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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #359785 > unrolled thread

LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

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

Contents

  LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-05 23:23 -0700
    Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-06 16:29 +1000
      Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-05 23:58 -0700
        Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-06 18:58 +1000
          Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-06 04:06 -0700
            Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-06 22:56 +1000
              Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-06 06:28 -0700
                Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-06 23:42 +1000
                Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 07:55 -0700
                  Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-06 08:37 -0700
                    Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:34 -0700
              Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-06 08:30 -0700
    Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 03:43 -0700
      Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-06 08:43 -0700
        Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 14:21 -0700
    Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-06 08:55 -0500
      Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:05 -0700
    Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 21:47 +0200
      Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-06 21:50 +0200
        Re: LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-06 13:41 -0700

#359785 — LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m2KK8rOTBE 
 "Time Dilation: Moving Clocks Tick Slower"

This does not follow from the 1905 postulates of Einstein's special relativity. What validly follows is:

(A) Moving clocks tick slower, as judged from the stationary system.

There is another conclusion that validly follows from the postulates:

(B) Stationary clocks tick slower, as judged from the moving system.

Deducing conclusions (A) and (B) amounts to reductio ad absurdum. This is a proof that at least one of the postulates, almost certainly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#359786

On 6/08/2015 4:23 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m2KK8rOTBE
>   "Time Dilation: Moving Clocks Tick Slower"
>
> This does not follow from the 1905 postulates of Einstein's special relativity. What validly follows is:
>
> (A) Moving clocks tick slower, as judged from the stationary system.
>
> There is another conclusion that validly follows from the postulates:
>
> (B) Stationary clocks tick slower, as judged from the moving system.
>
> Deducing conclusions (A) and (B) amounts to reductio ad absurdum.

How so?

Sylvia.

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

#359787

"Moving clocks tick slower" ("the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"), even though it does not follow from the postulates of Einstein's special relativity, was fraudulently (or stupidly) introduced as a valid conclusion in Einstein's 1905 paper:

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."

The valid conclusions are:

(A) The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.

(B) The clock which has remained at B lags behind the one moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

Clearly the conclusions (A) and (B) are contradictory, which means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. 

Pentcho Valev

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

#359793

On 6/08/2015 4:58 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Moving clocks tick slower" ("the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"), even though it does not follow from the postulates of Einstein's special relativity, was fraudulently (or stupidly) introduced as a valid conclusion in Einstein's 1905 paper:
>
> 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."
>
> The valid conclusions are:
>
> (A) The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
>
> (B) The clock which has remained at B lags behind the one moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.

These are not valid conclusions. The word "lags" relates to positions, 
whereas the original propositions related to rates. Did you think no one 
would notice?

Sylvia.

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

#359801

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 11:58:50 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 6/08/2015 4:58 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > 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."
> >
> > The valid conclusions are:
> >
> > (A) The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
> >
> > (B) The clock which has remained at B lags behind the one moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
> 
> These are not valid conclusions. The word "lags" relates to positions, 
> whereas the original propositions related to rates. Did you think no one 
> would notice?

You mean Einstein's "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other" relates to positions, not rates, of the clocks? How dishonest or silly can you be, Sylvia?

Pentcho Valev

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

#359808

On 6/08/2015 9:06 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 11:58:50 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 6/08/2015 4:58 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>
>>> 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."
>>>
>>> The valid conclusions are:
>>>
>>> (A) The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has
>>> remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
>>>
>>> (B) The clock which has remained at B lags behind the one moved
>>> from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
>>
>> These are not valid conclusions. The word "lags" relates to
>> positions, whereas the original propositions related to rates. Did
>> you think no one would notice?
>
> You mean Einstein's "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the
> other" relates to positions, not rates, of the clocks? How dishonest
> or silly can you be, Sylvia?

Well, if your intent was that "lag" was a reference to rates, then your 
"conclusions" are just redundant restatements, and are not in any way 
contradictory.

Sylvia.

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

#359809

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:56:57 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> Well, if your intent was that "lag" was a reference to rates

It was not "my intent" - in this context "lag" is a reference to rates in any sane sense. Your idea that it is a reference to positions of the clocks shows deep mental disorder - acccordingly, I am not going to reply to you anymore.

