Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #596938 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-07 06:25 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-12-10 07:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 61 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
"Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-07 06:25 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 12:33 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-07 15:58 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 16:36 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-08 10:28 +0100
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-12-08 14:26 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 02:15 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-09 13:19 +0100
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-12-09 13:59 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 07:29 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 07:32 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-12-09 15:41 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:19 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 16:22 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-12-09 13:03 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 21:28 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 16:16 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-10 00:27 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 21:45 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-10 02:16 -0500
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 10:08 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Lou Abatangelo <lbta@autala.nl> - 2022-12-10 20:17 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 16:14 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 20:53 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 04:54 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-10 10:57 -0500
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 13:35 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-10 04:03 +0100
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 04:57 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Aether Regaind <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> - 2022-12-17 19:02 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-12-18 13:51 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-18 21:10 +0100
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 14:51 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Aether Regaind <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> - 2022-12-19 19:49 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-19 15:17 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 16:07 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:50 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-12-22 09:12 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-22 12:21 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 11:23 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 09:20 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 10:35 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 13:04 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 13:19 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 14:00 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-12-29 08:01 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 00:28 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-29 11:30 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 10:58 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-29 13:08 -0600
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 21:41 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-20 22:46 +0100
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-20 22:28 +0100
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Vincenzo Longo <olcv@ovgingln.og> - 2022-12-20 23:57 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-12-09 16:34 +0000
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:17 -0800
Crank John-Erik Persson chimes in "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 07:45 -0800
Re: Crank John-Erik Persson chimes in John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:22 -0800
Re: Crank John-Erik Persson chimes in "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:38 -0800
Re: Crank John-Erik Persson chimes in John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:17 -0800
Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 07:52 -0800
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 06:25 -0800 |
| Subject | "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? |
| Message-ID | <1d6fb841-50a7-4d95-acdc-169260e75cf4n@googlegroups.com> |
I follow the SR math of Einstein's time dilation but I am hoping someone can explain the "physics" in the following scenario.
Scenario
There is an inertial reference frame F0. Along the x-axis of that frame, there is a spaceship traveling with velocity of magnitude |V| = c*sqrt(3)/2 in the negative direction along the x-axis relative to frame F0. On that spaceship there is a clock, a laser and an accelerometer. A light pulse is emitted from the laser in the positive x direction every second as measured by the clock on board the spaceship.
At time t0, the spaceship starts accelerating in the positive x-direction of F0 along the x-axis. An observer in F0, far off in the distance from the spaceship, receives the light pulses and also knows the distance each light pulse traveled. Per Einstein's theory before the acceleration of the spaceship starts, the clock on board the spaceship is running at a slower rate than the F0 observer's clock. When the acceleration starts, as the velocity of spaceship goes from -V to zero relative to F0, the far off observer measures the pulse rate from the laser to get faster and faster as the acceleration continues. When the spaceship continues accelerating after reaching zero velocity with respect to F0, the far off observer now measures the pulse rate of the laser to get slower and slower as the acceleration continues. This same thing happens whether the accelerometer on board the spaceship reads a constant value or whether the acceleration is constant as measured in F0. What physics phenomenon does the far distant observer say caused the pulse rate to speed up and then slow down when nothing changed on the spaceship during its travel?
If there is a second reference frame, F1, that has zero velocity with respect to the spaceship before the acceleration starts and there is a far off observer at rest in that frame, he measures the pulse rate from the laser to get slower and slower once the acceleration starts. How can the observer on one inertial reference frame measure that the pulse rate speeds up and then slows down while the observer in the other inertial reference frame measures that the pulse rate only gets slower and slower during the acceleration?
