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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400004 > unrolled thread

Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-11-28 01:13 -0800
    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-11-29 12:44 +1100
      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-11-29 00:41 -0800
        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-11-29 03:05 -0800
        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-01 12:13 +1100
    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-05 15:00 +0100
      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-05 07:35 -0800
        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 10:18 -0600
          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-05 10:05 -0800
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:14 -0600
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-05 13:06 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 15:18 -0600
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-06 05:50 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 10:27 -0600
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-06 12:14 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 14:29 -0600
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-06 16:37 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-06 19:37 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 11:11 -0600
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-08 13:29 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 15:28 -0800
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-06 05:57 -0800
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Chantell Dillingham <intlii@dtilnignii.org> - 2016-12-05 18:19 +0000
          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-05 23:33 -0800
          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-06 00:00 -0800
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 18:54 -0600
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-07 17:06 -0800
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-08 03:07 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:10 -0600
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-09 02:51 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 13:39 -0800
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-10 00:54 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:22 -0800
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-12 02:05 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 17:17 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-16 00:22 -0800
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-09 03:34 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 12:42 -0600
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-13 00:16 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-16 08:04 -0800
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 19:03 -0600
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Darron Borton <ororrt@orrtnorr.info> - 2016-12-20 03:29 +0000
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-20 00:56 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-22 10:48 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 10:52 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 14:22 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-22 23:10 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 07:06 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-23 01:35 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 08:59 -0800
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-23 10:17 -0800
                                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 05:19 -0800
                                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:24 -0600
                                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-27 09:39 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-24 09:41 -0600
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-24 07:50 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-25 04:06 -0800
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-13 06:31 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-13 11:18 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-14 10:37 -0600
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-14 08:55 -0800
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-14 12:53 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 10:55 -0600
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 09:50 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 10:13 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 13:20 -0800
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 14:04 -0800
                                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-16 00:35 -0800
                                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 05:50 -0800
                                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-16 06:10 -0800
                                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 07:13 -0800
                                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-16 07:21 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-15 10:32 -0800
                                The mummy of Ken Shito speaks from beyond the grave "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-15 10:36 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 20:02 -0600
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-16 06:29 -0800
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-13 06:54 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-12-08 08:11 -0800
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-09 02:43 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 13:37 -0800
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-10 00:56 -0800
          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-08 10:16 -0800
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 23:09 -0600
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-09 13:16 +0100
        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-06 14:58 +0100
          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-06 06:02 -0800
          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-06 10:51 -0800
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-06 22:55 +0100
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-07 01:25 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-07 11:06 +0100
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-07 04:29 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-08 15:45 +0100
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-08 11:12 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-09 13:43 +0100
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-07 13:47 +0100
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Chantell Dillingham <intlii@dtilnignii.org> - 2016-12-07 13:19 +0000
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-08 15:41 +0100
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-09 23:48 +0100
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-11 02:12 -0800
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-11 05:37 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-11 09:39 -0800
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-11 22:31 +0100
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-11 23:16 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-12 03:04 -0800
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-12 14:29 +0100
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-12 07:52 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 19:26 +0100
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-13 10:57 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-13 22:53 +0100
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-13 23:56 -0800
                                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-14 10:23 +0100
                                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-14 01:49 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-12-12 18:37 +0100

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#401268

W dniu piątek, 9 grudnia 2016 22:37:27 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 2:43:22 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 8 grudnia 2016 01:54:07 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > 
> > > Yes, but it is only one of them. There are other, much more accurate experiments 
> > > that have tested SR and found agreement between predictions and measurements. 
> > 
> > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
> > Experiments show that time (as defined by your
> > idiot guru himself) is galilean with the
> > precision of an acceptable error.
> 
> That's all fantasy. Meanwhile, in the real world:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html 
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ 

 
That's all fantasy. Meanwhile, in the real world:
http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401116

On December 5, tjrob137 wrote:
>  words do not matter in science, what matters is the
>  comparison between the predictions of a theory and observations;

Then, is evolution science?  Which consists of observations only;  
no predictions.  Although they do have theories - 

-
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401157

On 12/8/16 12/8/16   12:16 PM, RichD wrote:
> On December 5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>  words do not matter in science, what matters is the
>>  comparison between the predictions of a theory and observations;
>
> Then, is evolution science?