Pentcho Valev

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

#359810

On 6/08/2015 11:28 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:56:57 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> Well, if your intent was that "lag" was a reference to rates
>
> It was not "my intent" - in this context "lag" is a reference to
> rates in any sane sense. Your idea that it is a reference to
> positions of the clocks shows deep mental disorder - acccordingly, I
> am not going to reply to you anymore.
>
> Pentcho Valev
>

Odd - you're usually willing to reply to anyone.

Don't like being caught in a lie?

Sylvia.

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

#359817

El jueves, 6 de agosto de 2015, 9:28:31 (UTC-4), Pentcho Valev  escribió:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:56:57 PM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > 
> > Well, if your intent was that "lag" was a reference to rates
> 
> It was not "my intent" - in this context "lag" is a reference to rates in any sane sense. Your idea that it is a reference to positions of the clocks shows deep mental disorder - acccordingly, I am not going to reply to you anymore.
>
We are in total agreement about this point; according to 1905
Relativity (1905R), when the clock previously at rest on the point A
of the stationary system arrives to its point B at the end of the
journey from A to B at velocity v, it has a time rate a little less
than the clock that remains at rest on point B. Or what means exactly
the same (representing the same fact), that the clock at rest on B
has a time rate a little GREATER than the time rate of the arriving
clock.

I insist, from where do you take the conclusion B that the time rate
of the clock at rest on B is LESSER than the time rate of the
arriving moving clock?

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> Pentcho Valev

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

#359821

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 5:55:54 PM UTC+3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> according to 1905
> Relativity (1905R), when the clock previously at rest on the point A
> of the stationary system arrives to its point B at the end of the
> journey from A to B at velocity v, it has a time rate a little less
> than the clock that remains at rest on point B. Or what means exactly
> the same (representing the same fact), that the clock at rest on B
> has a time rate a little GREATER than the time rate of the arriving
> clock.

Such an asymmetric time dilation cannot be derived from Einstein's 1905 postulates. Einstein made this invalid conclusion in 1905 because he was either dishonest or silly (or both).

Pentcho Valev

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

#359843

El jueves, 6 de agosto de 2015, 11:37:37 (UTC-4), Pentcho Valev  escribió:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 5:55:54 PM UTC+3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > according to 1905
> > Relativity (1905R), when the clock previously at rest on the point A
> > of the stationary system arrives to its point B at the end of the
> > journey from A to B at velocity v, it has a time rate a little less
> > than the clock that remains at rest on point B. Or what means exactly
> > the same (representing the same fact), that the clock at rest on B
> > has a time rate a little GREATER than the time rate of the arriving
> > clock.
> 
> Such an asymmetric time dilation cannot be derived from Einstein's 1905 postulates. Einstein made this invalid conclusion in 1905 because he was either dishonest or silly (or both).
>
1905 Einstein literal words (end of Section 4, June 30 paper):

[Thence 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. ]

See how 1905 Einstein establishes very clear that it is the moving
clock at the equator what must go more slowly than the similar one
stationary at a pole.  If you consider this an invalid conclusion,
specify in the original text derivation where do you consider exists
an invalid step and why.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> Pentcho Valev

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

#359820

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 6/08/2015 9:06 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 11:58:50 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 6/08/2015 4:58 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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."
> >>>
> >>> The valid conclusions are:
> >>>
> >>> (A) The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has
> >>> remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
> >>>
> >>> (B) The clock which has remained at B lags behind the one moved
> >>> from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
> >>
> >> These are not valid conclusions. The word "lags" relates to
> >> positions, whereas the original propositions related to rates. Did
> >> you think no one would notice?
> >
> > You mean Einstein's "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the
> > other" relates to positions, not rates, of the clocks? How dishonest
> > or silly can you be, Sylvia?
> 
> Well, if your intent was that "lag" was a reference to rates, then your 
> "conclusions" are just redundant restatements, and are not in any way 
> contradictory.

How about A accumulate less clock seconds than B? Do you still claim that A accumulate clock second at the same rate of B? Or do you admit that A run slower than B during thhe journey of A to B?

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

#359800

El jueves, 6 de agosto de 2015, 2:23:58 (UTC-4), Pentcho Valev  escribió:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m2KK8rOTBE 
>  "Time Dilation: Moving Clocks Tick Slower"
> 
> This does not follow from the 1905 postulates of Einstein's special relativity. What validly follows is:
> 
> (A) Moving clocks tick slower, as judged from the stationary system.
> 
> There is another conclusion that validly follows from the postulates:
> 
> (B) Stationary clocks tick slower, as judged from the moving system.
>
The conclusion (B) that you mention does not appear in the 1905 text.
Tell us who derived it and when. By the way, 1905 Einstein only
defines the time t of a stationary system. The time tau that appears
in the text corresponds to the time of the stationary system where
the moving system is considered at rest.