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 12:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4bc7204a-27b3-4970-b8f8-0a3dfa60b17bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596938 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:25:48 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: > How can the observer on one inertial reference frame measure that the pulse rate > speeds up and then slows down while the observer in the other inertial reference > frame measures that the pulse rate only gets slower and slower during the acceleration? As you know, the rate of pulse emissions in terms of any given standard system of inertial coordinates is dependent on the speed of the emitter in terms of that system. An accelerating emitter may begin at rest in terms of one system and thereafter increase its speed monotonically, whereas in terms of another such system the speed is initially high and then drop to zero and then increases. There is nothing strange about this... it is true in Galilean kinematics, and is frankly viscerally obvious to every sentient being. Can you explain why your brain regards this commonplace fact as somehow contradictory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 15:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4b5e3c71-8300-4183-bcc5-6b7abbadf684n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596957 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 2:33:17 PM UTC-6, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 6:25:48 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: > > How can the observer on one inertial reference frame measure that the pulse rate > > speeds up and then slows down while the observer in the other inertial reference > > frame measures that the pulse rate only gets slower and slower during the acceleration? > As you know, the rate of pulse emissions in terms of any given standard system of inertial coordinates is dependent on the speed of the emitter in terms of that system. An accelerating emitter may begin at rest in terms of one system and thereafter increase its speed monotonically, whereas in terms of another such system the speed is initially high and then drop to zero and then increases. There is nothing strange about this... it is true in Galilean kinematics, and is frankly viscerally obvious to every sentient being. Can you explain why your brain regards this commonplace fact as somehow contradictory? I said I follow the math but why do the observers in F0 say the pulse rate increased and then decreased when the acceleration as measured in the spaceship never changed? David Seppala Bastrop TX
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 16:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d1410f16-b1cf-4f73-956e-b0598ae01757n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596973 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 3:58:43 PM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > How can the observer on one inertial reference frame measure that the pulse rate > > > speeds up and then slows down while the observer in the other inertial reference > > > frame measures that the pulse rate only gets slower and slower during the acceleration? > > > > As you know, the rate of pulse emissions in terms of any given standard system of inertial coordinates is dependent on the speed of the emitter in terms of that system. An accelerating emitter may begin at rest in terms of one system and thereafter increase its speed monotonically, whereas in terms of another such system the speed is initially high and then drop to zero and then increases. There is nothing strange about this... it is true in Galilean kinematics, and is frankly viscerally obvious to every sentient being. Can you explain why your brain regards this commonplace fact as somehow contradictory? > > ...why [does]... the pulse rate [in terms of S0] increase and then decrease when > [the emitter's speed in terms of S0 decreases and then increases]? Are you asking why relativistic time dilation occurs? Or why it is related to the relative speed? Do you understand that, for two relatively moving ideal clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest? Are you asking why this is true?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 10:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1q2n2em.bjhm981qzh2gsN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #596938 |
sepp623@yahoo.com <sepp623@yahoo.com> wrote: Yes, there is. Your title "Physics" of Time Dilation is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a "Physics" of Time Dilation. "Time Dilation" is purely kinematic, there is no physics in it. It is as it is because spacetime is as it is, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-08 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Frvgpgk_eVs5qsVXmsECJd9boCw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #596998 |
Le 08/12/2022 à 10:28, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) a écrit : > sepp623@yahoo.com <sepp623@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Yes, there is. > Your title "Physics" of Time Dilation is a contradiction in terms. > There is no such thing as a "Physics" of Time Dilation. > > "Time Dilation" is purely kinematic, there is no physics in it. > It is as it is because spacetime is as it is, > > Jan There is sometimes a double misunderstanding among relativists. The first misunderstanding is not understanding what Lorentz transformatins are, and what they teach. Many of those who study this (in other words all) go too fast and consider, wrongly, that this means that there is a contraction of distances and a dilation of durations. This is false, and the given equation is false (unless the studied object moves transversely with respect to the