Existence

Hi NoNukes, Einstein gave us two types of system.He gave us K which is an at rest frame.
He gave us k which is a moving frame.My wife on earth is in a K frame.Me on my cycle is in a k frame.The light beam source is in a K frame.The light beam is in a k frame.Neither k frame can be chosen to be a K frame. I would have to be in a K frame to have zero velocity.My cycle is being propeled by atomic propulsion thus it has velocity of .5 c thus I am in a k frame. My wife is in a K frame and cannot be considered as moving towards me, according to Einstein. No the light beam is not moving at me at 279,000 mps.The light beam is moving at 186,000 mps with referece to any W reference frame.It is not moving at 186,000 mps in reference to a moving frame.Chosing either my wife's W frame or the light beams source frame, which is right next to the light beams source's W frame I am traveling at 93,000 mps distance toward either of those frames you want to choose.The light beam is traveling 186,000 mps distance away from either of those frames you want to choose.That means the distance between the light beams k frame and my k frame is decreasing at the rate of 279,000 mps.Thus the light beam will come into view on day 1278.34875 days of my journey.I will have traveled a total of 10,271,787,876,000 miles of my 11,739,186,144,000 mile journey relative to my wife's W frame.The light beam will have traveled 1,956,531,024,000miles in 121.7475 days while I had traveled 978,265,512,000 miles since day 1095.7275 of my 11,739,186,144,000 mile journey.At any time during my journey do I cease traveling at 93,000 mps in reference to my wife's W frame?At any time from the light beam being emitted is it traveling less or more than 186,000 mps?Since neither can change is the distance between them closing at 279,000 mps?Is the theory correct or is the math correct?The theory I am refering to is where Einstein gives us a W stationary frame and w moving frame. There is no point in the journey from the time the light beam that is emitted that both k frames are not moving towards each other.From being emitted the light beam is traveling towards me at 186,000 mps.From the time the light beam is emitted I am traveling towards it at 93,000 mps. Since we are talking about Einstein's relativity he needs to be the one doing the telling.He tells me that the k frame is always a moving frame and the K frame is a stationary frame. Einstein 1905 paper. None of the thought experiments take the earth's speed into account nor the speed of the earth around the sun, nor the speed of the earth and sun around the milky way, nor the speed of the milky way. I feel no difference during my turn around than I have during any of the trip.I guess you never read my thought experiment.Why don't you go back and read it and you might understand why I felt no pain. At the moment I engaged the radar gun I was traveling at 93,000 mps towards the light beam.You know like you are going down the road in your car at 100 mph and the trooper is coming towards you at 80 mph and he clocks you doing 100 mph. He does not clock you at 180 mph. Are you sure that 365.2425 days would not expire in both k frames?God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : correct math numbers

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Here is why.

quote:

---

A moving radar can clock other vehicles speeds while the officer’s vehicle is moving both going in the same direction or even in opposing directions. These radar guns have a second antenna that measures the patrol cars speed while the other antenna tracks the target vehicle. The radar guns internal computer then computes these two droppler signals displaying the target vehicles speed.

---

Your police radar analogy has nothing to do with anything, it in no way even begins to support your beliefs.Also Here is a large pgf on gravity probe b, the mission, not the results. It might help you understand some its problems. It is 588 pages, 12mb.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Hi NoNukes, From your quote:" A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation."No adjustment had been made until 20 days after launch."The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10^12."Do you think they set the frequency to the one measured or the one predicted?From then on they knew what the actual frequency was from experience. So I would think that is what they used.So the point is which numbers did they use?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi fear, A quote from your source.

quote:

---

Police radar transmits a radio wave in the microwave band that upon striking an object is reflected back to the radar gun and a Doppler Shift occurs in the frequency that is received back by the radar gun. The radar gun thus measures this change in frequency and then calculates the speed either in miles per hour or in kilometers per hour.

