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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #385912 > unrolled thread

Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel

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

Contents

  Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-14 23:43 -0700
    Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 05:53 -0700
      Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-15 06:35 -0700
        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-15 19:59 +0200
          Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-15 23:01 -0700
        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 14:11 -0700
      Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-16 08:30 -0700
        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 12:18 -0500
          Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 07:55 -0700
            Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:10 -0500
              Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 06:16 -0700
                Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 08:25 -0500
    Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 06:48 -0700
      Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-15 20:40 +0200
      Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 04:55 -0700
        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 05:09 -0700
          Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 15:38 -0700
            Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-16 19:13 -0700
              Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 15:51 -0700
        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 02:43 -0700
          Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 04:42 -0700
            Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-17 05:02 -0700
              Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 06:47 -0700
                Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-17 06:53 -0700
                  Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 07:27 -0700
                    Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 17:40 +0200
                      Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 10:47 -0700
                        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 19:58 +0200
                          Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 15:27 -0700
              Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 16:06 -0700
                Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 16:15 -0700
                  Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-18 18:56 -0500
                    Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-19 05:15 -0700
                      Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:16 -0500
                        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-19 11:18 -0700
                          Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-21 12:12 -0700
                            Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-21 13:50 -0700
                            Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-22 06:59 -0700
                              Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:44 -0700
                                Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-22 21:47 +0200
                                  Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:58 -0700
                        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 20:37 +0200
                        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-20 00:19 +0200
                      Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 20:30 +0200
                Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 16:17 -0700
                  Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:29 -0700
                Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:29 +0200
                  Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 13:25 -0700
                    Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 22:46 +0200
                      Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 15:04 -0700
                        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 06:26 +0200
                    Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:39 -0700
                      Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 23:12 -0700
                        Re: Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-21 08:00 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#385912 — Actually Einstein's Relativity Predicts No Time Travel

Einsteinians brainwash the gullible world: 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/five-ways-travel-through-time 
 "This is the easiest and most practical way to get to the far future - go really fast. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, when you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for you relative to the outside world." 

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/back-future-30th-anniversary-neil-degrasse-tyson-talks/story?id=32191481 
 Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion."

"Time slows down for you" is a lie. Einstein's special relativity predicts just the opposite: Time SPEEDS UP for you if you are set into motion. You will discover this by comparing the rate of your clock with the rate of the clock of the stationary observer (who is not set into motion). The comparison will show that the latter clock is slow and your clock is FAST.

Einstein's special relativity does predict that your clock slows down but the slowing is not "for you", that is, not for the moving observer. Only the stationary observer sees your clock slowing down; you, the moving observer, see your clock SPEEDING UP.

Conclusion: Even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the second one is false), time travel into the future is impossible - the moving clock does not OBJECTIVELY slow down.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#385917

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 12:44:00 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einsteinians brainwash the gullible world: 
> 
> https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/five-ways-travel-through-time 
>  "This is the easiest and most practical way to get to the far future - go
> really fast. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, when
> you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for
> you relative to the outside world." 
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/back-future-30th-anniversary-neil-degrasse-tyson-talks/story?id=32191481 
>  Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to
> have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later
> on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity
>, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for
> you if you are set into motion."
> 
> "Time slows down for you" is a lie.

No, it's not.  According to the mathematics of SR, it is correct, and said
mathematics have not been refuted (in its realm of validity) and has always
been confirmed.

> Einstein's special relativity predicts just the opposite: Time SPEEDS UP
> for you if you are set into motion.

Complete baloney.  The earth is moving ~200 km/sec around the galaxy, the
earth is moving at 30 km/sec around the sun and I am moving as the earth
turns on its axis, yet neither I nor anyone else has noticed any speed up
in time.  And just what the heck does it mean to be "set in motion"?
Relative to WHAT?  The idiocy of Punch-drunk Pentcho is displayed again.

> You will discover this by comparing the rate of your clock with the rate
> of the clock of the stationary observer (who is not set into motion).

What is "a stationary observer"?  Has ANYONE ever found one?  More
obfuscating idiocy.

> The comparison will show that the latter clock is slow and your clock is
> FAST.

How is such a "comparison" made?  By the "stationary observer"?  Actually,
he will see the "moving" clock running slow, but he will see his clock
running at a normal rate.  The "moving" observer, however will see his
clock running at he normal rate and the "stationary" clock running slow.
People like Prevaricating Pentcho should stick to basket weaving.

“If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you
need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize
what a right answer is.” —David Dunning

> Einstein's special relativity does predict that your clock slows down

Not really.

