Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363251 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-16 11:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:26 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 12:53 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:38 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 15:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 17:16 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <set...@att.net> - 2015-09-07 01:39 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-07 02:44 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:56 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 10:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 15:24 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:47 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 13:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 18:33 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 17:52 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:55 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 18:47 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 22:19 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 09:18 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:39 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 10:05 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:34 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune strikes again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 12:10 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-07 21:48 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 12:37 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:53 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 13:13 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 10:24 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 14:42 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:06 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:50 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 14:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-12 17:07 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 14:08 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-12 20:07 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 13:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-12 21:25 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-13 10:21 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 19:45 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 06:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 09:14 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:12 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:34 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 12:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 16:20 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-14 23:26 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-14 22:36 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 07:01 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 09:11 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 08:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:15 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 13:40 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:21 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 06:28 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:15 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:36 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 16:22 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:03 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 10:32 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:43 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:16 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:04 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:20 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 07:09 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 16:21 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-15 14:43 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 06:51 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 09:10 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-13 20:49 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 00:20 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-13 14:37 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-13 11:17 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-13 21:15 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 15:46 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 09:17 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 00:16 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 03:53 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-14 07:15 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 11:12 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-14 10:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 16:37 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 12:55 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 11:13 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-14 22:08 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 14:03 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-15 18:42 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 11:46 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-16 16:10 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 08:15 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-07 10:38 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 12:55 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-08 10:23 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:29 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 10:44 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:11 -0700
Stephane Baune poser strikes again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 11:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 12:50 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 13:46 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:02 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 15:27 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:10 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-09 08:05 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:52 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 08:33 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:53 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 14:11 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-11 11:02 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-08 13:26 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:39 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 23:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-08 20:47 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-08 14:23 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 15:36 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:55 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 10:58 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 14:56 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 12:29 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:39 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-08 10:05 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:35 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 22:22 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-07 06:21 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 09:35 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:42 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:38 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:39 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 08:36 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 10:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 20:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 20:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 08:01 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-11 09:53 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 12:07 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:54 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-11 14:24 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 14:48 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 16:48 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-12 06:10 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 22:13 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:45 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:35 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 08:41 -0700
SR is just another name for LET fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-16 06:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 10:59 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-16 11:24 -0700
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 06:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec6fac43-18d5-4893-9901-482da061887c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363944 |
On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 8:45:12 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/12/15 9/12/15 3:07 PM, Frances Espinosa wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of > >> the appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material > >> object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them. > > > > Not true. > > You merely display your personal ignorance about SR. What I said _IS_ true, and > is easily verified by looking in a textbook. > > > > At least the time dilation is pretty much physical as it can be. > > This depends on what you mean by "physical". Certainly it has physical > consequences, such as the fact that pion beams about a kilometer long exist. Physical means: A moving clock accumulate clock second at a slower rate than the stationary clock. > > The pions travel with speed essentially equal to c, so > without "time dilation" they could travel only ~7.8 meters > during their 26 ns lifetime. Yet >90% of them make it out > of the kilometer-long beamline. That's not time dilation. That's because 26 ns on the pion clock is worth gamma*26 ns on the lab clock. > > But the pion itself is unaffected, and in its rest frame decays with lifetime 26 ns. wrong....a clock moving along with the pion will accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma.....or one second on the pion cllock is worth gamma seconds on the lab clock. > > > > Assume a decay rate, or a duration of a natural reaction or experiment. > > Say, a GPS clock natural frequency. These things are totally affected, > > measurably. > > Nope. MEASUREMENTS of them are affected, but the underlying objects are not. > > > > Or you don't understand Relativity as much as I do. > > It is QUITE CLEAR that YOU do not understand the basics. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 09:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <04CdnXp5ocwkGWjInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #363973 |
On 9/13/15 9/13/15 8:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 8:45:12 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 9/12/15 9/12/15 3:07 PM, Frances Espinosa wrote: >>> At least the time dilation is pretty much physical as it can be. >> This depends on what you mean by "physical". Certainly it has physical >> consequences, such as the fact that pion beams about a kilometer long >> exist. > > Physical means: A moving clock accumulate clock second at a slower rate than > the stationary clock. Then in that sense of the word, "time dilation" in SR is not "physical", because clocks ALWAYS accumulate at their usual rate, regardless of their motion or location (that's what we mean by "clock"). But this has as much to do with your wording as with any physics. A minor change makes your statement correct: A clock accumulates at a slower rate COMPARED TO A CLOCK IN A FRAME RELATIVE TO WHICH IT IS MOVING. [The crucial difference is to include a comparison in the statement; when you just say "clock rate", you are (implicitly) referring to its own (intrinsic) rate, because that is how the language works.] Ken: We've been over this DOZENS of times, and you still don't get it. Find another hobby, as physics is too subtle for you. >> The pions travel with speed essentially equal to c, so without "time >> dilation" they could travel only ~7.8 meters during their 26 ns lifetime. >> Yet >90% of them make it out of the kilometer-long beamline. > > That's not time dilation. Yes, it is. This is essentially what we mean by "time dilation". >> But the pion itself is unaffected, and in its rest frame decays with >> lifetime 26 ns. > > wrong....a clock moving along with the pion will accumulate clock seconds at > a slower rate of 1/gamma.....or one second on the pion cllock is worth gamma > seconds on the lab clock. Nope. See above. You consistently and repeatedly get this wrong. Find another hobby, as physics is too subtle for you. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c199b776-6d9c-4ce7-9ad6-641cf2b57bdb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363981 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 10:14:20 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/13/15 9/13/15 8:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 8:45:12 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 9/12/15 9/12/15 3:07 PM, Frances Espinosa wrote: > >>> At least the time dilation is pretty much physical as it can be. > >> This depends on what you mean by "physical". Certainly it has physical > >> consequences, such as the fact that pion beams about a kilometer long > >> exist. > > > > Physical means: A moving clock accumulate clock second at a slower rate than > > the stationary clock. > > Then in that sense of the word, "time dilation" in SR is not "physical", because > clocks ALWAYS accumulate at their usual rate, regardless of their motion or > location (that's what we mean by "clock"). " clock always accu,ulate at their ususl rate" has no meaning unless it is compared to another clock. Also it has been shown that the rate of accumulating clock second of a clock is dependent on its motion. A clock will accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate after acceleration. > > But this has as much to do with your wording as with any physics. A minor change > makes your statement correct: > > A clock accumulates at a slower rate COMPARED TO A CLOCK IN > A FRAME RELATIVE TO WHICH IT IS MOVING. This is not a correct statement.....Why? Because you assumed a preferred frame. In real life all clocks are moving. The problem is that we don't know which clock is moving faster and thus we must onclude that fact that the observer's clock is slower > > [The crucial difference is to include a comparison in the > statement; when you just say "clock rate", you are (implicitly) > referring to its own (intrinsic) rate, because that is how the > language works.] > > Ken: We've been over this DOZENS of times, and you still don't get it. Find > another hobby, as physics is too subtle for you. > > > >> The pions travel with speed essentially equal to c, so without "time > >> dilation" they could travel only ~7.8 meters during their 26 ns lifetime. > >> Yet >90% of them make it out of the kilometer-long beamline. > > > > That's not time dilation. > > Yes, it is. This is essentially what we mean by "time dilation". > > > >> But the pion itself is unaffected, and in its rest frame decays with > >> lifetime 26 ns. > > > > wrong....a clock moving along with the pion will accumulate clock seconds at > > a slower rate of 1/gamma.....or one second on the pion cllock is worth gamma > > seconds on the lab clock. > > Nope. See above. You consistently and repeatedly get this wrong. Find another > hobby, as physics is too subtle for you. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 16:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2927e66c-eae6-4fe9-8edc-bc658cd97fb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363990 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 12:12:50 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 10:14:20 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 9/13/15 9/13/15 8:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 8:45:12 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> On 9/12/15 9/12/15 3:07 PM, Frances Espinosa wrote: > > >>> At least the time dilation is pretty much physical as it can be. > > >> This depends on what you mean by "physical". Certainly it has physical > > >> consequences, such as the fact that pion beams about a kilometer long > > >> exist. > > > > > > Physical means: A moving clock accumulate clock second at a slower rate than > > > the stationary clock. > > > > Then in that sense of the word, "time dilation" in SR is not "physical", because > > clocks ALWAYS accumulate at their usual rate, regardless of their motion or > > location (that's what we mean by "clock"). > > " clock always accu,ulate at their ususl rate" has no meaning unless it is compared to another clock. Also it has been shown that the rate of accumulating clock second of a clock is dependent on its motion. A clock will accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate after acceleration. > > > > But this has as much to do with your wording as with any physics. A minor change > > makes your statement correct: > > > > A clock accumulates at a slower rate COMPARED TO A CLOCK IN > > A FRAME RELATIVE TO WHICH IT IS MOVING. > > This is not a correct statement.....Why? Because you assumed a preferred frame. In >real life all clocks are moving. The problem is that we don't know which clock is >moving faster and thus we must onclude that fact that the observer's clock is slower I should correct or add to what I said: In real life all clocks are moving. The problem is that between two clocks A and B we don't know which clock is moving faster. Therefore our predictions must include the observed fact that one of the clocks will accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate than the other. This means that A must have two equations to predict the rate of B as follows: For an IRT observer A's point of view: Delta(Tb)=Delta(Ta)/gamma This equation says that clock B is accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than clock A. OR Delta(Tb')=Gamma*Delta(Ta) This equation says that clock B is accumulating clock seconds at a faster rate than clock A by a factor of gamma. Only one of the above equations will give the correct result. SR says that from A's point of view B is accumulating clock second at a slower rate of 1/gamma. The reason is that every SR observer considers that he is preferred. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: htttp://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf nd B have two equations to predict the rate of A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 12:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mt71db$v84$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363990 |
On 9/13/2015 11:12 AM, kenseto wrote: > " clock always accu,ulate at their ususl rate" has no meaning unless it is compared to another clock. That's not true. You can test whether a clock is accumulating at its usual rate by simply measuring any repetitive process. For example, the oscillation of a massive object on the end of a spring is a repetitive process. So if you want to see if a clock is accumulating at its usual rate, use the clock on Tuesday to time 1000 oscillations of the spring. Then come back on Thursday to time 1000 oscillations of the same spring. If the clock gives the same time for both, then you know the clock is accumulating time at its usual rate. Whether YOU want to check the clock by comparing to a different clock is irrelevant. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 16:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rL-dnUwgz8e5p2rInZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #364088 |
On 9/14/15 9/14/15 - 12:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > [...] You can test whether a clock is accumulating at its usual rate by > simply measuring any repetitive process. MUCH better is to compare the clock to a standard. That is, to the frequency of the hyperfine transition of the Cs133 atom. Of course for a standard cesium atomic clock no such comparison is needed, because it itself is a standard. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 23:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt7e2c$efo$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #364113 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:rL-dnUwgz8e5p2rInZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... |MUCH better is to compare the clock to a standard. That is, to the frequency of |the hyperfine transition of the Cs133 atom. |Of course for a standard cesium atomic clock no such comparison is needed, |because it itself is a standard. A bunch of morons yelling "standard!!!! STANDARD!!!!! is not enough to make a standard. You're just enchanting reality. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 22:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mt7i4o$8gd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364113 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > MUCH better is to compare the clock to a standard. That is, to the > frequency of the hyperfine transition of the Cs133 atom. > Of course for a standard cesium atomic clock no such comparison is > needed, because it itself is a standard. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4574f36c-2d45-4136-8732-92a5bd555882@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364113 |
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:20:38 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/14/15 9/14/15 - 12:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > [...] You can test whether a clock is accumulating at its usual rate by > > simply measuring any repetitive process. > > MUCH better is to compare the clock to a standard. That is, to the frequency of > the hyperfine transition of the Cs133 atom. Unfortunately a hyperfine transition of the Cs 133 atom is not an absolute standard interval of time. It depend on the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete a transition. > > Of course for a standard cesium atomic clock no such comparison is needed, > because it itself is a standard. No the Cs 133 clock is not a standard....it accumulate clock seconds at different rates in different frames. > > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 09:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mt98u9$pjj$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364178 |
On 9/15/2015 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > Unfortunately a hyperfine transition of the Cs 133 atom is not an absolute standard > interval of time. It depend on the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete > a transition. What energy do you think has to "arrive" for the cesium atom to complete a hyperfine transition? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 08:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72582192-6634-4e80-8eb6-c4e8d1d06f1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364180 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 10:11:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/15/2015 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Unfortunately a hyperfine transition of the Cs 133 atom is not an absolute standard > > interval of time. It depend on the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete > > a transition. > > What energy do you think has to "arrive" for the cesium atom to complete > a hyperfine transition? Do you think that no energy is required to comp;ete a hyperfine transition???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 10:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mt9clj$3hq$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364182 |
On 9/15/2015 10:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 10:11:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/15/2015 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Unfortunately a hyperfine transition of the Cs 133 atom is not an absolute standard >>> interval of time. It depend on the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete >>> a transition. >> >> What energy do you think has to "arrive" for the cesium atom to complete >> a hyperfine transition? > > Do you think that no energy is required to comp;ete a hyperfine transition??? > Energy is radiated away. But what energy do you think has to "arrive" at the cesium atom to complete a hyperfine transition? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1a3b29f-37c2-45f0-84e4-7796eb409a7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364183 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:15:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/15/2015 10:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 10:11:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/15/2015 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Unfortunately a hyperfine transition of the Cs 133 atom is not an absolute standard > >>> interval of time. It depend on the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete > >>> a transition. > >> > >> What energy do you think has to "arrive" for the cesium atom to complete > >> a hyperfine transition? > > > > Do you think that no energy is required to comp;ete a hyperfine transition??? > > > > Energy is radiated away. But what energy do you think has to "arrive" at > the cesium atom to complete a hyperfine transition? Idiot....So you think that there is no need for the input of energy into the Cs atom for it to radiate energy away continuously??? Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 16:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mta25k$ouf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364219 |
On 9/15/2015 3:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:15:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/15/2015 10:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 10:11:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/15/2015 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> Unfortunately a hyperfine transition of the Cs 133 atom is not an absolute standard >>>>> interval of time. It depend on the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete >>>>> a transition. >>>> >>>> What energy do you think has to "arrive" for the cesium atom to complete >>>> a hyperfine transition? >>> >>> Do you think that no energy is required to comp;ete a hyperfine transition??? >>> >> >> Energy is radiated away. But what energy do you think has to "arrive" at >> the cesium atom to complete a hyperfine transition? > > Idiot....So you think that there is no need for the input of energy into the Cs atom for it to > radiate energy away continuously??? Who said anything about it radiating continuously? How many atoms do you think are in a cesium atomic clock? One??? > Gee you are stupid. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 06:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2cb0443-8db5-453c-aaeb-abdd54665ba1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364223 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/15/2015 3:40 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:15:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 9/15/2015 10:00 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 10:11:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 9/15/2015 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> Unfortunately a hyperfine transition of the Cs 133 atom is not an absolute standard > >>>>> interval of time. It depend on the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete > >>>>> a transition. > >>>> > >>>> What energy do you think has to "arrive" for the cesium atom to complete > >>>> a hyperfine transition? > >>> > >>> Do you think that no energy is required to comp;ete a hyperfine transition??? > >>> > >> > >> Energy is radiated away. But what energy do you think has to "arrive" at > >> the cesium atom to complete a hyperfine transition? > > > > Idiot....So you think that there is no need for the input of energy into the Cs atom for it to > > radiate energy away continuously??? > > Who said anything about it radiating continuously? How many atoms do you > think are in a cesium atomic clock? One??? Idiot....so you think that a Cs atom will radiate only once? In that case how does a Cs clock keep on working? Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 11:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtc4ih$6iu$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364273 |
On 9/16/2015 8:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/15/2015 3:40 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:15:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/15/2015 10:00 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 10:11:25 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/15/2015 9:01 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> Unfortunately a hyperfine transition of the Cs 133 atom is not an absolute standard >>>>>>> interval of time. It depend on the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete >>>>>>> a transition. >>>>>> >>>>>> What energy do you think has to "arrive" for the cesium atom to complete >>>>>> a hyperfine transition? >>>>> >>>>> Do you think that no energy is required to comp;ete a hyperfine transition??? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Energy is radiated away. But what energy do you think has to "arrive" at >>>> the cesium atom to complete a hyperfine transition? >>> >>> Idiot....So you think that there is no need for the input of energy into the Cs atom for it to >>> radiate energy away continuously??? >> >> Who said anything about it radiating continuously? How many atoms do you >> think are in a cesium atomic clock? One??? > > Idiot....so you think that a Cs atom will radiate only once? In that case how does a Cs clock keep on working? > Gee you are stupid. > A cesium clock has hundreds of thousands of cesium atoms in it, Ken. While one atom is radiating, several hundred thousand of the others have been energized or are being energized. Why do you think any delay is involved? When you turn on a light bulb, and the first photon is emitted from the lightbulb, is it your thinking that there is a delay while the electricity provides additional energy before the next photon is released? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e33086c9-80f3-4496-a7ba-716dd9fb9fb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364281 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:15:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/16/2015 8:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > When you turn on a light bulb, and the first photon is emitted Oh no! Dont talk about "first photon" with idiot ken...Remember his stance on that concept? : The first photon always misses the target, it is never detected, hence doesnt exist!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14df1ca0-26fb-469b-9465-f1507c23b9ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364299 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:36:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:15:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 9/16/2015 8:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > When you turn on a light bulb, and the first photon is emitted > > Oh no! Dont talk about "first photon" with idiot ken...Remember his stance on that concept? : The first photon always misses the target, it is never detected, hence doesnt exist! Idiot go check the Schrodinger equation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 19:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtd008$5qb$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364319 |
On 9/16/2015 6:22 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:36:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:15:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/16/2015 8:28 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> When you turn on a light bulb, and the first photon is emitted >> >> Oh no! Dont talk about "first photon" with idiot ken...Remember his stance on that > concept? : The first photon always misses the target, it is never detected, hence doesnt exist! > > Idiot go check the Schrodinger equation. > This one? (ih/2pi)dPsi(x,t)/dt = HPsi(x,t)? Where does that say the first photon is not detected? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 08:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9686160e-76eb-4ef3-97b6-69223283ba67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364321 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 8:03:23 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/16/2015 6:22 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:36:38 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > >> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 12:15:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 9/16/2015 8:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > >>> When you turn on a light bulb, and the first photon is emitted > >> > >> Oh no! Dont talk about "first photon" with idiot ken...Remember his stance on that > > concept? : The first photon always misses the target, it is never detected, hence doesnt exist! > > > > Idiot go check the Schrodinger equation. > > > > This one? > (ih/2pi)dPsi(x,t)/dt = HPsi(x,t)? > > Where does that say the first photon is not detected? Where does it says that the first photon is detected at any specfic location on the detector?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web