Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #474499

Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation

Show all headers | View raw

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:50:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> >On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> >> >The solution to the above problem

>> >> No, Stupid Ken, there is no problem, except in your addled mind.

>> >> >is that each observer must include the possibility that the observed
>> >> >clock can run faster (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than
>> >> >his clock.

>> >> Wrong. Such a theory cannot handle the following problem. (If you
>> >> disagree, show us!)

>> >> 3 rockets leave the origin in the XY plane at the same time.  They all
>> >> move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.  Rocket A moves along
>> >> the +x direction.  Rocket B moves at a 120 degree angle to Rocket A/the x
>> >> axis, in the XY plane.  Rocket C moves at a 240 degree angle to A (or 120
>> >> degrees in the opposite direction), also in the XY plane.  Because of
>> >> geometry, Rockets B and C are also at a 120 degree angle to each other.


>> >>  B
>> >>   \
>> >>    \
>> >>     O------A
>> >>    /
>> >>   /
>> >>  C

>> >> Remember, all 3 rockets move at the same velocity as seen from O.

>> >No Moron, A, B and C cannot use O as reference for velocity wrt each other.

>> Why not? They left from O.

>You can use O as reference only if O is in a state of absolute rest. But no
>object in the universe (including O)  is in a state of absolute rest.

So IRT is useless also because it cannot find any relative velocity
because nothing in the universe is in a state of absolute rest?

As if we needed another reason!

Anyway, all 3 spaceships leave O at the same speed, then we ignore O and
measure/predict the velocities between them.

>> >> Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C.  A measures B's clock as
>> >> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  A measures C's clock as
>> >> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  In other words,
>> >> gamma=2 in both cases.

>> >No moron, A does not measure B's clock rate....he predicts.

>> And why couldn't A measure?

>Moron, He doesn't measure clock rate of B. He predict B's relative 
>velocity by assuming that light from B is at constant c and from that he 
>predict B's velocity relative to him Vab. He then use the Vab to 
>calculate the value of Gamma_ab. Then he use the LT to predict the clock 
>rate of B.

So why can't A do both? Predict the relative velocity and measure it?

>> >> Tell us.  Using your IRT, what does B measure when measuring the rate of
>> >> A's clock? What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?

>> >IRT says:

>> <snip empty blather>

>Moron, you snipped the correct calculations.

THERE WEREN'T ANY CALCULATIONS! Only your explanations of how IRT works.

>> I see that IRT, or you, are unable to make any predictions from my
>> initial conditions. Just as I thought. Just as well, since if you did,
>> you'd quickly find a contradiction and the problem isn't doable.
>> Meanwhile, SR has no problem with this situation.

>Moron I showed you the correct IRT calculations. Gee you are so fcucking 
>stupid. No wonder you name is Moron_y.

THERE WEREN'T ANY CALCULATIONS!!!

Now, can you solve this problem?  Since I know you can't do math, I'll
even do the calculations for you if you give the IRT expressions and the
values to substitute for the variables.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:06 -0700
  Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 15:56 +0000
    Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 09:18 -0700
    Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 09:21 -0700
      Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 10:38 -0700
    Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 17:14 -0700
      Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 01:50 +0000
        Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-08 12:06 -0700
          Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 20:31 +0000
            Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-10-08 23:22 +0200
            Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-09 06:28 -0700
              Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-09 14:02 +0000
  Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 19:19 +0000
    Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 12:33 -0700
      Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:36 +0000
        Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 14:03 -0700
  Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 12:51 -0700
    Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-10-08 23:23 +0200
      Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 22:52 -0700

csiph-web