Path: csiph.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:39:26 -0600
Message-ID: <5684CDC3.79A2@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:40:03 -0800
From: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science?
References: <fa826916-9070-42d1-9f10-f60ca9318a33@googlegroups.com> <be0dd52e-84e1-4665-bdea-e786248b86df@googlegroups.com> <20151228181331.52cbcdc1b1adf4a24b221fe6@g{oogle}mail.com> <429892e7-9c02-40a3-ab99-51fdadf4eed2@googlegroups.com> <20151229185059.5965e25f3170bc0fbc93b730@g{oogle}mail.com> <7281546d-bf2c-4160-b845-e2375142770e@googlegroups.com> <20151230134827.c7a719254458a7a8f45902bb@g{oogle}mail.com> <56842EEA.2034@ix.netcom.com> <c1a2e833-8e1e-46d5-9754-798808c0adf7@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 95
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.239.141.5
X-Trace: sv3-gdPUzQokpLzeJqul6mYauGxu/jIccS/+wIIFgP9Dr0QF/qwzqo8csiKEZlvK7F4mkmouA9c3Tm9zGIL!VxnnIPeLKCjug8LD+MdL+RC24GO9IHOQHCjxqF04WtBcHznWRWSVqSDjqjU35eWEwv28xo167vi7!GGibruUZYg==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4502
X-Received-Bytes: 4614
X-Received-Body-CRC: 620617052
Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:372982

01405 wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:22:15 PM UTC, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > >
> > > Koobee Wublee:
> > >
> > > > Koobee  Wublee  would  like  to  write the Lorentz
> > > > transform as  the  following  where  the  unprimed
> > > > frame  is  using coordinate system (t, x, y, z) to
> > > > describe (thus observe) an event, and at the  same
> > > > time,  the primed frame is using coordinate system
> > > > (t', x', dy', dz') to  describe  the  same  event.
> > > > <shrug>
> > > >
> > > > **  c dt' = (c dt - v dx) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
> > > > **  dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)
> > > > **  dy' = dy
> > > > **  dz' = dz
> > > >
> > > > [...]   Say  the twins are A and B.  When A is ob-
> > > > serving B,
> > > >
> > > > ** dt_AB sqrt(1 - B'^2) = dt_BB
> > > >
> > > > Or
> > > >
> > > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B'^2)
> > > >
> > > > Where
> > > >
> > > > **  A = primed observing the event
> > > > **  B = unprimed also observing the event which is itself
> > > > **  dt_AB = time at B as observed by A
> > > > **  dt_BB = time at B
> > > >
> > > > When B is observing A,
> > > >
> > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B'^2)
> > > >
> > > > Or
> > > >
> > > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B'^2)
> > > >
> > > > Where
> > > >
> > > > **  A = primed also observing the event which is itself
> > > > **  B = unprimed observing the event
> > > > **  dt_AA = time at A
> > > > **  dt_BA = time at A as observed by B
> > > > **  B^2 = B'^2
> > > >
> > > > To sum up, we have
> > > >
> > > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> > > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> > > >
> > > > Thus, the contradiction to the Twin paradox is ab-
> > > > solutely fatal to the religion of relativity.  Af-
> > > > ter brainstorming wishing for a  divine  interven-
> > > > tion,  the  Einstein dingleberries had to create a
> > > > new law of physics that  divinely  apply  only  to
> > > > non-inertial  frames of reference, but that is to-
> > > > tal bullshit.  <shrug>
> > >
> > > You have introduced two inertial  frames  of  refer-
> > > ence,  in  which  case yes, the clocks in each frame
> > > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other
> > > frame.  There is no contradiction in that as long as
> > > the two clocks are spatially separated.
> >
> >
> > Okay, one item at a time...
> >
> > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower?
> >
> >
> > For those that don't know the definition of "When"..
> > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when
> >
> 
> > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower?
> when you dont put in new batteries.


Since the clock ticks slower even with new batteries...then it isn't the batteries that is
slowing the clock.


So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower?

Not What is slowing the clock, 


The question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower?