Example of 3 clocks shows SR does not accord with physical reality

On Jun 8, 11:09 pm, Surfer wrote:

Consider three clocks A, B, and C in inertial frames.

Suppose B is moving away from A. Then SR says clock B runs slower than
clock A.

Yes, the Lorentz transform also predicts clock A runs slower than
clock B. This is the infamous mutual time dilation from SR. shrug

Suppose in C is moving away from B. Then according to SR, C runs
slower than B.

And also clock B runs slower than clock C at the same time. shrug

So according to SR, clock A runs faster than B, and B runs faster than
C. So clock A should be much faster than C.

No, according to SR, all the following is true. V shrug

** Clock A runs slower than clock B
** Clock B runs slower than clock A
** Clock A runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock A
** Clock B runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock B

But if A and C happen to be in the same frame, physical reality
requires they must run at equal rates.

If A and C are the same, then

** Clock A/C runs slower than clock B
** Clock B runs slower than clock A/C

So SR does not accord with physical reality in this case.

The Lorentz transform is total ****ed up. shrug

On Jun 9, 2:57*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 8, 11:09 pm, Surfer wrote:

Consider three clocks A, B, and C in inertial frames.

Suppose B is moving away from A. Then SR says clock B runs slower than
clock A.

Yes, the Lorentz transform also predicts clock A runs slower than
clock B. *This is the infamous mutual time dilation from SR. *shrug

Suppose in C is moving away from B. Then according to SR, C runs
slower than B.

And also clock B runs slower than clock C at the same time. *shrug

So according to SR, clock A runs faster than B, and B runs faster than
C. *So clock A should be much faster than C.

No, according to SR, all the following is true. V shrug

** *Clock A runs slower than clock B
** *Clock B runs slower than clock A
** *Clock A runs slower than clock C
** *Clock C runs slower than clock A
** *Clock B runs slower than clock C
** *Clock C runs slower than clock B

You've left out key phrases about which frames this statements apply
in.


But if A and C happen to be in the same frame, physical reality
requires they must run at equal rates.

If A and C are the same, then

** *Clock A/C runs slower than clock B
** *Clock B runs slower than clock A/C

So SR does not accord with physical reality in this case.

The Lorentz transform is total ****ed up. *shrug

Koobee--Pick one inertial observer and any one clock in
relative linear motion to that observers and special relativity
will predict the same time dilation that the observer measures,
*every time*.

It does not matter if there are other observers or other clocks
flying around. Pick some other observer and clock. Special
relativity nails it every time.

On Jun 9, 1:26 pm, PD wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

No, according to SR, all the following is true. V shrug

** Clock A runs slower than clock B
** Clock B runs slower than clock A
** Clock A runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock A
** Clock B runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock B

You've left out key phrases about which frames this statements apply
in.

So, the Einstein Dingleberries have run out of ammunitions and now are
resorting to word games. He should have said:

** A observers slowing B with scale factor of sqrt(1 – B_AB^2)
** B observers slowing A with scale factor of sqrt(1 – B_BA^2)
** A observers slowing C with scale factor of sqrt(1 – B_AC^2)
** C observers slowing A with scale factor of sqrt(1 – B_CA^2)
** B observers slowing C with scale factor of sqrt(1 – B_BC^2)
** C observers slowing B with scale factor of sqrt(1 – B_CB^2)

Where

** B_AB c = speed of B as observed by A
** B_BA c = speed of A as observed by B
** B_AC c = speed of C as observed by A
** B_CA c = speed of A as observed by C
** B_BC c = speed of C as observed by B
** B_CB c = speed of B as observed by C

shrug

This is where the twins’ paradox arises. Each self-styled physicist
BELIEVES IN a resolution than contradicts others. Through this faith,
mysticisms are spun, and mathemaGics are created.

shrug

When corned, the favorite last defense is usually “you have no faith
in our mysticism, so accept our mathemaGics to continue the
discussions”. shrug

The favorite myth to resolve the twins’ paradox was replaced by
another from generation to generation. The myth of acceleration (max
Born) went out of favor. The myth of cartoon diagram went out of
favor. The mathemaGics of Paul Andersen, Daryl McCullough also went
out of favor. Currently, the favorite myth seems to be the myth of
path length namely the path length in spacetime. Oh, after his
mathemaGics was exposed by Him, Daryl McCullough now embraces the path
length myth. Einstein Dingleberries are a bunch of idiots who have no
analytic skills. The following sums up what the self-styled
physicists believe in:

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

shrug

to abstract, Koobee-doo;
why shouldn't the "spins" of atoms also be required
to conform to the speed of light (that is,
the velocity of the electrons orbits' components
in the direction of travel) ??

if you are going to go with teh Copenhagen Mystical School, and
say that electrons are just abstract spinners, then
you have no recourse to classical physics.

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Jun 9, 2:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 8, 11:09 pm, Surfer wrote:

Consider three clocks A, B, and C in inertial frames.

Suppose B is moving away from A. Then SR says clock B runs slower than
clock A.