observer, which is still very limited in the possible cases). One should speak of elasticity of lengths and durations and give the two correct equations which show that a duration also contracts, and that a space or a length also expands. But when you don't understand a theory, you end up saying nonsense, and accusing the other (here me) of saying nonsense. The correct equations are not t'=t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and L'=L.sqrt(1-v²/c²) but those that I gave and which are they, properly derived from well-understood Lorentz transformations. Secondly, these notions are perspective effects. You have to be a fool to think that a 120 meter train actually contracts on its track, or actually lengthens. The real length, the real time (or proper time) does not vary. What varies is the position and the speed which will give me effects of relativistic perspectives. A bit like a car in which we listen to music, whatever the speed of the car, I hear the same music. There is no variation, expansion, contraction of sound. Simply an observer placed on the road, in front of the car, will perceive a more acute sound, and that placed behind, a more serious sound. These things should no longer be debated today. I give the correct equations that we should know by heart, we do not know them. It's sad. And I'm not talking to you about my equation on instantaneous speed in accelerated reference frames. There, I think my readers really have a hard time, as it seems to go beyond their intellectual comprehension. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 02:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0eb901e9-b240-40c4-8ffa-813db00e1c40n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597003 |
To all There is no time dilation, since transverse ether wind is falling inside the wave front, and therefore cannot alter wave front. Wave model is not understood. No tilting in MMX, and not in stellar aberration either. Then we have to explain atomic clocks in a different way, and this means that orbiting electrons experience an ether wind tangential to orbit (NOT SRT). They also experience a radial effect (to orbit) due to the radial ether wind equal to the escape velocity (NOT GRT and escape velocity NOT gravity potential). So the equation for time dilation in SRT is also valid for GRT. NO TIME DILATION instead clocks are sensitive to ether wind Best regards from _____________ John-Erik
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 13:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1q2p41n.1xcu310d5zpycN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #597054 |
John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> wrote: > Wave model is not understood. Now there you have a valid point, (as long as you limit it to yourself) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 13:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k6atWCcvssBaBFoY6u--CaswhuY@jntp> |
| In reply to | #597054 |
Le 09/12/2022 à 11:15, John-Erik Persson a écrit : > To all > There is no time dilation, since transverse ether wind is falling inside the > wave front, and therefore cannot alter wave front. Wave model is not understood. > No tilting in MMX, and not in stellar aberration either. > Then we have to explain atomic clocks in a different way, and this means that > orbiting electrons experience an ether wind tangential to orbit (NOT SRT). They > also experience a radial effect (to orbit) due to the radial ether wind equal to > the escape velocity (NOT GRT and escape velocity NOT gravity potential). So the > equation for time dilation in SRT is also valid for GRT. > NO TIME DILATION instead clocks are sensitive to ether wind > Best regards from _____________ John-Erik Have you figured out what ether absence and covariance mean? ? ? R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 07:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <70cfa85b-f483-4a1b-ac51-59b793bb298dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597063 |
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 2:59:47 PM UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 09/12/2022 à 11:15, John-Erik Persson a écrit : > > To all > > There is no time dilation, since transverse ether wind is falling inside the > > wave front, and therefore cannot alter wave front. Wave model is not understood. > > No tilting in MMX, and not in stellar aberration either. > > Then we have to explain atomic clocks in a different way, and this means that > > orbiting electrons experience an ether wind tangential to orbit (NOT SRT). They > > also experience a radial effect (to orbit) due to the radial ether wind equal to > > the escape velocity (NOT GRT and escape velocity NOT gravity potential). So the > > equation for time dilation in SRT is also valid for GRT. > > NO TIME DILATION instead clocks are sensitive to ether wind > > Best regards from _____________ John-Erik > Have you figured out what ether absence and covariance mean? ? ? > > R.H. Lodder No comment
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 07:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a369b11e-0a3e-485e-b43c-ed87024e36a9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597063 |
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 2:59:47 PM UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 09/12/2022 à 11:15, John-Erik Persson a écrit : > > To all > > There is no time dilation, since transverse ether wind is falling inside the > > wave front, and therefore cannot alter wave front. Wave model is not understood. > > No tilting in MMX, and not in stellar aberration either. > > Then we have to explain atomic clocks in a different way, and this means that > > orbiting electrons experience an ether wind tangential to orbit (NOT SRT). They > > also experience a radial effect (to orbit) due to the radial ether wind equal to > > the escape velocity (NOT GRT and escape velocity NOT gravity potential). So the > > equation for time dilation in SRT is also valid for GRT. > > NO TIME DILATION instead clocks are sensitive to ether wind > > Best regards from _____________ John-Erik > Have you figured out what ether absence and covariance mean? ? ? > > R.H. Richard No, I have not, since I regard the particle-based ether to be present With best regards from ________________ John-Erik