In 1905 Relativity, the moving system moves in the stationary system;
the stationary system does NOT move in the moving system, a flagrant contradiction with the Newtonian equations that must hold good b
definition in any stationary system.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

> Deducing conclusions (A) and (B) amounts to reductio ad absurdum. This is a proof that at least one of the postulates, almost certainly Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.
> 
> Pentcho Valev

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

#359822

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 1:43:51 PM UTC+3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El jueves, 6 de agosto de 2015, 2:23:58 (UTC-4), Pentcho Valev  escribió:
>  
> > (A) Moving clocks tick slower, as judged from the stationary system.
> > 
> > There is another conclusion that validly follows from the postulates:
> > 
> > (B) Stationary clocks tick slower, as judged from the moving system.
> 
> The conclusion (B) that you mention does not appear in the 1905 text.
> Tell us who derived it and when.

It is just as valid as the conclusion (A). Principle of relativity.

Pentcho Valev

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

#359860

El jueves, 6 de agosto de 2015, 11:43:33 (UTC-4), Pentcho Valev  escribió:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 1:43:51 PM UTC+3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > El jueves, 6 de agosto de 2015, 2:23:58 (UTC-4), Pentcho Valev  escribió:
> >  
> > > (A) Moving clocks tick slower, as judged from the stationary system.
> > > 
> > > There is another conclusion that validly follows from the postulates:
> > > 
> > > (B) Stationary clocks tick slower, as judged from the moving system.
> > 
> > The conclusion (B) that you mention does not appear in the 1905 text.
> > Tell us who derived it and when.
> 
> It is just as valid as the conclusion (A). Principle of relativity.
>
In the Introduction of the 1905 Einstein June 30 paper we can read:

[the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter
be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate]

Consider any interacting body set. According to the equations of
(1686 Newtonian) mechanics (derived from 3 Axioms or Laws of Motion),
only the unique center of mass described in the Corollary IV has the
possibility to be at rest, determining a unique frame of reference
with an Euclidean space with all points at the same rest of the
center.

If we have now at any two points A and B similar clocks at rest and
consider the movement of any one of them with velocity v towards the
other, always the moving clock is the one changing its time rate a
little less than the stationary one, never at the inverse (the
moving one with a greater time rate than the stationary one), as
derived from 1905R.

From where do you take the false idea that we can interchange the
roles of the moving and stationary clocks invoking the 1905R
Principle of Relativity?

Do not understand you that the 1686 Newtonian Laws ruling the
interaction of bodies determine for higher mass bodies lower
velocities and vice versa?

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> Pentcho Valev

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

#359812

On 8/6/15 8/6/15   1:23 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m2KK8rOTBE "Time Dilation: Moving Clocks
> Tick Slower"

As I have said many times, "moving clocks run slower" is WRONG. Elementary texts
use that phrase to summarize a rather complex phenomenon, and avoid long-winded
caveats and conditions; for some/many cases it is close enough (and elementary 
texts don't stray from them).


> This does not follow from the 1905 postulates of Einstein's special
> relativity. What validly follows is:
> (A) Moving clocks tick slower, as judged from the stationary system.

Yes, as long as that "stationary system" is moving inertially, and gravity can 
be neglected.


> There is another conclusion that validly follows from the postulates:
> (B) Stationary clocks tick slower, as judged from the moving system.


Yes, as long as that "moving system" is moving inertially, and gravity can be 
neglected.


> Deducing conclusions (A) and (B) amounts to reductio ad absurdum.

NO! The two systems MAKE DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS, and there is no contradiction 
when they differ. This is not "logic", this is PHYSICS.


     Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
     around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
     without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
     I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
     not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
     and unwilling to learn anything.


