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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400396 > 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 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 20:29 -0600
    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 04:00 -0800
      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 09:38 -0600
        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 11:53 -0800
          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:58 -0600
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-01 22:46 -0800
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-02 04:31 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 22:59 -0600
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 23:16 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 10:00 -0600
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 23:18 -0800
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:48 -0600
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 02:49 -0800
            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-02 14:46 +0100
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:50 -0600
              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-03 10:07 -0800
                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 20:22 +0100
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 11:32 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 21:17 +0100
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 01:38 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 16:00 -0800
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-05 23:43 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 18:01 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-09 02:48 -0800
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 16:32 -0600
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 03:09 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-15 03:36 -0800
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 03:58 -0800
                                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-15 04:24 -0800
                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-03 12:07 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-03 21:44 +0100
                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 02:20 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 18:48 +0100
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 10:18 -0800
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 10:34 -0800
                            Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 20:07 +0100
                              Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 11:29 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:42 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:49 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:46 -0800
                                Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-04 21:09 +0100
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Wilda Bolander <WdaaddoiBleld@WdaaddoiBleld.Wda> - 2016-12-04 20:23 +0000
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-05 15:13 +0100
                                      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Chantell Dillingham <lntliiDtilnigDlnii@lntliiDtilnigDlnii.lnt> - 2016-12-05 14:17 +0000
                                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-12-06 13:04 +0100
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 12:25 -0800
                                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 12:27 -0800
                                  Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-04 13:06 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 21:26 -0800
                        Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 23:29 -0600
                          Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity worlov@yandex.ru - 2016-12-04 23:35 -0800
                    Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 10:04 -0600
      Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 23:16 -0600

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#400396 — Re: The real time stretching in effect refutes the special relativity

On 11/28/16 11/28/16   1:08 AM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> Admittedly the experiments based on the twin-paradox principle in particle
> physics have long been a rutine. Thus the decay of muons is observed, which
> circling in a storage ring with near light speed
> (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html). They
> decay much slower and return to the measuring apparatus over and over (over
> 1000 times) in the course of the experiment.
>
> However, the condition with the return is artificial and superfluous.

Not really. In the context of the twin paradox the return is essential. But
indeed "time dilation" itself does not require such a return.

	Note the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate "time dilation".
	Rather it demonstrates the difference in elapsed proper times
	over different paths through spacetime.

	Consider triangle ABC. One side goes A->B, and the other two
	sides go A->C->B; the lengths of these two paths between A
	and B are different. That is PRECISELY what the twin paradox
	demonstrates, but in a space-time plane.

> The experiment in Darmstadt https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7951 has shown that
> the time dilation is instantaneous.

Yes. Note the authors claim agreement with SR.

> Hence there is no agreement between reality and relativity.

You got this WRONG. There is no agreement between reality and YOUR PERSONAL
MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF SR. But as this and zillions of other experiment show,
there _IS_ agreement between experiments and the actual predictions of SR.

> For the theory of relativity it is actually very important that the time
> dilation at first is seemingly.

I don't know what you mean by this, but it is probably wrong as you got it wrong
in other recent posts. "Time dilation" is not a mirage or mere appearance, and
it can have physical consequences (e.g. kilometer-long pion beams exist); but it
is NOT an actual slowing down of time or of clock tick rates -- it is GEOMETRY.

> If the slowing of the time in the reference system of one of the observers is
> real, then in the reference system of second observer  must automatically
> increase the time speed. In this way the relativity principle collapses.

You are confused. There is no "slowing of time" in ANY system. What "collapses"
are your personal misunderstandings of SR.

Differently moving observers MEASURE each others' clocks to tick differently
from their own -- this is purely geometry and has NOTHING to do with "time
slowing down".

	That's why I put "time dilation" in scare quotes -- it is a very
	bad name as it has great potential to confuse people; apparently
	it has confused you. But it is historical and we're stuck with it.

Note that the Principle of Relativity says that the laws of physics are the same
in all inertial frames. That means that TIME DOES NOT SLOW DOWN IN ANY INERTIAL
FRAME (because that would change the laws of physics). So it is quite clear YOU
got it wrong (perhaps aided and abetted by careless authors).

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#400435

Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 03:29:03 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:

> ... WRONG ... wrong ...
> 

Do not get me wrong. I do not think wrong. I mean that the real time stretching is not the same as relativistic time dilation. Relativistic time dilation is an artificial construct and is more complex than reality. 

The real time stretching is a process that can happen in a medium. When a light clock is moving in the medium, the light ways are longer and the clock ticks accordingly slower...  but already immediately, real, without return... as in the experiment...

Yes, in principle only real time stretching can be measured. And because of that the relativistic imaginary consideration is removed from the basis. It is an auxiliary construct, which should underpin the principle of relativity. 

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

#400468

On 12/1/2016 6:00 AM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 03:29:03 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:
>
>> ... WRONG ... wrong ...
>>
>
> Do not get me wrong. I do not think wrong. I mean that the real time stretching
> is not the same as relativistic time dilation. Relativistic time dilation is an
> artificial construct and is more complex than reality.
>
> The real time stretching is a process that can happen in a medium. When a light
> clock is moving in the medium, the light ways are longer and the clock ticks
> accordingly slower...  but already immediately, real, without return... as in
> the experiment...
>
> Yes, in principle only real time stretching can be measured. And because of that
> the relativistic imaginary consideration is removed from the basis. It is an auxiliary
> construct, which should underpin the principle of relativity.

You are looking for an alternate, more classical explanation of a 
documented observational fact. Unfortunately, your proposal does not 
match observations. If time stretching were due to motion through a 
medium, then the time dilation would be single-valued, determined 
strictly by the relative motion between the body and the medium, and all 
observers would agree on the value of the time stretching regardless of 
their individual observer motions. Unfortunately, that is not what is 
seen. What is seen is that the SAME object looked at by several 
different observers at the same time will see DIFFERENT amounts of time 
stretching, and this can't be accounted for by the object's motion 
through a medium.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#400508

Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 16:38:35 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

> ... If time stretching were due to motion through a 
> medium, then the time dilation would be single-valued, determined 
> strictly by the relative motion between the body and the medium, and all 
> observers would agree on the value of the time stretching regardless of 
> their individual observer motions. Unfortunately, that is not what is 
> seen. What is seen is that the SAME object looked at by several 
> different observers at the same time will see DIFFERENT amounts of time 
> stretching, and this can't be accounted for by the object's motion 
> through a medium.
> 
That's no problem at all. Only one observer at rest has the reference time. By any other moving observer the time will slower depending on the speed. Therefore for different observers the time stretching of one fixed reference system will also be different.

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

#400510

On 12/1/2016 1:53 PM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 16:38:35 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>> ... If time stretching were due to motion through a
>> medium, then the time dilation would be single-valued, determined
>> strictly by the relative motion between the body and the medium, and all
>> observers would agree on the value of the time stretching regardless of
>> their individual observer motions. Unfortunately, that is not what is
>> seen. What is seen is that the SAME object looked at by several
>> different observers at the same time will see DIFFERENT amounts of time
>> stretching, and this can't be accounted for by the object's motion
>> through a medium.
>>
> That's no problem at all. Only one observer at rest has the reference time.
> By any other moving observer the time will slower depending on the speed.
> Therefore for different observers the time stretching of one fixed reference
> system will also be different.
>

OK, I'm not sure I'm following. Suppose you have one observer at rest, 
and there is an object that is moving through the medium at 0.5 c to the 
east, and so it's time stretching is some factor (I think it's 15.5%). 
Now you have some second observer that is moving 0.2c to the west and so 
the time stretching factor for this second observer is 2.1%. For this 
second observer, would you say the time stretching factor for the 
original object is less than 15.5%, more than 15.5% or the same as 15.5%?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#400542

Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 20:58:29 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> OK, I'm not sure I'm following. Suppose you have one observer at rest, 
> and there is an object that is moving through the medium at 0.5 c to the 
> east, and so it's time stretching is some factor (I think it's 15.5%). 
> Now you have some second observer that is moving 0.2c to the west and so 
> the time stretching factor for this second observer is 2.1%... 

You are now trying to draw me into a relativistic world of thought :) 

But do you have such a practical example? Where is the experiment? - Otherwise this is just a brain training, such as school homework ;)

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

#400554

So, we stay by real things: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html . Let us imagine that the experiment has run like this. 

An experimentator stood next to the accelerator with a stopwatch, to measure the lifetime of muons. He kept the clock so that the muons could "see" it. The experimentator stopped the clock after 64μs and said "Wow! The time went by muons 64µs/2.2µs = 29 times slower!".

Meanwhile the muons looked at his watch. They saw that the clock hand turned 29 times faster. In addition, they could still see that the experimentator stopped the clock at 64μs. For the muons, however, it was only 2.2μs. What could they conclude if they were still alive?

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

#400820

On 12/2/16 12/2/16   6:31 AM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> So, we stay by real things:
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v268/n5618/abs/268301a0.html . Let us
> imagine that the experiment has run like this.
>
> An experimentator stood next to the accelerator with a stopwatch, to measure
> the lifetime of muons. He kept the clock so that the muons could "see" it.
> The experimentator stopped the clock after 64μs and said "Wow! The time went
> by muons 64µs/2.2µs = 29 times slower!".
>
> Meanwhile the muons looked at his watch. They saw that the clock hand turned
> 29 times faster. In addition, they could still see that the experimentator
> stopped the clock at 64μs. For the muons, however, it was only 2.2μs. What
> could they conclude if they were still alive?

They conclude that every time they pass by the experimenter, his clock has 
advanced 29 times more than their own clock has advanced between meetings.

This does not refute SR, because SR predicts this.

	Remember that SR's "time dilation" requires a VERY SPECIFIC way
	of measuring the rate of the moving clock: an inertial observer
	must use two synchronized clocks to measure its rate. The
	physical situation above is quite different from that.

	Stated differently: in SR "time dilation" is a geometrical
	projection, but in the above physical situation the muons are
	NOT projecting the experimenter's clock onto their own time
	coordinate, they are merely observing it multiple times.

Tom Roberts

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

#400826

Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2016 06:00:02 UTC+1 schrieb tjrob137:

> They conclude that every time they pass by the experimenter, his clock has 
> advanced 29 times more than their own clock has advanced between meetings.
> 
> This does not refute SR, because SR predicts this.
> 
The principle of relativity requires that every observer can imagine himself at rest and therefore they should see the same situation. In our specific case the experimenter is to observe the slowing of time by muons and the muons as well as the slowing of time by the experimenter.

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

#400861

On 12/5/16 12/5/16 - 1:16 AM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> The principle of relativity requires that every observer can imagine himself
> at rest and therefore they should see the same situation. In our specific
> case the experimenter is to observe the slowing of time by muons and the
> muons as well as the slowing of time by the experimenter.

You claim "to understand relativity", but this clearly shows that you DON'T.

In particular, you must READ the Principle of Relativity and LEARN what it says 
-- it CLEARLY states that it applies only to "systems of co-ordinates in uniform 
translatory motion", which we now know means inertial frames. Those muons are 
NOT at rest in an inertial frame, the PoR does not apply.

You must also READ my previous post. It explains why "time dilation" does not 
apply to this physical situation.

Tom Roberts

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

#400827

W dniu poniedziałek, 5 grudnia 2016 06:00:02 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> > Meanwhile the muons looked at his watch. They saw that the clock hand turned
> > 29 times faster. In addition, they could still see that the experimentator
> > stopped the clock at 64μs. For the muons, however, it was only 2.2μs. What
> > could they conclude if they were still alive?
> 
> They conclude that every time they pass by the experimenter, his clock has 
> advanced 29 times more than their own clock has advanced between meetings.

Too bad muon's clocks exist only in imagination
of brainwashed idiots. Like yourself.

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

#400573

On 12/2/2016 12:46 AM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016 20:58:29 UTC+1 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> OK, I'm not sure I'm following. Suppose you have one observer at rest,
>> and there is an object that is moving through the medium at 0.5 c to the
>> east, and so it's time stretching is some factor (I think it's 15.5%).
>> Now you have some second observer that is moving 0.2c to the west and so
>> the time stretching factor for this second observer is 2.1%...
>
> You are now trying to draw me into a relativistic world of thought :)

No, I'm just asking a question. After all, you're the one claiming that 
all the relativistic results can be explained without invoking 
relativity. So you need to examine cases where relativity claims marked 
differences from what classical physics would normally say happens, and 
then look at whether IN THOSE CASES, an aether treatment will get the 
same result as relativity.

>
> But do you have such a practical example? Where is the experiment? -
> Otherwise this is just a brain training, such as school homework ;)
>

There are oodles of documented practical tests of relativity. Are you 
aware of them?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#400671

W dniu piątek, 2 grudnia 2016 15:48:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> There are oodles of documented practical tests of relativity. Are you 
> aware of them?

Yes, poor idiot. Practical tests (GPS) has shown
your concept of counting time locally is exactly as
useless, as it looked, and even those like Tom or Jan
are not stupid enough to treat it seriously.

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

#400565

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 12/1/2016 1:53 PM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
>> […]

I strongly suggest that you google “Walter Orlov” and stop wasting time.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#400574

On 12/2/2016 7:46 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2016 1:53 PM, worlov@yandex.ru wrote:
>>> […]
>
> I strongly suggest that you google “Walter Orlov” and stop wasting time.
>

I know who he is. My interest here is admittedly limited.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#400701

Am Freitag, 2. Dezember 2016 14:46:10 UTC+1 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

> I strongly suggest that you google “Walter Orlov” and stop wasting time.

Nevertheless, to which conclusion do the muons come in their muons sky? How quickly was the time in the reference system of the experimenter from the perspective of the muons?

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

#400709

worlov@yandex.ru wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> I strongly suggest that you google “Walter Orlov” and stop wasting time.
> 
> Nevertheless, to which conclusion do the muons come in their muons sky?

This sentence does not make sense.  I strongly suggest that you learn proper 
English or post (also) in a language that you are familiar with (this is an 
*international* newsgroup after all).

> How quickly was the time in the reference system of the experimenter from
> the perspective of the muons?

Mu¹.  To understand this you must ask:

“What is the time dilation in the frame of reference of the muons *compared 
to* and *as observed by* the experimenter *in their rest frame*?”

Because the key point in the theories of relativity is the *relation* of the 
same quantities in different frames of reference (and therefore how to 
properly transform quantities from one frame of reference to another).
(So – as Tom Roberts already explained – the correct statement is NOT: 
“Moving clocks tick slower than those at rest.”, BUT: “Clocks moving 
*relative to* the observer *are observed by them* to tick *slower than* 
those not moving *relative to* the observer”.)

To answer the right question, you could simply have googled “atmospheric 
muons” and found, for example:

,-<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/muonatm.html>
| 
| Atmospheric Muons
| 
| […]
| Measurement of muon flux at different altitudes is a useful example of 
| <relativistic time dilation>.  With an energy of 4 GeV, the time dilation
| factor is γ = 38.8 .

Next time, do your own homework.

__________
¹  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)>
-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#400711

W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 20:22:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:

> “Moving clocks tick slower than those at rest.”, BUT: “Clocks moving 
> *relative to* the observer *are observed by them* to tick *slower than* 
> those not moving *relative to* the observer”.)

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

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

#400715

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

> W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 20:22:03 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> 
>> “Moving clocks tick slower than those at rest.”, BUT: “Clocks moving
>> *relative to* the observer *are observed by them* to tick *slower than*
>> those not moving *relative to* the observer”.)

This originally started with “So NOT: …”

You have shortened the quotation of my text to make it look like nonsense.  
Typical.
 
> And an observer walking a street observes
> trees and buildings running around him.

If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings” 
with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you 
will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are 
sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume 
that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the 
ground instead.

A better example of this, which is not just a gedankenexperiment¹, but is 
from real life, are two trains halting next to each other at a train 
station.²  If the trains were constructed so that they accelerate very 
slowly and "softly", several times I had a hard time figuring out, without 
looking at the platform, whether the other train had started leaving the 
station, the train I was sitting in, or both.  All I could tell with 
certainty was that the trains were moving *relative to each other*.  Which 
one was moving *relative to the station* was particularly hard to determine 
at dawn or night, where from inside the illuminated train you could not see 
well the platform on the other side of either train, the lights being 
reflected in the windows.

> Relativistic moron imagined!
> Relativistic moron simply can't be wrong.

I hope for you that will get the chance to observe in your lifetime a 
situation as I described above, so that you will finally realize that the 
principle of relativity is one of the foundations of, but not limited to, 
the theories of relativity, nor merely a theoretical construct, and as a 
result how stupid *you* have acted in public all these years.

________
¹ Thought experiment.  It is agreeable for me to find so many terms from my 
  native language in scientific English, which of course originated from
  several German(-speaking) scholars.
² Maybe it is not mere coincidence that Einstein used trains in his thought
  experiments.
-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#400746

W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 21:17:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> > And an observer walking a street observes
> > trees and buildings running around him.
> 
> If you replace “walking” with “sitting in a car”, and “trees and buildings” 

And what if I don't replace anything?

> with observable things that actually could move relative to the ground, you 
> will realize that if the observer cannot realize that the car they are 
> sitting in is moving relative to the ground, they could just as well assume 
> that the things they observe outside the car are moving relative to the 
> ground instead.

Relativistic moron imagined!
Must be true, relativistic moron can
never be wrong.
Surely they can assume as well. Steering wheel?
Gearbox? Fuel? Ordinary common sense prejudices, 
refuted by Michelson and Morley.

But, tell me, please, which precisely experiment 
made you an expert in the subject "which assumptions
are well and which are wrong"?

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web