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 15:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BwPr9QV6owI31onnMoCB7d00cXg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #597069 |
Le 09/12/2022 à 16:32, John-Erik Persson a écrit : > Richard > No, I have not, since I regard the particle-based ether to be present > With best regards from ________________ John-Erik This is in total contradiction with experiments and observations. Ether does not exist. It's like the flat earth. It does not exist. However, for centuries people thought that if the head was not flat, those on the sides would fall into the void, and the plumb lines would no longer be vertical if you built there. When Poincaré wrote his first texts taken up by the young and arrogant Einstein (26 years old), many physicists were even surprised. Especially since even today the transformations he gave are not well understood by the rest of humanity. These transformations lead to an elasticity of distances and durations. They imply that there is no ether. Everything is covariant. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 08:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55e09d07-6cc0-4eaa-b510-a8f665b75ae2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597071 |
On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 4:41:17 PM UTC+1, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 09/12/2022 à 16:32, John-Erik Persson a écrit : > > Richard > > No, I have not, since I regard the particle-based ether to be present > > With best regards from ________________ John-Erik > This is in total contradiction with experiments and observations. > > Ether does not exist. > > It's like the flat earth. It does not exist. However, for centuries people > thought that if the head was not flat, those on the sides would fall into > the void, and the plumb lines would no longer be vertical if you built > there. > > When Poincaré wrote his first texts taken up by the young and arrogant > Einstein (26 years old), many physicists were even surprised. > > Especially since even today the transformations he gave are not well > understood by the rest of humanity. > > These transformations lead to an elasticity of distances and durations. > > They imply that there is no ether. > > Everything is covariant. > > R.H. Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, you cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no existence. So MMX is impossible, and also built on ether wind from Earth' translation, but only rotation is present. No effect in reference arm, since wave fronts are defined by mirrors to have UNCHANGED orientations. No time dilation. Doubled and compensated effect in measuring arm, since 2 anti-parallel and moving forces in light are compensate by 2 anti-parallel and moving forces controlling atomic separations. Not OBSERVABLE effect in measuring arm. FOURTH error in MMX: Not fulfilled prediction means NO RESULT, and not NO ETHER. With best regards from _____________________ John-Erik PS Instead of time dilation atomic clocks are sensitive to the ether wind. This clock effect is half the compensated effect in MMX, since bound electrons are effected in ONE dimension of TWO. Ether wind tangential to orbit instead of SRT, and ether wind radial to obit instead of GRT. We see this by describing gravitational time dilation based on escape velocity instead of by gravity potential. Then the same equations describes both kinds of time dilation. DS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tmvnbm$16ko3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597077 |
John-Erik Persson wrote: > Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, you > cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no > existence. that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You neither had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 13:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tn07rb$1ash4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597078 |
On 12/9/22 8:22 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: > John-Erik Persson wrote: > >> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, you >> cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no >> existence. > > that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You neither > had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay? I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established 'ether' properties. If a word does not have meaning, then if you start attacking a bogeybear without meaning, then you might be attacking something true in the name of some horrible bogeybear. But if it doesn't have clear meaning, then you never really know. If you call 'ether' 'spacetime' and 'spacetime' 'ether', does that mean that 'relativity' is not true because some of it is based upon 'spacetime' and not 'ether'? Just interchange the words 'ether' with 'spacetime' and 'relativity' is 'totally disproved'? Why? Because the word 'ether' is a horrible bogeybear that somehow disproves everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 21:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tn099r$1b2aj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597129 |
Trolidan7 wrote: >>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, you >>> cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no >>> existence. >> >> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You >> neither had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay? > > I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established > 'ether' properties. > If a word does not have meaning, then if you start attacking > a bogeybear without meaning, then you might be attacking something > true in the name of some horrible bogeybear. > But if it doesn't have clear meaning, then you never really know. > If you call 'ether' 'spacetime' and 'spacetime' 'ether', does > that mean that 'relativity' is not true because some of it > is based upon 'spacetime' and not 'ether'? you mix words together. In physics something not seen/detected or properly derived, it does NOT exists. Immaterial. Which is another domain. Different from science. Here's some proofs: Russian TV Mocks America for Chosing a Black Lesbian Drug Addict Over Decorated Hero & Spy https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/FV0HU7izChGi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 16:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvhqdsF1jvbU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597133 |
On 12/9/2022 3:28 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: > Trolidan7 wrote: > >>>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, > you >>>> cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no >>>> existence. >>> >>> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You >>> neither had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay? >> >> I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established >> 'ether' properties. >> If a word does not have meaning, then if you start attacking >> a bogeybear without meaning, then you might be attacking something >> true in the name of some horrible bogeybear. >> But if it doesn't have clear meaning, then you never really know. >> If you call 'ether' 'spacetime' and 'spacetime' 'ether', does >> that mean that 'relativity' is not true because some of it >> is based upon 'spacetime' and not 'ether'? > > you mix words together. In physics something not seen/detected or properly > derived, it does NOT exists. Immaterial. Which is another domain. > Different from science. Here's some proofs: > > Russian TV Mocks America for Chosing a Black Lesbian Drug Addict Over > Decorated Hero & Spy > https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/FV0HU7izChGi Still with the gay thing that has nothing to do with the physics discussion at hand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-10 00:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tn0joq$1bp24$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597141 |
whodat wrote: >> you mix words together. In physics something not seen/detected or >> properly derived, it does NOT exists. Immaterial. Which is another >> domain. Different from science. Here's some proofs: >> Russian TV Mocks America for Chosing a Black Lesbian Drug Addict Over >> Decorated Hero & Spy >> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/FV0HU7izChGi > > Still with the gay thing that has nothing to do with the physics > discussion at hand. you definitely must be gay, being anally obsessed with gays. I start believing nazi nato didn't know what war is all about. Thinking they just press some buttons and joysticks, then rearm and redo the action. Totally gays. Russia might take over the entire fucking europe, capitalist as it is. Its people are hungry in cold, driven by their masters in EU, wanting them killed with poison along the last 2 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-09 21:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jvidm2F4d8rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597145 |
On 12/9/2022 6:27 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: > whodat wrote: > >>> you mix words together. In physics something not seen/detected or >>> properly derived, it does NOT exists. Immaterial. Which is another >>> domain. Different from science. Here's some proofs: >>> Russian TV Mocks America for Chosing a Black Lesbian Drug Addict Over >>> Decorated Hero & Spy >>> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/FV0HU7izChGi >> >> Still with the gay thing that has nothing to do with the physics >> discussion at hand. > > you definitely must be gay, being anally obsessed with gays. I start > believing nazi nato didn't know what war is all about. Thinking they just > press some buttons and joysticks, then rearm and redo the action. Totally > gays. Russia might take over the entire fucking europe, capitalist as it > is. Its people are hungry in cold, driven by their masters in EU, wanting > them killed with poison along the last 2 years. You simply cannot get off the topic of gays. Look at this thread, you keep accusing others and bring the topic into discussions where it never was before. Too bad, you're the self loathing gay in these discussions. Gay and crazy, that's you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-10 02:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tn1bo0$1jvga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #597170 |
On 12/9/2022 10:45 PM, whodat wrote: > On 12/9/2022 6:27 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: [...] > You simply cannot get off the topic of gays. Look at this thread, you > keep accusing others and bring the topic into discussions where it never > was before. Too bad, you're the self loathing gay in these discussions. > > Gay and crazy, that's you. > You realize that you are arguing with the nymshifting troll, don't you? You are helping it in its mission, which is to disrupt and cause chaos into these groups.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web