Yes.

> Which consists of observations only;
> no predictions.

Not true. You must remember that in science, "prediction" carries no 
chronological implication. The theory should be able to describe what is 
observed, with no input from the observation itself. So the "prediction" is 
logical, not chronological.

The theory of evolution predicts a commonality among organisms that is SOLIDLY 
observed here on earth. This applies to the DNA used by all organisms, to the 
low-level biochemical processes inside cells (RNA etc.), to the correspondence 
of bones among creatures as diverse as dogs, cats, horses, and humans; and to 
many intermediate levels as well (liver enzymes, oxygenation of blood, ...).

	Remarkably, horses walk on their middle finger, with the other
	fingers atrophied into "splints".

	A most remarkable demonstration is the Laryngeal nerve, which
	in fish travels straight from brain to the precursor of modern
	mammals' larynx, and it happens to have an artery in its path
	that it simply goes around; in mammals however it goes down
	into the chest cavity, loops around the aorta, and goes back up
	into the neck to the larynx -- in giraffes this is amazing!

Decades ago, taxonomists were able to use this predicted commonality to 
construct a Tree of Life showing the ancestral relationships among organisms, 
based on their physiology; this has now been confirmed in hundreds of details 
via DNA analysis (with many agreements, and some surprises).

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401173

Op 08-dec-2016 om 19:16 schreef RichD:
> On December 5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>  words do not matter in science, what matters is the
>>  comparison between the predictions of a theory and observations;
>
> Then, is evolution science?  Which consists of observations only;
> no predictions.  Although they do have theories -

For predictive experiments, see
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400950

On 05.12.2016 16:35, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2016 15:01:10 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>
>> You obviously don't understand the concept "mutual time dilation".
>>
> This has nothing to do with my topic.

It is the topic!
Why didn't you read this?
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Clock A' is stationary in frame K' and
clock A  is stationary in frame K.
If the clocks are moving relative to each other,
then:
- Clock A' runs slow as measured in frame K
   but A' observes that the coordinate time of K runs fast
- Clock A runs slow as observed in frame K'
   but A observes that the coordinate time of K' runs fast

You wrote:
" From the point of view of the Li-ions the time in
   the laboratory goes faster... Why?"

The answer is because of "mutual time dilation".

The Li-ion clock is measured to run slow in the lab frame,
and if the Li-ion observe the coordinate time of the lab
as it passes by the (imaginary) co-ordinate clocks in the lab
frame, it would observe the co-ordinate time to run fast.
But _a specific stationary clock in the lab frame_
runs slow as measured in the rest-frame of the Li-ion.

> The mutual time dilation merely tries to solve the paradox of the mutual slowing of time.

There is no paradox.
Read this and you will understand why:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

> The muons, however, do not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of experimenter.

Yes, the muon will observe the coordinate time in
the reference system of the experimenter to run fast,
but the rate of a stationary clock in the reference frame of
the experimenter will run slow when measured in the rest frame
of the muon.

The experimenter will observe the coordinate time of
the rest frame of the muon to run fast,
but the rate of the muon clock run slow when measured
the reference system of the experimenter.

That's mutual time dilation.

The point is that the phrase "slowing of time" is too
imprecise and ambiguous.
There is no such thing as "slowing of time" in SR.

What we are talking about is:
The rate of a moving clock as measured in a frame of reference.

A clock cannot measure the rate of another moving clock.
You must have two clocks synced in a frame of reference
to measure the rate of a moving clock.

A single clock can however measure the difference between
two clocks it passes by, and if these clocks are coordinate
clocks of a frame of reference, then it will find that the time
difference between the clocks is greater than its own proper
time between the passages of the clocks.
(time difference between the clocks)/(proper time) > 1
But no clock is measured to run fast.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400951

W dniu wtorek, 6 grudnia 2016 14:58:59 UTC+1 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:

> If the clocks are moving relative to each other,
> then:
> - Clock A' runs slow as measured in frame K
>    but A' observes that the coordinate time of K runs fast
> - Clock A runs slow as observed in frame K'
>    but A observes that the coordinate time of K' runs fast

And an observer walking a street observes trees,
building and lanterns running around him.
Relativistic moron imagined!!!
Relativistic moron can't be wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400963

Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2016 14:58:59 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

> The experimenter will observe the coordinate time of
> the rest frame of the muon to run fast,

Have I missed anything? Where is this in the paper?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400974

On 06.12.2016 19:51, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2016 14:58:59 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> On 05.12.2016 16:35, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
>>>
>>> The muons, however, do not observe a slowing but a fasting of time in the reference system of experimenter.

The following is a response to your statement above:

>> The experimenter will observe the coordinate time of
>> the rest frame of the muon to run fast,
>> but the rate of a stationary clock in the reference frame of
>> the experimenter will run slow when measured in the rest frame
>> of the muon.
>>
>> The experimenter will observe the coordinate time of
>> the rest frame of the muon to run fast,
>> but the rate of the muon clock run slow when measured
>> the reference system of the experimenter.
>>
>> That's mutual time dilation.

And since I am responding to your postings,
the following remark of yours is pretty stupid.

>
> Have I missed anything? Where is this in the paper?

Yes, you have deliberately missed and snipped everything
I wrote as response to your statement:
| On 28.11.2016 10:13, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
|>
|> From the point of view of the Li-ions the time in the laboratory goes 
faster... Why?

I suspect that is because you have realized that I was right.
Or can you find any error in my following statement?

  The answer is because of "mutual time dilation".

  The Li-ion clock is measured to run slow in the lab frame,
  and if the Li-ion observe the coordinate time of the lab
  as it passes by the (imaginary) co-ordinate clocks in the lab
  frame, it would observe the co-ordinate time to run fast.
  But _a specific stationary clock in the lab frame_
  runs slow as measured in the rest-frame of the Li-ion.

That's mutual time dilation.

If you read the following, you may learn what it is.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400995

Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2016 22:55:39 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

> 
> I suspect that is because you have realized that I was right.
> Or can you find any error in my following statement?
> 

Yes, of course, one can combine the opposites in such a way that in the end everything fits the theory of relativity. Einstein is great! But come back from the fantasy world. http://walter-orlov.wg.am/einstein-film.jpg

There is no symmetry between the reference systems. The muons not only the observer, but the clock itself. Therefore, when the experimenter sees the muons decay more slowly, this affects both the lifetime of muons and  coordinate time. In principle, the coordinate time of the muons can not run faster, because the same clock measures the time stretching.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400997

On 07.12.2016 10:25, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 6. Dezember 2016 22:55:39 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>
>>
>> I suspect that is because you have realized that I was right.
>> Or can you find any error in my following statement?
>>
>
> Yes, of course,

And the errors are?

> one can combine the opposites in such a way that in the end everything fits the theory of relativity.
> Einstein is great! But come back from the fantasy world. http://walter-orlov.wg.am/einstein-film.jpg
>
> There is no symmetry between the reference systems. The muons not only the observer, but the clock itself.
> Therefore, when the experimenter sees the muons decay more slowly, this affects both the lifetime of muons and
> coordinate time. In principle, the coordinate time of the muons can not run faster, because the same clock measures
> the time stretching.

I see. You were unable to find any error in this:

  The Li-ion clock is measured to run slow in the lab frame,
  and if the Li-ion observe the coordinate time of the lab
  as it passes by the (imaginary) co-ordinate clocks in the lab
  frame, it would observe the co-ordinate time to run fast.
  But _a specific stationary clock in the lab frame_
  runs slow as measured in the rest-frame of the Li-ion.