> but the slowing is not "for you", that is, not for the moving observer.
> Only the stationary observer sees your clock slowing down; you, the moving
> observer, see your clock SPEEDING UP.

Nope.  The "moving observer" sees his clock running at the same rate it
did before he started moving.  Phony-baloney Pentcho "cleverly forgets"
to tell the truth:  that the "moving observer" sees the "stationary
observer's clock" running SLOWER than his clock (which is running at its
normal rate.

> Conclusion: Even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the
> second one is false),

No, it's not.  It has been measured many, many times.  Pentcho's palaver is
poppycock.

> time travel into the future is impossible

Really?  Is Pentcho stuck in time like Billy Pilgrim?

> - the moving clock does not OBJECTIVELY slow down.
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Another obfuscation.  What does "objectively" mean?  Pentcho better look
up the definition and see if it applies to the topic.

Gary

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

#385920

W dniu środa, 15 czerwca 2016 14:53:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> No, it's not.  According to the mathematics of SR, it is correct, and said
> mathematics have not been refuted (in its realm of validity) and has always
> been confirmed.

A lie, as expected from a relativistic trash.
GPS confirms that time (as defined by your 
idiot guru himself) is galilean.

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

#385931

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

> […] Gary Harnagel napisał:
>> No, it's not.  According to the mathematics of SR, it is correct, and
>> said mathematics have not been refuted (in its realm of validity) and has
>> always been confirmed.
> 
> A lie [insult] GPS confirms that time [more nonsense] is galilean.

Not even wrong.

It has been shown, and you show it here once again, that you have no idea 
what you are talking about.  Why do you bother posting all this gibbering 
nonsense here?  Can you find delight only in conflict?

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#385962

W dniu środa, 15 czerwca 2016 19:59:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> > […] Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >> No, it's not.  According to the mathematics of SR, it is correct, and
> >> said mathematics have not been refuted (in its realm of validity) and has
> >> always been confirmed.
> > 
> > A lie [insult] GPS confirms that time [more nonsense] is galilean.
> 
> Not even wrong.
> 
> It has been shown, and you show it here once again, that you have no idea 
> what you are talking about.  Why do you bother posting all this gibbering 
> nonsense here?  Can you find delight only in conflict?

 Not even wrong.
 It has been shown, and you show it here once again, that you have no idea 
 what you are talking about.  Why do you bother posting all this gibbering 
 nonsense here?  Can you find delight only in conflict?

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

#385954

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 7:35:28 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu środa, 15 czerwca 2016 14:53:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > No, it's not.  According to the mathematics of SR, it is correct, and said
> > mathematics have not been refuted (in its realm of validity) and has always
> > been confirmed.
> 
> A lie, as expected from a relativistic trash.
> GPS confirms that time (as defined by your 
> idiot guru himself) is galilean.

I was talking about SR, dishonest weasel.  But the GPS refutes Galilean
thought, as anyone with an honest neuron in their brain knows.  You need
to invest in some "pointed ears" :-)

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

#385985

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 8:53:32 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 12:44:00 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > Einsteinians brainwash the gullible world: 
> > 
> > https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/five-ways-travel-through-time 
> >  "This is the easiest and most practical way to get to the far future - go
> > really fast. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, when
> > you travel at speeds approaching the speed of light, time slows down for
> > you relative to the outside world." 
> > 
> > http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/back-future-30th-anniversary-neil-degrasse-tyson-talks/story?id=32191481 
> >  Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to
> > have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later
> > on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity
> >, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for
> > you if you are set into motion."
> > 
> > "Time slows down for you" is a lie.
> 
> No, it's not.  According to the mathematics of SR, it is correct, and said
> mathematics have not been refuted (in its realm of validity) and has always
> been confirmed.
> 
> > Einstein's special relativity predicts just the opposite: Time SPEEDS UP
> > for you if you are set into motion.
> 
> Complete baloney.  The earth is moving ~200 km/sec around the galaxy, the
> earth is moving at 30 km/sec around the sun and I am moving as the earth
> turns on its axis, yet neither I nor anyone else has noticed any speed up
> in time.  And just what the heck does it mean to be "set in motion"?
> Relative to WHAT?  The idiocy of Punch-drunk Pentcho is displayed again.
> 
> > You will discover this by comparing the rate of your clock with the rate
> > of the clock of the stationary observer (who is not set into motion).
> 
> What is "a stationary observer"?  Has ANYONE ever found one?  More
> obfuscating idiocy.
> 
> > The comparison will show that the latter clock is slow and your clock is
> > FAST.
> 
> How is such a "comparison" made?  By the "stationary observer"?  Actually,
> he will see the "moving" clock running slow, but he will see his clock
> running at a normal rate.  The "moving" observer, however will see his
> clock running at he normal rate and the "stationary" clock running slow.
> People like Prevaricating Pentcho should stick to basket weaving.
> 
> “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you
> need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize
> what a right answer is.” —David Dunning
> 
> > Einstein's special relativity does predict that your clock slows down
> 
> Not really.
> 
> > but the slowing is not "for you", that is, not for the moving observer.
> > Only the stationary observer sees your clock slowing down; you, the moving
> > observer, see your clock SPEEDING UP.
> 
> Nope.  The "moving observer" sees his clock running at the same rate it
> did before he started moving.  Phony-baloney Pentcho "cleverly forgets"
> to tell the truth:  that the "moving observer" sees the "stationary
> observer's clock" running SLOWER than his clock (which is running at its
> normal rate.