---

My radar gun knows how fast I am traveling just as the troopers radar gun knows how fast it is traveling.So my gun will measure the speed of the light beam at 186,000 mps. At the same time I am traveling distance at 93,000 mps.As far as the gravity probe b I am done.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi NoNukes, All his patents have to do with the GPS system as does his software.So if the GPS system is controled by SR then you decide. And what would this have to do with somebody cooking the numbers on a failed experiment to match what was predicted is what we were talking about. Then explain how it could be isotropic when you have 1 W frame and 2 w moving frames that all motion has to be accounted for.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi NoNukes, From your source:

quote:

---

With confidence in the project failing,

---

As far as NASA was concerned the project had failed.I am done with this subject.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT,Very little you say here about Einstein's theory is correct. ICANT, is the earth stationary? Your answer to that question should be a clue that you are on the wrong track.If you read Einstein's paper you probably observed that the word "stationary" often appeared in quotation marks. Let's see how Einstein uses the word stationary in that famous paper.

quote:

---

Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the stationary system.

---

So picking a given inertial frame as the "stationary frame" is an arbritrary convenience. It is of no import other than aiding the discussion. Any inertial frame can be the stationary frame because Newtonian mechanics works equally well in every inertial frame. If you're having difficulty with this concept then you don't understand special relativity.Under special relativity there is nothing special about any inertial frame. For convenience, one frame or another may be labeled "stationary" in a problem, but in a problem with multiple inertial frames, the choice is strictly one of convenience. We are free to chose as the stationary frame, any frame that makes the calculations simpler.Yes Einstein did label frames k, K, and K'. But so what? The essence of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference frame. Isaac Newton certainly believed this was true about mechanical physics. Einstein's improvement was to understand that Maxwell's equations, and consequently the speed of light in a vacuum were among the things that must be the same in all reference frames. Conservation of energy and momentum, the speed of light in a vacuum, laws governing electricity and magnetism, all have the same form regardless of which frame is chosen.If you want to criticize Einstein, it would be helpful if you figured out what an inertial frame is. So far you've missed the mark. So you believe it is possible to go from moving 0.5c in one direction to moving 0.5c in the opposite direction without experiencing any acceleration during the transition. If you said that in your thought experiment, then I was right to ignore it. Actually, if the trooper was foolish enough to measure your speed from his moving vehicle using a radar gun that measures only the relative motion between the trooper and the speeder, he would clock the speeder at 180 mph. Let's read how this problem is taken care of using 'moving' radar guns.Radar speed gun - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The above-described system measures the difference in speed between the target and the radar speed gun itself. The gun must be stationary to give a correct reading; if the gun is used from a moving car it just gives the difference in speed between the two vehicles. So a different system is used in radar speed guns designed to work from moving vehicles.

​

In so-called "moving radar", the gun receives reflected signals from both the target vehicle and stationary background objects, such as the road, road signs, guard rails, streetlight poles, etc. Instead of comparing the frequency of the signal reflected from the target with the transmitted signal, it compares the target signal with the background signal. The difference in frequency of these two signals gives the true speed of the target vehicle.

---

So the trooper's motion radar works because in addition to measuring the relative velocity between vehicles (180 mph) using doppler, the gun also takes a reading on the relative velocity of a light pole and the trooper's car, effectively determining the trooper's own speed relative to the ground. Using this information, the radar gun can determine your speed relative to the road, which of course is the determination needed to bust you.Further, you cannot actually measure the speed of light using a radar gun, which kinda makes it difficult to really address your hypo in any serious way.Special Relativity predicts something slightly different than what you describe. According to SR, rather than simply adding/subtracting velocities as you learned in sixth grade, the equation below is used. In the equation u and v are the speeds of objects a measured in an inertial reference frame, and w is the resultant relative velocity between the objects. In cases were the u and v are substantially smaller than the speed of light, as is the case in sixth grade word problems, we can see that the equation predicts that w is essentially the sum of u and v because the denominator is very nearly equal to 1. So SR predicts the conventional result (closing at 180mph) when the trooper is moving at 80 miles towards a speeder at moving 100 mph.However when either u, v, or both is the speed of light, then w always turns out to be c. For example if you were traveling at 1 c and the trooper were traveling at 0.5c, the relative velocity between the two would be as follows: Did you say anything at all about the relative motion of the two light sources?Outside of Einstein's paper, k frame does not mean anything. I take your statement to mean that each source is at rest relative to the other source, and that you are labeling the frame in which the sources are stationary 'k'. In that case, I'll agree that one year would expire as experienced by an observer in frame k. What's your point?