That's mutual time dilation, which you don't know what is.

If you read the following, you may learn it.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401000

Am Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 11:06:25 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

> I see. You were unable to find any error in this:
> 

I quite understand your thought. But in reality only two things are measurable:

1. The experimentator measures the time stretch by muons.
2. The muons can observe the speeding up of the time by experimenter.

How do you want to get this contradiction together? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401107

On 07.12.2016 13:29, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 11:06:25 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>
>> I see. You were unable to find any error in this:
>>
>
> I quite understand your thought. But in reality only two things are measurable:
>
> 1. The experimentator measures the time stretch by muons.
> 2. The muons can observe the speeding up of the time by experimenter.
>
> How do you want to get this contradiction together?
>

See my response to Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401117

Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 15:45:23 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> On 07.12.2016 13:29, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> >
> > I quite understand your thought. But in reality only two things are measurable:
> >
> > 1. The experimentator measures the time stretch by muons.
> > 2. The muons can observe the speeding up of the time by experimenter.
> >
> > How do you want to get this contradiction together?
> >
> 
> See my response to Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn.
> 

Exactly as an answer I expected. That is why I have written in advance: "Yes, of course, one can combine the opposites in such a way that in the end everything fits the theory of relativity." :)

Why the "moving clock can only observe the time ... of the coordinate clock"? Why that does not work for 'resting clock' relating to moving frame? We can also equip the moving frame with several synchronized clocks.

Incidentally in your PDF file both are symmetrical. Why in this particular case the situation is at once not symmetrical?

You should understand that you act against the principle of relativity ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401174

On 08.12.2016 20:12, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 15:45:23 UTC+1 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>> On 07.12.2016 13:29, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
>>>
>>> I quite understand your thought. But in reality only two things are measurable:
>>>
>>> 1. The experimentator measures the time stretch by muons.
>>> 2. The muons can observe the speeding up of the time by experimenter.
>>>
>>> How do you want to get this contradiction together?
>>>
>>
>> See my response to Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn.
>>
>
> Exactly as an answer I expected.

.. and then you go on to demonstrate that you haven't
even read "the answer you expected". :-D

Or if you did, you must have a serious reading comprehension
problem because every question you ask below was carefully
explained in the posting you refer to.

> That is why I have written in advance: "Yes, of course, one can combine the opposites in such a way that in the end everything fits the theory of relativity." :)
>
> Why the "moving clock can only observe the time ... of the coordinate clock"? Why that does not work for 'resting clock' relating to moving frame? We can also equip the moving frame with several synchronized clocks.
>
> Incidentally in your PDF file both are symmetrical. Why in this particular case the situation is at once not symmetrical?
>
> You should understand that you act against the principle of relativity ;)
>

Considering the attitude you have demonstrated in previous
postings, your response doesn't surprise me.

That's why I preferred to respond to Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
rather than you, because I don't think he is immune to reason,
as you seem to be.

I rest my case. :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401001

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> […] can you find any error in my following statement?

Without having read your paper, based on what I already understand about 
special relativity, I can find an inconsistency in it and in previous 
statements that might be caused by choice of words only.

>   The answer is because of "mutual time dilation".
> 
>   The Li-ion clock is measured to run slow in the lab frame,

ACK.

>   and if the Li-ion observe the coordinate time of the lab 

JFTR: That is not possible.

>   as it passes by the (imaginary) co-ordinate clocks in the lab frame, it
>   would observe the co-ordinate time to run fast.
>   But _a specific stationary clock in the lab frame_
>   runs slow as measured in the rest-frame of the Li-ion.

I do not understand this statement.  Are there two times in the lab frame, 
only one running according to clocks?

> That's mutual time dilation.

That means to me that each observer is observing the other’s clock running 
slower than theirs.  How can then “the co-ordinate time […] run fast”?
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401003

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> That's mutual time dilation.
> 
> That means to me that each observer is observing the other’s clock
> running slower than theirs.  How can then “the co-ordinate time […] run
> fast”?