Boloney.....The stationary clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the moving clock. Therefore the moving observer must "SEE" (predicts) that the stationary observer's clock running faster than his clock.

> 
> > Conclusion: Even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the
> > second one is false),
> 
> No, it's not.  It has been measured many, many times.  Pentcho's palaver is
> poppycock.
> 
> > time travel into the future is impossible
> 
> Really?  Is Pentcho stuck in time like Billy Pilgrim?
> 
> > - the moving clock does not OBJECTIVELY slow down.
> > 
> > Pentcho Valev
> 
> Another obfuscation.  What does "objectively" mean?  Pentcho better look
> up the definition and see if it applies to the topic.
> 
> Gary

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

#386299

On 6/16/2016 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Boloney.....The stationary clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the moving clock.

This is not true for an inertially moving clock. It can only be true for 
a noninertial moving clock that departs and returns to the other clock. 
For inertially moving clocks, they only meet once (of course).


> Therefore the moving observer must "SEE" (predicts) that the stationary observer's clock running
> faster than his clock.


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

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

#386390

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 1:18:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/16/2016 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Boloney.....The stationary clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the moving clock.
> 
> This is not true for an inertially moving clock. It can only be true for 
> a noninertial moving clock that departs and returns to the other clock. 
> For inertially moving clocks, they only meet once (of course).

There is no inertially moving clock exists on earth.

> 
> 
> > Therefore the moving observer must "SEE" (predicts) that the stationary observer's clock running
> > faster than his clock.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#386395

On 6/21/2016 9:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 1:18:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/16/2016 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> Boloney.....The stationary clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the moving clock.
>>
>> This is not true for an inertially moving clock. It can only be true for
>> a noninertial moving clock that departs and returns to the other clock.
>> For inertially moving clocks, they only meet once (of course).
>
> There is no inertially moving clock exists on earth.

You keep making this statement, and it is wrong.
You keep saying that there can be no inertial reference frame in a 
gravitational field, and that is wrong.
You keep saying that there can be no inertial motion in a gravitational 
field, and that is wrong.

Take you statement that there is no inertially moving clock on earth, 
write it down, tape it to your desk, cross it out with a pencil, and 
write "Wrong" above the statement, so that you won't make the same wrong 
statement the day after tomorrow.

>
>>
>>
>>> Therefore the moving observer must "SEE" (predicts) that the stationary observer's clock running
>>> faster than his clock.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


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

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

#386479

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 11:10:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/21/2016 9:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 1:18:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 6/16/2016 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> Boloney.....The stationary clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the moving clock.
> >>
> >> This is not true for an inertially moving clock. It can only be true for
> >> a noninertial moving clock that departs and returns to the other clock.
> >> For inertially moving clocks, they only meet once (of course).
> >
> > There is no inertially moving clock exists on earth.
> 
> You keep making this statement, and it is wrong.

Not wrong....what is wrong is that an SR observer claims that he is at rest in an inertial frame.


> You keep saying that there can be. no inertial reference frame in a 
> gravitational field, and that is wrong.

Not wrong....what is wrong is that an SR observer claims that he is at rest in an inertial frame.


> You keep saying that there can be no inertial motion in a gravitational 
> field, and that is wrong.

Not wrong....what is wrong is that an SR observer claims that he is at rest in an inertial frame.

> 
> Take you statement that there is no inertially moving clock on earth, 
> write it down, tape it to your desk, cross it out with a pencil, and 
> write "Wrong" above the statement, so that you won't make the same wrong 
> statement the day after tomorrow.
> 
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> Therefore the moving observer must "SEE" (predicts) that the stationary observer's clock running
> >>> faster than his clock.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#386481

On 6/22/2016 8:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 11:10:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 6/21/2016 9:55 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 1:18:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/2016 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> Boloney.....The stationary clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the moving clock.
>>>>
>>>> This is not true for an inertially moving clock. It can only be true for
>>>> a noninertial moving clock that departs and returns to the other clock.
>>>> For inertially moving clocks, they only meet once (of course).
>>>
>>> There is no inertially moving clock exists on earth.
>>
>> You keep making this statement, and it is wrong.
>
> Not wrong.

Sorry, but it IS wrong. There are inertially moving clocks on earth, and 
it is certainly possible to set up another.

>...what is wrong is that an SR observer claims that he is at rest in an inertial frame.
>
>
>> You keep saying that there can be. no inertial reference frame in a
>> gravitational field, and that is wrong.
>
> Not wrong.

Sorry, but it IS wrong.

> ...what is wrong is that an SR observer claims that he is at rest in an inertial frame.
>
>
>> You keep saying that there can be no inertial motion in a gravitational
>> field, and that is wrong.
>
> Not wrong.

Sorry, but it IS wrong. If you would bother to read about relativity, 
you'd find that out.

>...what is wrong is that an SR observer claims that he is at rest in an inertial frame.
>
>>
>> Take you statement that there is no inertially moving clock on earth,
>> write it down, tape it to your desk, cross it out with a pencil, and
>> write "Wrong" above the statement, so that you won't make the same wrong
>> statement the day after tomorrow.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore the moving observer must "SEE" (predicts) that the stationary observer's clock running
>>>>> faster than his clock.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


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

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

#385921

Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, combined with the principle of relativity, entails symmetrical time dilation - either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system. If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even have been published - symmetrical time dilation is not even wrong. Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly of course, asymmetrical time dilation - in his 1905 article the moving clock is slow and lags behind the stationary one which is, accordingly, fast (this means that the moving clock and its owner travel into the future - if their speed is great enough, they can jump, within a minute of their experienced time, millions of years ahead): 

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ 
 ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." 

In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although there was indeed a contradiction in his special relativity, his general relativity had the solution to it: 

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm 
 Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." 

The fraud is obvious - if general relativity gives the solution (the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast), how did Einstein find it in 1905? Herbert Dingle asked this question in 1972 but it was too late - the gullible world had already been fatally brainwashed: 

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf 
 Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" 

Pentcho Valev

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

#385946

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate

This postulate in the main paper of the special theory of relativity is 
based on *centuries* of *prior* observation by *other* people (the Danish 
astronomer Ole Rømer was the first person to measure it in 1676[!] and 
showed that it does not depend on the motion of the emitting body, which was 
a Jovian moon, Io, at the time).

You have yet to explain how all the people *before* Einstein could have been 
wrong.  You have yet to explain how all people *after* Einstein could have 
been wrong.  You have yet to explain how computers, satellite navigation, 
nuclear power (and weapons), solar cells, particle accelerators, and 
gravitational wave detectors, to name just a few important inventions, can 
*work* if something is fundamentally wrong with special relativity.

But you won’t.  All you can do is make up lies about the people and the 
work, and make the same spurious claims again and again, because there 
simply is *no evidence supporting those claims*.  Probably you are hoping 
that your lies and nonsensical claims will stick if you repeat them often 
enough.  Well, they will not, because your nonsense simply *contradicts* 
*reality* *observed* *a* *thousandfold*.

> combined with the principle of relativity,

… which *Galilei* introduced into natural philosophy, later Newton as he 
laid the foundation for physics by applying mathematics to the description 
of natural phenomena …

> entails symmetrical time dilation -

True.  Curious that *only a few postings ago* you claimed the opposite, also 
whining about relativity.

> either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system.

Surprisingly, that is one statement by you that is correct for a pair of 
clocks where each is moving relative to the other.  Whereas “system” is 
better called “rest frame of reference” – the frame of reference in which 
the respective clock is at rest, i.e. is not moving.

> If Einstein had honestly derived this in 1905, his paper would not even
> have been published -

Nonsense.

> symmetrical time dilation is not even wrong.

Wait a minute, you said it would be correct just one sentence ago.  Make up 
your mind.

> Einstein overcame the difficulty by deriving, fraudulently and invalidly $
> of course, asymmetrical time dilation - […]

Not even wrong.

> in his 1905 article

It was a _paper_ submitted to the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences, not an 
article.  Don’t you know *anything*?

> the moving clock is slow and lags behind the stationary one which is, […]

You still don’t get it, do you?  There is not *the* moving clock and not 
*the* stationary clock per se.  When two clocks are moving relative to each 
other, depending on the *arbitrarily* *chosen* *rest* frame of reference, 
the *other* clock, in the *other* frame of reference, is the moving one and 
it is observed to tick slower than the one in the chosen rest frame.  (IOW, 
choose another frame in which another clock is at rest, then the first clock 
is the moving one and is ticking slower than the one you *chose* to be at 
rest.)

Because the speed of light *is* constant and the same in all frames of 
reference (no matter their relative velocity to another frame), so the light 
from the *other*, *moving* clock has to travel a *longer* *distance* to the 
observer who stays with/follows *their*, *stationary* clock, and so the time 
signals emitted from it arrive *later* and *later* at the observer’s 
location than from the clock chosen to be the stationary one.

Basically, it is simple *high-school level* *geometry* that you still fail 
to grasp here: the Pythagorean theorem.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity>

> [tl;dr]

You are a pitiful person with a very sick mind.  Get well soon.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#385978

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117878.000-a-special-theory-of-relativity.html 
 John Gribbin: "Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us how the Universe looks to an observer moving at a steady speed. Because the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow..."

Two lies in John Gribbin's second sentence but let us take "the speed of light is the same for all such observers" as a premise, no matter whether it is true or false. So we obtain the argument:

If the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow.

Is the argument valid? It isn't of course. The valid argument is:

If the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow, as judged from the stationary system, and stationary clocks run slow, as judged from the moving system.

Clearly no clock will ever "lag behind" any other (no twin will remain younger than his brother) unless we all live in Einstein schizophrenic world where "enough strangeness" solves all our problems:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..." 

That is, all along, the traveling twin observes himself aging faster than his stationary brother, but, as the traveling twin turns around for a very brief period, "enough strangeness occurs" and his distant stationary brother suddenly gets very old and dies. And, although the turnaround is crucial, it can be ignored in the calculations. This is Einstein schizophrenic world isn't it?

http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/863506einsteinformuletableau.jpg

Pentcho Valev

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

#385979

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:55:18 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> [Regurgitated baloney]

Pentcho is a hopeless crank.

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

#386016

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:09:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:55:18 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > [Regurgitated baloney]
> 
> Pentcho is a hopeless crank.

He totally reminds me of those android radio talk show hosts in Philip
Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

I'm wondering what kind of life he has. Unless he has someone to keep
his flat in order, it must be a sight to behold :-)

--
Jan

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

#386025

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:09:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:55:18 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > >
> > > [Regurgitated baloney]
> > 
> > Pentcho is a hopeless crank.
> 
> He totally reminds me of those android radio talk show hosts in Philip
> Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

Was that part in "Blade Runner"?

> I'm wondering what kind of life he has. Unless he has someone to keep
> his flat in order, it must be a sight to behold :-)
> 
> --
> Jan

I'd rather not :-)

Gary

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

#386100

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:13:02 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:09:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:55:18 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [Regurgitated baloney]
> > > 
> > > Pentcho is a hopeless crank.
> > 
> > He totally reminds me of those android radio talk show hosts in Philip
> > Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
> 
> Was that part in "Blade Runner"?

No, not in the film. I read the book not too long ago for the first time
and I must say I was impressed. In terms of depth and insight I found it
better than the film.

--
Jan

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

#386034

Einsteinians take Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate as true and deduce that moving clocks tick slower than stationary ones. Actually no such conclusion can be made, no matter whether the postulate is true or false - the deduction is invalid. What the postulate (combined with the principle of relativity) VALIDLY entails is that moving clocks tick both slower (in one scenario) and faster (in another scenario) than stationary ones - an absurd conclusion showing that the postulate is false and that Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency.

Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks:

http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2B0036DC553691775E012D449DEC62/ant_border_rectangle.png

Scenario 1: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are STATIONARY. 

Given Scenario 1, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that, if a single MOVING ant is travelling along the polygonal line, and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the moving ant's clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets. 

Scenario 2: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are MOVING with constant speed along the line. 

Given Scenario 2, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that the clock of a single STATIONARY ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets. 

Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency and should be immediately discarded: 

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/thought_and_writing/philosophy/rationality%20of%20science.pdf 
 W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation." 

Pentcho Valev

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web