed up.  Quite clearly relativity fails once the interpretation of time is corrected. I do not need a single experiment to show this. The explanation is logically a 100% axiom with no errors. My definition of time is 100% correct and an axiom

time: A quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change

p.s I did provide vector maths in which you ignored or do not have the knowledge to read. But in case you did not get it!

v=c

=1.s

=1.s

(a) and (b) observe each other simultaneous. i.e (a) now is always (b) now

=1.s

=1.s


IT IS NOT





from



and



c is directional  proportional in t/dx

[Bored chemist]

The problem all starts with time, an objective and logical truth about time shows relativity to be mostly a pile of rubbish.

It works.

[guest39538]

The problem all starts with time, an objective and logical truth about time shows relativity to be mostly a pile of rubbish.

It works.

I never said it did not work, I would be more than happy to accept it all if the interpretation was correct. I.e the mechanics of relativity is timing and timing can slow down or speed up relative to the observers measurement.

p.s Of course Newtons absolute time would have to be brought back also , that would be correct.  t=ΔtP

[dutch]

We know it buy observation. The "clock on a jet plane" experiment.

  No... The Twins Paradox (tested with the "clock on a jet plane" experiment) requires a round trip and I already explained at length round trip average velocities are well-known and independent of our choice of ε. Two-way speeds don't tell us anything about a one-way speed. Did you completely miss all the equations?

We know t (our own time), we know t' (time observed via signal sent to us from another frame moving relative to us). We do NOT know τ (time dilation) without choosing an ε. Are you even attempting to understand the math?

Again...

Like I've shown a dozen times on this thread:

t'/t = f'/f = (1 - v/c) / γ = γ / (1 + v/c) =  (1 - a/c)  / (1 + b/c)  γb/γa  where  v = (a + b) / (1 + a b /c²)

with the same t and t',  τ/t= γb/γa where v = (a + b) / (1 + a b /c²)    0 < τ/t < ∞

because it's a godforsaken clock.

Great argument...

If you like I can (in this thought experiment,
Set my watch to the first clock, walk to the distant clock check that they agree (to an arbitrary degree of precision as long as I walk slowly enough, then walk back and check that my watch still agrees with the first clock.
The two clocks and my watch all stay arbitrarily close to synchronised (My watch, is, of course also a "perfect" clock.)

No... slow clock transport and light synchronization are identical. I do NOT... in ANY possible way care how slow you move the clocks. I already gave all the math for this. I even worked out examples of how the math works. Again what is your problem with the math? Why are you writing the same nonsense?

ε
You are asking me what is epsilon? If I knew in what context you were asking , I might be able to provide an answer.

It doesn't matter the context. Can you prove how to apply ε to every frame in a definitive way? If not.., then our view IS subjective regardless of whether you believe there is an objective reality behind the scenes (or what they reality looks like, "block universe or LET universe etc). Do you understand the concept that we humans don't know everything? When we don't know everything we often use conventions to fill in the gaps. It's OK to use conventions as long as we remember they're conventions.

You know very well that time forward is directly proportional to time passed.  You also know very well that time is continuous and not in discrete packets of 1.s increments. You also know very well that Einstein did not consider time passing at small increments such as time Planck (tP).
All this adds up to the conclusion that time can not slow down or speed up.  Quite clearly relativity fails once the interpretation of time is corrected. I do not need a single experiment to show this. The explanation is logically a 100% axiom with no errors. My definition of time is 100% correct and an axiom

time: A quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change

p.s I did provide vector maths in which you ignored or do not have the knowledge to read. But in case you did not get it!

v=c

=1.s

=1.s

(a) and (b) observe each other simultaneous. i.e (a) now is always (b) now

=1.s

=1.s

IT IS NOT

from

and

c is directional  proportional in t/dx

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

[guest39538]

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

I am not embarrassed about being correct. It is 100's of years of subjective belief that is the worlds embarrassment , not mine.

I know my vector analysis is correct.  If you do not understand it then I suggest you learn something about analysis.

1=1 in any language .  It is rather a huge embarrassment for all these years to not spot that time does not slow down or speed up.  I am the one who discovered and explained this, I know what I have done.

p.s ε=0 and 1

Try my 3d energy charge matrix


charge matrix.jpg (23.52 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4942 times)

[dutch]

I am not embarrassed about being correct. It is 100's of years of subjective belief that is the worlds embarrassment , not mine.

Relativistic theories which include LET and Einstein's theory of SR/GR definitely work and match experiment. The world should not be embarrassed about this at all. The equations work to incredible accuracy. However, one has to look closely at the equations to remember that SR/GR utilize an arbitrary convention designed to simplify calculation (which is very helpful) and other theories also must use arbitrary conventions unless they prove a definitive way to apply ε to all reference frames.

Just because we humans can't identify an objective value of ε does not mean one does not exist. It could imply that we just don't know everything.

 

It is rather a huge embarrassment for all these years to not spot that time does not slow down or speed up.

Really? How do you define time? I define it by the ticks of clocks. What other experimentally viable way do you define time? Even if there is an absolute rest frame where clocks tick the fastest (and I'm not saying there isn't) how do YOU find it? If you can't find it definitively then what else but observable clocks define time? It you want to discuss time then you need to discuss some sort of clock.

I am the one who discovered and explained this, I know what I have done.

Really? Prove it to me.

1=1 in any language .

Are you trolling me? I want to get real and important points across but what I get back..............................

p.s ε=0 and 1

Why? Why does ε=0 and 1 at the same time? Prove it to me....

[guest39538]

Really? How do you define time? I define it by the ticks of clocks

Ok. let us start here with your first mistake.  The ticks of a clock define the measuring of time, the clock suppose to be an equal and equivalent measurement of time.  However your clocks fail and are a variant measuring device. Counting time slow of fast does not change the ''speed'' of time.  A clock and the tick is not time.  The tick as the only use of the practitioner.

When you understand this I will move onto your other questions.

Do you understand the tick has nothing to do with time?

[guest4091]

Bored chemist;
I have not seen any tables for td when slow transporting clocks.
Here is one to consider.

https://app.box.com/s/v722vkyrscqo4v5lye0j4nit05gglocy

[Bored chemist]

That is impossible if you understand relativity.

It's possible if they are all in the same place.
(or, if you prefer, it's possible to get arbitrarily good synchronisation for small enough clocks.)

Are we in the solar system? How fast is the solar system spinning? Are we in a galaxy? How fast is the galaxy spinning? Are you going with the spin or against the spin? How do you determine not moving?

I solved that one earlier when I destroyed the rest of the universe (for the purposes of a thought experiment)

[Bored chemist]

Bored chemist;
I have not seen any tables for td when slow transporting clocks.
Here is one to consider.

https://app.box.com/s/v722vkyrscqo4v5lye0j4nit05gglocy

Thanks, that's the closest anyone has yet got to answering the question I asked several pages ago.
I consider 30m/s (nearly 70MPH) rather fast for a bike.
I also considered continental drift as a possible transport mechanism...

[Bored chemist]

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

I might not agree with Dutch about many things, but he's spot on with regard to Thebox.

[guest39538]

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

I might not agree with Dutch about many things, but he's spot on with regard to Thebox.

What is embarrassing is adults on a science forum who carry on discussing fairy tales as if fact and reality.   Now I know I do not fall into that category because I have a brain in my head.