No. That simply means that you are stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401106

On 07.12.2016 13:47, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> […] can you find any error in my following statement?
>
> Without having read your paper, based on what I already understand about
> special relativity, I can find an inconsistency in it and in previous
> statements that might be caused by choice of words only.
>
>>
>>   The Li-ion clock is measured to run slow in the lab frame,

Let the "Li-ion clock" be an observer with a clock hereafter called
'the moving clock'. Let's call the time of the moving clock t'.
Given an inertial frame of reference which we will call the 'lab frame'.
We will call the coordinate time of this frame t.
A number of synchronized clocks in this frame will show
the 'coordinate time' t.

Let the 'moving clock' move the speed 0.866c, gamma =2.
(the units may be nano-seconds and light-nano-seconds, or similar)

Event E0: moving clock at position x=0
---------------------------------------
t': 0 ->v  (moving clock)
t:  0      0
     |------|--------> x (lab frame)  t0' = 0  t0 = 0  x0 = 0
x:  0    0.866

Event E1: moving clock at position x=0.866
------------------------------------------
t':       0.5 ->v  (moving clock)
t:  1      1
     |------|--------> x (lab frame)  t1' = 0.5 t1 = 1  x1=0.866
x:  0     0.866

The moving clock will measure the time (t1'-t0') = 0.5
between the events E0 and E1. This is a proper time
because it is measured by one clock which is present
at both the events, which means that the spatial interval
in the rest frame of the clock is zero.
So the invariant spacetime interval between E0 and E1 is 0.5.

In the lab frame the temporal component of the interval
between the events is (t1-t0) = 1 while the spatial
component of the interval is (x1-x0) = 0.866.
The invariant interval is sqrt(1^2 - 0.866^2) = 0.5

The 'rate of the moving clock' is the ratio between
the proper time (interval) between the events (0.5),
and the projection of this interval in the lab frame (1).
dt'/dt = (t1'-t0')/(t1-t0) = 0.5

This is commonly expressed as:
"The rate of the moving clock as measured in
  the lab frame is 0.5"
or:
"The moving clock runs slow as measured in the lab frame."

These statement must not be taken literally, though.
Proper clocks always run at their proper rate, they never
speed up or slow down.
But the rate of the moving clock appear to be slower
in the lab frame because of the projection mentioned above.


>
> ACK.
>
>>   and if the Li-ion observe the coordinate time of the lab
>
> JFTR: That is not possible.
>
>>   as it passes by the (imaginary) co-ordinate clocks in the lab frame, it
>>   would observe the co-ordinate time to run fast.

Let's observe the scenario from the moving clock's point of view:

Event E0: moving clock at position x=0
---------------------------------------
t':               0 (moving clock)
t:                0      ?
               v<- |------|--------> x (lab frame)
x:                0      ?
      t0' = 0  t0 = 0  x0 = 0

Event E1: moving clock at position x=0.866
------------------------------------------
t':              0.5 (moving clock)
t:         ?      1
        v<- |------|-------> x  (lab frame)
x:         ?    0.866
     t1' = 0.5 t1 = 1  x1=0.866

The moving clock can only observe the time (and position)
of the coordinate clock it is adjacent to and finds:
dt/dt' = (t1-t0)/(t1'-t0') = 2
So the moving clock can conclude that by reading off
a sequence of different coordinate clocks, the coordinate time
of the lab frame appears two run fast compared to his clock.

====================================================
But he can conclude nothing about the rate of any of
the clocks in the lab frame.
====================================================

In fact, the moving clock's observations are exactly
the same as the observations made by the experimenter:
dt/dt' = 2, so dt'/dt = 0.5.
So the moving clock can conclude that it must run slow
as measured in the lab frame.

>>   But _a specific stationary clock in the lab frame_
>>   runs slow as measured in the rest-frame of the Li-ion.