Hi ICANT In other words, you have no idea whether his 12 patents employ either Hatch or Einstein's version of relativity, or whether they relate to relativity at all. The patents are just to show that Hatch is a smart guy. Not necessary. I think Hatch is a smart guy too. Gaasenbeek and Spolter, I don't think so highly of. The matching value for geodetic effect was obtained in 2008, before the supposed data cooking you are on about. Whatever the problems with the gyros, they worked well enough to give values for geodetic effect and frame-dragging before the team was forced to hunt up more funding.You cannot possibly misunderstand the relevance of that. Nor could you miss the relevance of other experiments that confirm GR's predictions. What's a w frame?I've demonstrated the consequences of isotropic speed of light in every one of the the scenarios you yourself proposed. I've shown how the speed of light could be a constant in multiple inertial frames. Did you find some errors in my mathematics? I note that you haven't bothered to criticize any of my math, but let's not pretend that I never even posted it.Ashby's paper, cited earlier shows how to calculate the consequences of the Sagnac-Effect using special relativity. Why not look at that?

You can't be serious??
Seriously, go learn what is a frame of reference because the ignorance coming from those statements is staggering.
He "rest frame" does NOT exist in reality. Do you even know what conventions are? Einstein use a "rest frame" so he can actually have coordinates from which he can makes calculs. Otherwise, tell me in the Universe, where is this so called "rest frame"?Edited by Son, : No reason given.

I think you're giving him too much credit, if he can't understand that, he doesn't understand high school physics. The use of inertial frames is not specific to special relativity.

We don't have to guess. We're told exactly what they did. They switched on the synthesizer after 20 days resulting in a near perfect clock rate. It would still be necessary add additional corrections. The remaining errors were not n constant rate errors and could therefore could not be corrected by necessarily switching in a fixed synthesizer.For example, the satellites actual orbit was elliptical rather than round which would produce SR and GR corrections that vary depending on the position in orbit. In fact the orbit itself is not constant. The clock rate could be affected by environmental variations and possibly stray magnetic effects. You have to correct for these problems as they occur.But you still miss the point. The 20 days was an experimental verification of the predictions of special and general relativity. Do you dispute that the 20 day experiment is consistent with the predictions of general and special relativity?Edited by NoNukes, : correct variations.

Are you going to address the experiments confirming GR/SR that have nothing to do with the GP-B experiment? Are you done with any and all attempts to demonstrate that Hatch is wrong?I can guarantee that if you continue to cite Hatch, I'm going to continue to call you on it. Feel free not to respond.

Hi NoNukes, The so what is that Einstein called the K frame a stationary frame, and the k frame a moving frame.Its his theory not mine. The only acceleration would be lateral and not forward motion as I continued at the forward speed of .5 c for the entire journey. Its my thought experiment I can think anything I desire.The part of my trip that you decided that the light beam would leave its source by my wife after 3 years of my journey at 93,000 mps is what I have been trying to speak to for the last bit. So lets examine it again.At 3 years into my journey I am 2,934,796,536,000 miles from home.Traveling at 93,000 mps I will be home in 365.2425 days if no light beam leaves it source beside my wife.You created a problem and started a light beam toward me from a source beside my wife traveling distance at 186,000 mps at which time the light beams moving frame is 2,934,796,536,000 miles from my moving frame.The light beam slows down for nothing as we are in a vaccum.You tell me according to SR the distance is closing at 186,000 mps between the moving light beam frame which is traveling at 186,000 mps, towards my moving frame.That means I am sitting still.But my engine is not broke and is still running and pushing my cycle at 93,000 mps. towards my wife's frame.I say I will see the light beam in 121.7475 days.But you and SR say that no I will see the light beam in 182.62125 days, after the light has traveled 2,934,796,536,000 miles.I am still 2,934,796,536,000 miles from home but I have been traveling for 1278.34875 days, and am 365.2425 days away from home. That means my total trip will take 1643.59125 days to make a 1460.97 day trip.Total distance to travel divided by distance traveled per day = number of days to make the trip.TD =11,739,186,144,000 miles
divided by
DTPd=8,035,200,000 miles traveling at 93,000 mps
Days traveled = 1460.97Explain to me why according to SR it will take me 1643.59125 days to make a 11,739,186,144,000 mile trip traveling at 93,000 mps.When simple sixth grade math says it only takes 1460.97 days to make the same trip.After all that rambling I would like for you to answer these 2 questions.During my journey traveling my round trip relative to my wifes frame.How many days will it take me traveling at 93,000 mps to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles with no light beam approaching me?How many days will it take me traveling at 93,000 mps to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles with a light beam approaching me during the final 365.2425 days of the journey?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT, The labels are arbitrary, as is the identification of one or the other frame as stationary. Any frame in which Newtonian mechanics is true can be designated as the stationary frame. Einstein could just as easily identified the k frame as the stationary frame.You are attaching some special significance to the K frame when there is absolutely no significance to being a K frame.Seriously ICANT, which one of the two of us is more familiar with special relativity and Einstein's paper. I'm not perfect, and I don't expect you to accept that special relativity is correct on my say so or anyone else's, but have I given you any reason to believe that I don't understand the theory?There is no inertial frame in which the velocity of some object cannot be zero. In fact when working physics problems that do not involve relativity, it is convenient to pick a reference frames in which the velocity of some object is zero. Does your trip involve traveling in a line for 1 light year and then traveling in a second line in the opposite direction for a distance of 1 light year? If so, then you've experienced a net acceleration along the direction of motion in the first leg.Further, since the total trip took 4 years at 0.5c, that turning period could not have taken any significant time, meaning that you've experienced a huge acceleration. Yes, but if your thought experiment requires a magic radar gun, you need to tell us how the thing works in order for us to make predictions of what it would indicate. Real radar guns measure land speed by collecting one reflection from the target and a second reflection from the road or some object fixed to the road. Your radar gun is out in space so it cannot collect a road reflection. So how does it "know" how fast you are going.Let me ask you a question about your radar gun. Let's imagine that you are enclosed in a space ship moving away from earth at 0.5c rather than riding on a space cycle. What does your radar gun measure when you point it at the forward wall of the space ship? If it does not measure zero mph, then you owe us an explanation. When did I say anything like that? I said that from the wife's inertial frame, the trip would take about 1461 days, but that hubby would experience only about 1265 days. I'm not going to defend or explain numbers that you made up. There is no inertial frame from which the trip would be measured to take 1643+ days. I'm pretty sure that I agreed that in the wife's frame of reference that the light traveled 1/3 light year in 1/3 of a year (121.747) before it hit the ship. I don't recall what I said was the answer from the point of view of hubby, but the time and distance as measured in hubby's frame were surely completely different.I'm not going to redo math, and I'm too tired to recheck what I posted, so I am going to talk generally about the consequences of special relativity, which in turn is a consequence of the speed of light in a vacuum being a constant. The explanation should be enough to explain why your 1643 days answer is not what SR or I predict.Given two inertial frames having a relative velocity v between them. Observers in the two frames observing two events separated in space, even after taking into account light travel time, will disagree about how much time elapsed between the two events, the distance separating the two events, and possibly even the order of the two events. For example, hubby and wife will disagree about 1) how far apart hubby and wife were when the wife released the photon (call that d). 2) how long the photon took to cover the distance between hubby and wife (call that t).However hubby and wife will agree that the velocity of the photon as measured in their own inertial frames is c. When they divide d/t to get the velocity of light using the values measured in their own frame, they will get the same answer c. But if you use the wife's d value and the husbands t value, you get an answer that makes no sense at all.In your questions, you repeatedly ask me to explain why some distance measured in the wife's frame is inconsistent with some time measured in the husband's frame. Well, when objects are moving at speeds that are a substantial fraction of the speed of light, we don't expect those things to be consistent. The answers in both cases are the same. Your wife will answer that the trip took four years and covered 2 light years (11,739,186,144,000 miles). Hubby on the space cycle will answer that the trip took 3.4641 years (1265.2 days) and covered 1.73205 light years. Both will agree that hubby completed the entire journey.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Sure it's his theory, the problem is not his theory, it's that you don't understand it. As long as you don't educate yourself and learn what is an inertial frame, you won't get anything in physics beyond high school level. What you're doing is like trying to understand math while refusing to understand addition.I know it may look like I'm too insistant on this point, but in my opinion, if you don't understand some basics in physics, the discussion can't meaningfully go forward. We already had this problem when we discussed the speed of light just because we assumed you knew what a frame of reference is.Tell, me, where are those so called "stationary frame" in the Universe?
How would you calculate trajectories without coordinates or calculate speed if you can't use a "stationary frame"?
If you honestly answer those, you'll see that the convention to use Earth (for your car's speed) or Solar as an inertial frame is needed and why the cycle can also be used as one.