Tom Roberts

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

#359833

El jueves, 6 de agosto de 2015, 9:55:30 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> On 8/6/15 8/6/15   1:23 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m2KK8rOTBE "Time Dilation: Moving Clocks
> > Tick Slower"
> 
> As I have said many times, "moving clocks run slower" is WRONG. Elementary texts
> use that phrase to summarize a rather complex phenomenon, and avoid long-winded
> caveats and conditions; for some/many cases it is close enough (and elementary 
> texts don't stray from them).
>
1905 Einstein literal words (end of Section 4, June 30 paper):

[Thence 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. ]

As I have said many times, you have all the right to consider 1905
Einstein wrong in this point; but then NOT to maintain your position
about 1905 Relativity (1905R) and Special Relativity (SR) being the
same theory, ignoring completely the radical changes introduced by
1907 Minkowski (to only mention the more important ones after 1905).
 
> 
> > This does not follow from the 1905 postulates of Einstein's special
> > relativity. What validly follows is:
> > (A) Moving clocks tick slower, as judged from the stationary system.
> 
> Yes, as long as that "stationary system" is moving inertially, and gravity can 
> be neglected.
> 
The "stationary system" that 1905 Einstein introduces (end of Section
4, June 30 paper) is the Newtonian center of mass one of all
interacting Earth's parts (today denoted GPS ECI), what considered
without gravity is totally impossible and much less moving inertially
(with uniform velocity). However, Newtonian equations hold good in it
and 1905 Einstein defines its relative time (the same one used in
today GPS). And you remain thinking that 1905R and SR is the same
theory?

> 
> > There is another conclusion that validly follows from the postulates:
> > (B) Stationary clocks tick slower, as judged from the moving system.
> 
> 
> Yes, as long as that "moving system" is moving inertially, and gravity can be 
> neglected.
>
You seem identifying "stationary system" and "moving system", ignoring completely that 1905 Einstein introduces the denotation "stationary
system" (unique kind of system where he defines a relative time for it) precisely to distinguish it from other systems.

Cannot see you how in 1905R Einstein applies his new derived formulas
to the moving clock at the equator, what is moving not inertially with
the presence of gravity?

No, have no sense at all to say that the clock at rest in a pole
(showing the time of the stationary system) tick slower, as judged
from the moving system. That is totally false, already experimentally
verified (under the otherwise identical conditions specified by 1905
Einstein).

And your inertially "moving system" with gravity neglected can never
judge any thing out from it, because its mere existence contradicts
the holding good of Newtonian equations.

My preferred example to resume and clear things. The Solar system is
a moving system in the Galaxy stationary system, and at the same time,
the GPS ECI stationary system is a moving system in the Solar
stationary system. Each different stationary system has its own and
different relative time and relative space, being always limited to
describe the trajectories of only the bodies taking into account when determining the corresponding Newtonian center of mass. The same
Nature Laws hold good in any stationary system.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
 
> 
> > Deducing conclusions (A) and (B) amounts to reductio ad absurdum.
> 
> NO! The two systems MAKE DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS, and there is no contradiction 
> when they differ. This is not "logic", this is PHYSICS.
> 
> 
>      Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
>      around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>      without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>      I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>      not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>      and unwilling to learn anything.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

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

#359848

Dne 06/08/2015 v 08:23 Pentcho Valev napsal(a):
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m2KK8rOTBE 
>  "Time Dilation: Moving Clocks Tick Slower"
> 
> This does not follow from the 1905 postulates of Einstein's special relativity. What validly follows is:
> 
> (A) Moving clocks tick slower, as judged from the stationary system.
> 
> There is another conclusion that validly follows from the postulates:
> 
> (B) Stationary clocks tick slower, as judged from the moving system.
> 

What system and what clocks are stationary or moving
is purely conventional without particular physical meaning.

Stationary system is as well moving as moving system.
Moving system is as well stationary as stationary system.

Stationary clocks is as well moving as moving clocks.
Moving clocks is as well stationary as stationary clocks.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

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

#359850

Użytkownik "Poutnik"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:mq0di8$qe$1@dont-email.me...

|Stationary system is as well moving as moving system.
|Moving system is as well stationary as stationary system.
|Stationary clocks is as well moving as moving clocks.
|Moving clocks is as well stationary as stationary clocks.

Tell me, poor idiot, did you measure this wellness with a
measurement equipment, or did you calculate it with a
mathematical formula?

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

#359858

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 1:51:02 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> Tell me, poor idiot, did you measure this wellness with a
> measurement equipment, or did you calculate it with a
> mathematical formula?

Tell me, poor delusional nutjob troll, have you had your own mental
wellness certified by a competent shrink?  Stuck in the same rubber
room as Valev, n'est-ce pas?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web