I assume you're talking about this answer, where you quote Einstein as saying,

"For if we measure the velocity of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free system K’, employing clocks U of identical constitution, we obtain the same magnitude at all these places."

I don't see how that's different than what you yourself said here:

Identical clocks measure the speed of light as exactly c both on top of the mountains and at sea-level. Same as in the box, ain't it?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Depends on whether they are atomic clocks or not. That's why I added the Harrison chronometer.

This is Einstein's “box” resting on the earth in a gravitational field:

”The same holds good, by our fundamental assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution, for measuring time at places with differing gravitational potential.”

If we want to know the true “time” all around and above the surface, inside the box, we can’t use atomic clocks, because atomic clocks will slow down at the bottom of the box and speed up at the top. That's why we need a perfect Harrison chronometer that is not affected by gravity.

He doesn’t make this stuff very clear. That’s why it took me 12 years to figure out what he was saying. That’s why you didn’t see the two different box thought experiments right away. He doesn’t even tell us in the theory that the “U” clocks are atomic clocks.

This part of the theory is so confusing, maybe that’s why that guy on the internet just left it off of his webpage.

What, exactly, "has just been said"? How about a couple of paragraphs right before this?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

I told you that you can buy the whole book and the entire theory for $10, so I'm not going to sit here and type the whole thing.

Not surprising - wouldn't want to actually back up what you're saying would you?

Tensor, you said you've got this book . . . what do you think about this?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Stop patronizing me, as well as everyone else in here. You have given no one any reason to believe that you are right, no one recognizes your claims because you haven't backed them up with either math or experimental evidence, and no one in the scientific community knows who you are or cares about what you think. We are debating this here for the sole purpose of stopping misinformation, as Tensor said. If you're so smart and know so much about relativity that we just "can't understand," great, more power to you. Publish it. Then we'll see if your ideas can really hold up.

And there is no such thing as a frictionless surface. But that doesn't mean we can't think about an ideal system, in order to isolate effects.

Talking about what c is in empty space is perfectly valid.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

Then the slowdown from lateral motion should depend on the value of g, shouldn't it? I mean, didn't Lorentz assume a "constant" aether?

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

Yes, I think so. So the lateral motion through a strong field should cause more of a slowdown than the lateral motion through a weaker field. Also, the speed would be a factor too, and also any accelerative effects would be a factor. The rate change due to speed and the strength of g would be Lorentz theory, while the acceleration and the g-elevation part would be GR theory.

It’s my understanding that just simple “raw” SR (Lorentz) and GR equations can not be used on the GPS clocks since they constantly change speeds and altitudes slightly. What do you know about this? I’m still trying to learn all of it. It’s rather complicated with all the factors considered. Plus, with slow-speed airplane atomic clocks, there are East-West and North-South considerations, such as in the H-K experiment. There are some latitude considerations too.

Not in today's world. Not when you want and need the accurate details.

For example, Newton predicted that light would bend when it passed near the sun, but he didn’t provide any formulas or any accurate details.

The 1905 guess was just a guess, based mainly on the “average speed of light” as measured at the surface of the earth by various physicists. Einstein stuck his neck out and guessed that that speed was “constant” everywhere, and he turned out to be wrong. And of course he thought the universe and the stars were all “fixed” in 1905, so that was an easy guess to make, but it doesn’t apply with today’s expanding universe and the details we now know about light speed slowdowns in gravity fields.

Anybody could have guessed in 1905 that “the speed of light is the same everywhere, and light speed is the fastest speed of anything”.

Doh

The fastest trains went only 60 mph and the earth only 18.6 mps. So, guessing that light speed was “the fastest speed” in the universe wasn’t such a big deal in 1905. But, anyway, it turned out to be wrong, and there are combined relative speeds of light that are faster than c. And there are also negative earth-relative speeds for light coming from distant galaxies.

As I explained, I’m not going to type out the whole book for you when you can buy it for $10 or get it on loan from a library for free. Your own public library can order it for a two week loan, and you can photocopy the paper for about $1.

Hey, Tensor, why don't you type out the book for SeanF?

Is that why you won't answer either my question or Tensor's about the GR equations? Too much work typing for you?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

I’m practicing that right now, trying to decide what to include and what to leave out, and who to send it to.

I’ve got to leave quite a lot out, or it just won’t be published in a mainstream journal. For example, I approached someone about this who said my idea sounded too much like an “ether” theory, and any form or kind of anything that hints of an “ether” theory is totally unpublishable in physics right now. But it was Einstein, not me, who turned gravitational fields into a kind of light-speed regulating "ether".

If I have to leave too much out to conform to politically correct customs of modern physics, I won’t do that.

Anyway, there are other guys spreading the word about this, like on those two websites I linked you to. And as I said, if you don’t understand them either, then that’s not my problem. Many people will understand them and will learn from them.

Sam5: commenting from listener land here, I'm still waiting for you to respond to the following, which Tensor has posted repeatedly and you have consistently ignored. Unless you respond to this -- and it is your job to respond, since you are making the claim that there is a difference -- people will continue to assume that you don't know what you are talking about.

(As an aside, you have already shown that you know how to insert special characters into a post, so you could even make it pretty with greek letters and other symbols.)

If you can do that, good. You've done something no physicst in the past 80 years has been able to do. Publish and maybe win a Nobel.

If you cannot do that, then stop jumping up and down about SR, since you either know you are wrong or do not understand. As has been previously stated, you can't understand the physics without understanding the math. So, please show us that you understand the math and respond to Tensors challenge above.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

What questions? Anyway, he’s got the book. You got questions? Then just ask him.

I showed him the two boxes in the paper a couple of hours ago, so I guess he’s been thinking about them since then. I expect a response soon. As soon as he figures out what Einstein and I are talking about. Then he’ll pretend he “knew it all along”.

Right now he’s probably stuck on trying to figure out what the “U” clocks are.

It’s my “job” to respond??? Ok, I’ll respond as soon as I get my first pay check and full insurance benefits and a retirement plan.

I don’t have any “calculations”. The calculations are in the SR and 1911 papers. One is 1 : √1 – (v^2/c^2) and the other is f = fo (1 + -Φ/c^2), but the math isn’t going to do you any good if you don’t understand the concepts. Just relative motion alone can not induce any 1 : √1 – (v^2/c^2) condition in any clock. Wouldn’t you agree? What do you think Lorentz had to say about this?

Actually, Einstein changed SR theory in 1918, so I can not win a Nobel Prize for what he did 85.2 years ago. I could possibly receive some kind of "honorable mention" in the field of investigative journalism.

What you guys are mad at is that you can’t yet understand Einstein’s theories or what I’m explaining and you are taking it all out on me, as if it is my fault that you can’t understand them.

Ok, it hasn't been 10 pages since my last post, but I can't let this gem go: #-o

Well, at least you admit it.

But it can on time. Remember that whole time vs. clock discussion that you just dropped out on? It's one of many discussions in this thread that you'd like to forget, I'm sure.

No, we completely understand Einstein's theories. You don't. I mean, you claim that the equation ø(v)=ø(-v) shows that Special Relativity is direction independent, for pete's sake!

We're not mad, but we are frustrated with you because you make claims but can't back them up, and because you ignore questions put to you (like the time/clock thing I mentioned above).

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF