Akinbo,
Yes I see now you have re-posted the original question.(I was addressing your later comments to Tom.)
I would have said the -output from the received signal seen- by each observer is relative and can be compared to the time on his own near clock. It is not the clock substantial objects that are relative. Each near clock is showing what Einstein called Proper time.
Akinbo. P.S. I left a reply explaining why there can not be a return to Newtonian time on "New Podcast: Shifty Neutrinos Win Big, a Cosmic Test for Time, Existential Risk, & "Thunderbirds" Meets Quantum Physics"
Akinbo,
"Tom, must you think using only mathematics?"
I could, but then I would be just as confused and wrong as the rest of you.
It's important to understand that special relativity is a mathematically compete theory. You don't add or subtract anything from it without destroying it. Even Pentcho understands this.
Akinbo,
"The whole world knows that if there is a constant finite speed of light, there can be no refraction."
The whole world knows the opposite. The finite speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The light ray curvature in the presence of a strong gravity field, moreover, is curvilinear, a linear representation of constant curvature.
"... A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." - p.89, Relativity: the special and general theory.]
You must not have the same edition as my 1961 printing. I can't locate the reference -- you can be sure, however, that this applies to general relativity. Please don't get into the Pentcho Valev habit of spurious quotation and citation.
I have no idea what you mean by the Judas thing -- it doesn't belong in this discussion.
It's painful anytime to explain physics to an otherwise learned person -- knowing that you are capable of filling in the gaps in your education for yourself.
Akinbo,
Now I understand the source of your confusion, in Dingle's long-discredited argument:
"According to the special theory of relativity, two similar docks, A and B, which are in uniform relative motion and in which no other differences exist of which the theory takes any account, work at different rates. The situation is therefore entirely symmetrical, from which it follows that if A works faster than B, B must work faster than A. Since this is impossible, the theory must be false." (p.27)
This is NOT what special relativity says. Two clocks sharing uniform motion are synchronized at the origin. This means that they work at the SAME rate. If one or the other leaves this frame of reference, the moving clock runs slower than its partner. When brought back to relative rest, there is no doubt about the asymmetry, because the moving clock will have lost time.
When not at relative rest, each observer is entitled to say that the other's clock is slow, because of their state of relative motion. But when at rest in uniform motion, there is a definite asymmetry.
Akinbo, you really need to steep yourself in the mainstream literature before you go off half-cocked. You even managed to quote Einstein out of context, so it's obvious you have not studied the literature.
Tom,
What makes light bend when it moves from air to water? Change in speed right?
That is why Einstein made the above quote, which may be an inconvenient truth to reference. See it here on p.89, Relativity; the special and general theory.
Then saying that it applies to general relativity is amusing. Were all the so called confirmatory experiments and the deduced postulates obtained from a gravitationally free environment? Or has the earth's gravity ceased to exist? Was the effect of earth's gravity taken into consideration and corrected for? The answer is No.
In the same quote, where Einstein pointed out that the velocity of light varies with position. Does not tell you then that atop Mount Everest and down in the valley, (different positions in the gravitational field), that the velocity of light in both positions will have different values?
So what causes the bending of light for a light beam grazing the sun's surface is the changes in its speed as it encounters the sun's gravity.
Why, I say Judas is just a humorous way of saying not to betray Einstein, especially in those aspects where he makes his point clearly.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo,
"What makes light bend when it moves from air to water? Change in speed right?"
What makes the change in speed? Change in medium, right?
The link doesn't work. But as I said, I have the book. I have read it more than once. That passage is more than likely referring to curvilinear constant motion.
I don't regard Einstein as Jesus, so I don't get the joke.
Okay. Just to post the link again... if it works, http, not https
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924011804774
Okay, got it.
It is just as I said. Under the heading "A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity." Read it again.
Better yet -- read the whole book. It is a masterwork of critical thinking.