Yes, the Lorentz transform also predicts clock A runs slower than
clock B. This is the infamous mutual time dilation from SR. shrug

Suppose in C is moving away from B. Then according to SR, C runs
slower than B.

And also clock B runs slower than clock C at the same time. shrug

So according to SR, clock A runs faster than B, and B runs faster than
C. So clock A should be much faster than C.

No, according to SR, all the following is true. V shrug

** Clock A runs slower than clock B
** Clock B runs slower than clock A
** Clock A runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock A
** Clock B runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock B

You've left out key phrases
about which frames this statements apply in.

It is interesting to see
that Einstein, and the people conditioned
by the Mass media to worship Einstein,
did/do not comprehend that there is
only ONE science frame.

The ONE "science frame" is used to map
all objects and events on
the minimum number of rigid, linear orthogonals,
( Such as x, y and z spaces, charge, baryon number, etc.)
marked off using ONE master quantum unit source.
( Such as electro-magnetic cycles emanating from a high Q system.)

All other so-called "frames" are data sources
that must be integrated into the "ONE science frame"
in order to be science.

Data not integrated into the "ONE science frame"
are speculative.

For example, the information stored in tree rings,
geological deposits, and information referenced
to clock/calendars other than the "ONE science frame"
are speculative if they have not been incorporated
into science.

To become science,
new information must be verified by high correlations,
and integrated into the "ONE science frame".

In other words,
if a bit of information cannot be integrated
into the "ONE science frame",
like a correct puzzle piece fits into a puzzle,
it is not CURRENT science,

BUT

it might be the stimulus for a NEW science
if all of the other "science" puzzle pieces
can be rearranged to make the piece fit
and the fitting algorithm is the most efficient one.

Also observe that the "zero points"
in the "ONE science frame"
must be referenced to the most dependable, stable
and universally accessible reference points,
such as the center of mass of some massive object,
some high energy celestial event,
null conditions, etc.

--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.prioritize.biz/
http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtml
http://xrl.in/63g4
http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com









--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

On Jun 10, 6:09*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
....
On Jun 9, 2:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 8, 11:09 pm, Surfer wrote:

Consider three clocks A, B, and C in inertial frames.

Suppose B is moving away from A. Then SR says clock B runs slower than
clock A.

Yes, the Lorentz transform also predicts clock A runs slower than
clock B. This is the infamous mutual time dilation from SR. shrug

Suppose in C is moving away from B. Then according to SR, C runs
slower than B.

And also clock B runs slower than clock C at the same time. shrug

So according to SR, clock A runs faster than B, and B runs faster than
C. So clock A should be much faster than C.

No, according to SR, all the following is true. V shrug

** Clock A runs slower than clock B
** Clock B runs slower than clock A
** Clock A runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock A
** Clock B runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock B

You've left out key phrases
about which frames this statements apply in.

It is interesting to see
that Einstein, and the people conditioned
by the Mass media to worship Einstein,
did/do not comprehend that there is
only ONE science frame.

The ONE "science frame" is used to map
all objects and events on
the minimum number of rigid, linear orthogonals,
( Such as x, y and z spaces, charge, baryon number, etc.)
marked off using ONE master quantum unit source.
( Such as electro-magnetic cycles emanating from a high Q system.)

All other so-called "frames" are data sources
that must be integrated into the "ONE science frame"
in order to be science.

Data not integrated into the "ONE science frame"
are speculative.

For example, the information stored in tree rings,
geological deposits, and information referenced
to clock/calendars other than the "ONE science frame"
are speculative if they have not been incorporated
into science.

To become science,
new information must be verified by high correlations,
and integrated into the "ONE science frame".

In other words,
if a bit of information cannot be integrated
into the "ONE science frame",
like a correct puzzle piece fits into a puzzle,
it is not CURRENT science,

BUT

it might be the stimulus for a NEW science
if all of the other "science" puzzle pieces
can be rearranged to make the piece fit
and the fitting algorithm is the most efficient one.

Also observe that the "zero points"
in the "ONE science frame"
must be referenced to the most dependable, stable
and universally accessible reference points,
such as the center of mass of some massive object,
some high energy celestial event,
null conditions, etc.

--
Tom Potter
-----------------http://www.prioritize.biz/http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtmlhttp://xrl.in/63g4http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

Reality is only one clock is needed and its a "Light Clock" TreBert

Hebe Herbie "herbert glazier" G-EMC^2 wrote:
-- "Tom Potter" wrote:
"PD" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Surfer wrote:



Surfer wrote:
Consider three clocks A, B, and C in inertial frames.
Suppose B is moving away from A. Then SR says clock B runs slower
than
clock A.

KW wrote:
Yes, the Lorentz transform also predicts clock A runs slower than
clock B. This is the infamous mutual time dilation from SR. shrug

Surfer wrote:
Suppose in C is moving away from B. Then according to SR, C runs
slower than B.

KW wrote:
And also clock B runs slower than clock C at the same time. shrug

Surfer wrote:
So according to SR, clock A runs faster than B, and B runs faster
than
C. So clock A should be much faster than C.