So how can the moving clock measure the rate of the clock at
x=0 in the lab frame? The answer is that to do the measurement
we must have at least one other comoving synced clock.
So we introduce a second clock at the position x' = -0.866


t:                0
               v<- |--------> x  (lab frame)
x:                0
t':        0      0
            |------|---------> x' (moving clock frame)
x':      -0.866   0



t:        0.5
        v<- |--------> x     (lab frame)
x:         0
t':        1      1
            |------|---------> x' (moving clock frame)
x':      -0.866   0

The rate of the clock at x = 0 in the lab frame can be measured
by comparing its reading with the clock at x'=0 (the 'moving clock')
when they are adjacent, and then comparing it to the clock
at x' =-1 when they are adjacent.
The clock at x=0 runs at the rate dt/dt' = 0.5 as measured in
the rest frame of the 'moving clock'.

Mutual time dilation.

> I do not understand this statement.  Are there two times in the lab frame,
> only one running according to clocks?

I hope you understand it now.

>
>> That's mutual time dilation.
>
> That means to me that each observer is observing the other’s clock running
> slower than theirs.

Indeed.

> How can then “the co-ordinate time […] run fast”?

It can't.
But if a moving observer reads a sequence of coordinate
clocks as he passes them, he will find that the numbers
he reads off the series of clocks increases faster than
the number he reads off his own clock, so to him,
the coordinate time of the lab frame appears to run
faster than his own clock.

But this is an artefact of his own movement, and
the clocks he passes are obviously not affected
in any way by his motion. They all run an normal rate.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401227

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> On 07.12.2016 13:47, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> I do not understand this statement.  Are there two times in the lab
>> frame, only one running according to clocks?
> 
> I hope you understand it now.

I do not know yet, but thank you very much for trying.

I have saved your article for later.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401353

Am Freitag, 9. Dezember 2016 23:48:20 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
> > On 07.12.2016 13:47, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> I do not understand this statement.  Are there two times in the lab
> >> frame, only one running according to clocks?
> >  
> > I hope you understand it now.
>  
> I do not know yet

Think about length contraction. 

We have two reference frames that move (uniformly) relative to each other. It is assumed that the clocks run with same speed in both reference frames (= proper time). In addition, there is not only one clock in each reference frame, but in every reference frame countless clocks are distributed evenly in the space. 

Because of the length contraction from the perspective of the observer in another reference frame the clocks move together along relative motion. As a result the time from the clocks he will read gamma times more often. However, the proper time between the meetings in the moving reference frame still remained the same. Therefore the coordinate time whose reference frame appears to run faster. 

Of course, all this is symmetrical.

This shows incidentally how corrupt the theory of relativity is. It has several antipodal realities, which can be used as desired, that is, as it just fits. As a matter of fact only one reality can exist. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#401361

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 5:12:05 AM UTC-5, wor...@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Freitag, 9. Dezember 2016 23:48:20 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> > Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > 
> > > On 07.12.2016 13:47, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >> I do not understand this statement.  Are there two times in the lab
> > >> frame, only one running according to clocks?
> > >  
> > > I hope you understand it now.
> >  
> > I do not know yet
> 
> Think about length contraction. 

There is no physical length contraction......the light-path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. 
> 
> We have two reference frames that move (uniformly) relative to each other. It is assumed that the clocks run with same speed in both reference frames (= proper time). In addition, there is not only one clock in each reference frame, but in every reference frame countless clocks are distributed evenly in the space. 

This SR assumption is wrong......there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of proper time in different frames. 
The GPS confirms what I said. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. The purpose of this redefinition is to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second. IOW it is designed to make the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of proper time (absolute time). 

> 
> Because of the length contraction from the perspective of the observer in another reference frame the clocks move together along relative motion. As a result the time from the clocks he will read gamma times more often. However, the proper time between the meetings in the moving reference frame still remained the same. Therefore the coordinate time whose reference frame appears to run faster. 
> 
> Of course, all this is symmetrical.
> 
> This shows incidentally how corrupt the theory of relativity is. It has several antipodal realities, which can be used as desired, that is, as it just fits. As a matter of fact only one reality can exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web