KW wrote:
No, according to SR, all the following is true. V shrug

** Clock A runs slower than clock B
** Clock B runs slower than clock A
** Clock A runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock A
** Clock B runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock B

PD wrote:
You've left out key phrases
about which frames this statements apply in.

Potter wrote:
It is interesting to see
that Einstein, and the people conditioned
by the Mass media to worship Einstein,
did/do not comprehend that there is
only ONE science frame.

The ONE "science frame" is used to map
all objects and events on
the minimum number of rigid, linear orthogonals,
( Such as x, y and z spaces, charge, baryon number, etc.)
marked off using ONE master quantum unit source.
( Such as electro-magnetic cycles emanating from a high Q system.)

All other so-called "frames" are data sources
that must be integrated into the "ONE science frame"
in order to be science.

Data not integrated into the "ONE science frame"
are speculative.

For example, the information stored in tree rings,
geological deposits, and information referenced
to clock/calendars other than the "ONE science frame"
are speculative if they have not been incorporated
into science.

To become science,
new information must be verified by high correlations,
and integrated into the "ONE science frame".

In other words,
if a bit of information cannot be integrated
into the "ONE science frame",
like a correct puzzle piece fits into a puzzle,
it is not CURRENT science,

BUT
it might be the stimulus for a NEW science
if all of the other "science" puzzle pieces
can be rearranged to make the piece fit
and the fitting algorithm is the most efficient one.

Also observe that the "zero points"
in the "ONE science frame"
must be referenced to the most dependable, stable
and universally accessible reference points,
such as the center of mass of some massive object,
some high energy celestial event,
null conditions, etc.
Tom Potter


Hebe Herbie wrote:
Reality is only one clock is needed and its a "Light Clock" TreBert

hanson wrote:
== One Herb - One Blight - One Crock: Glazier's G=EMC^2 ==
That's you reality. Congratulations & TFTL... hahahahanson

On Jun 10, 5:09*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
....
On Jun 9, 2:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 8, 11:09 pm, Surfer wrote:

Consider three clocks A, B, and C in inertial frames.

Suppose B is moving away from A. Then SR says clock B runs slower than
clock A.

Yes, the Lorentz transform also predicts clock A runs slower than
clock B. This is the infamous mutual time dilation from SR. shrug

Suppose in C is moving away from B. Then according to SR, C runs
slower than B.

And also clock B runs slower than clock C at the same time. shrug

So according to SR, clock A runs faster than B, and B runs faster than
C. So clock A should be much faster than C.

No, according to SR, all the following is true. V shrug

** Clock A runs slower than clock B
** Clock B runs slower than clock A
** Clock A runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock A
** Clock B runs slower than clock C
** Clock C runs slower than clock B

You've left out key phrases
about which frames this statements apply in.

It is interesting to see
that Einstein, and the people conditioned
by the Mass media to worship Einstein,
did/do not comprehend that there is
only ONE science frame.

The ONE "science frame" is used to map
all objects and events on
the minimum number of rigid, linear orthogonals,
( Such as x, y and z spaces, charge, baryon number, etc.)
marked off using ONE master quantum unit source.
( Such as electro-magnetic cycles emanating from a high Q system.)

All other so-called "frames" are data sources
that must be integrated into the "ONE science frame"
in order to be science.

But this simply is not so. There is no single "science frame" as much
as you'd like to impose one.
The whole point of the principle of relativity is that physical laws
are identical in any of an infinite number of inertial reference
frames. There is absolutely no *physical* reason (aside from the
political and emotional rationale you propound) to select any one of
them to be special or to be used as a singular "science frame".


Data not integrated into the "ONE science frame"
are speculative.

For example, the information stored in tree rings,
geological deposits, and information referenced
to clock/calendars other than the "ONE science frame"
are speculative if they have not been incorporated
into science.

To become science,
new information must be verified by high correlations,
and integrated into the "ONE science frame".

In other words,
if a bit of information cannot be integrated
into the "ONE science frame",
like a correct puzzle piece fits into a puzzle,
it is not CURRENT science,

BUT

it might be the stimulus for a NEW science
if all of the other "science" puzzle pieces
can be rearranged to make the piece fit
and the fitting algorithm is the most efficient one.

Also observe that the "zero points"
in the "ONE science frame"
must be referenced to the most dependable, stable
and universally accessible reference points,
such as the center of mass of some massive object,
some high energy celestial event,
null conditions, etc.

--
Tom Potter
-----------------http://www.prioritize.biz/http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtmlhttp://xrl.in/63g4http://184.105.237.216/~tompotte/http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

yes, there is no especial frame, but
if you get far-enough away from all
of the events under study, and
you have telemetry of sufficient resolving-power,
you can pretty-much consider teh events
to be in "absolute time" by your clock, insofar
as calculations go. of course,
you'll have to look at something,
that took place some light-nanoseconds ago (viz,
this applies as well to microscopic observations .-)