Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368621 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-30 23:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-12 11:32 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 146 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 23:40 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:15 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 18:49 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 22:03 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 21:30 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 21:39 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 00:03 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe crisd <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 14:08 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 23:01 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 13:28 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:32 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 10:19 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 01:41 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 02:09 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 21:51 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:27 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 09:24 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:48 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-04 06:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 04:19 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 10:47 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 21:00 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-06 05:46 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 20:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 07:54 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 19:28 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:10 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-31 10:04 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-01 09:36 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 10:14 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-03 19:45 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 08:52 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 17:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 08:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 10:25 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:00 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 11:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:51 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 18:59 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-01 06:25 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-01 06:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 14:55 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:15 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:59 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 09:23 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 08:23 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 10:27 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 12:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:58 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-10 06:07 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-10 06:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 13:44 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-11 06:19 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 09:12 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-11 12:47 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 15:02 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-14 06:52 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:14 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-30 21:58 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 05:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 10:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 11:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 05:16 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-01 09:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-01 23:03 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-03 05:42 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:31 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 01:34 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 23:51 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-05 00:30 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-05 10:16 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:17 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:41 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:35 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:42 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-05 11:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:14 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:21 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 18:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-07 03:07 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 05:35 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-07 06:28 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 09:02 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 15:09 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 17:05 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-08 07:52 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 04:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 13:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 05:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 15:24 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 06:36 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 07:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:18 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 07:32 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:48 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:15 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-08 14:22 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 13:41 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 23:18 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-08 19:05 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-08 20:51 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 13:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 14:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 14:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-09 05:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-10 04:31 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 20:34 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 20:45 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-10 21:23 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 15:42 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 03:01 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 20:06 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 06:21 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 01:08 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 04:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 07:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 16:51 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:27 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 22:48 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 18:11 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-12 06:22 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 01:23 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 04:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-12 21:30 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:25 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 14:35 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Ted Striker <tedstrickdr@mailaccount.org> - 2015-11-12 22:47 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-13 05:25 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 20:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 05:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 10:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 11:10 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 12:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 04:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 16:18 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:32 -0600
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 11:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c57516ac-4b4d-4808-aed1-f7a52fa884e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369442 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:25:38 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/9/2015 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > For example, the math model of the super string theory assumes that there are 7 extra space > > dimensions....but we only observe three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > And what makes you think that all 10 dimensions should be observable in > everyday experience? What make you think that there are seven extra unobservable dimensions when the three domensions of space and one dimension of time can explain all the processes of nature? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 15:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1r4he$7si$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369459 |
On 11/9/2015 1:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:25:38 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/9/2015 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> For example, the math model of the super string theory assumes that there are 7 extra space >>> dimensions....but we only observe three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. >> >> And what makes you think that all 10 dimensions should be observable in >> everyday experience? > > What make you think that there are seven extra unobservable dimensions when the three domensions > of space and one dimension of time can explain all the processes of nature? I didn't say they were unobservable. They are just not observable in everyday experience. But then again, atoms and molecules aren't observable in everyday experience. It takes special measurements to detect atoms and molecules. And it will take special measurements to measure the extra spatial dimensions. Just because something isn't obvious in everyday experience, doesn't mean you should conclude they don't exist. > >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1qqe1$frb$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369440 |
kenseto wrote: > .but we only observe three dimensions of space and one dimension of > time. This means that the math model of the super string theory is not > eternal as you assumed. As a hybrid curiosity, yes it is, eternal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 06:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <78b64837-33e7-4209-a6b8-1564ead066d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368634 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:03:46 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > As we all know, a twins will age slower > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" > than the other. They do, however, have different elapsed > proper times between meetings, because they follow different > trajectories (worldlines) through spacetime. The twin scenario > does not demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates the > path dependence of path length. > > > > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > > Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models. > > Note, however, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, > there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to the dust > particles of the FRW manifold; in cosmological models these dust particles are > identified with the galaxies. For every observer following a geodesic of this > congruence, the "age of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since > the big bang (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes > observers located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to > the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we currently evolve). > > Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is > small enough that the difference between earth's geodesic > and the galaxy's [#] is negligible -- errors due to that > are smaller than the uncertainties in the measurements. > > [#] Insofar as this exists and is well defined. > > > > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > If you mean that differently-moving observers can obtain different values for > the age of the universe, then: yes that's true. But for observers following > geodesics of the congruence mentioned above, they obtain the same value for the > age of the universe at simultaneous points of their worldlines, once a sensible > definition of simultaneity is applied. This is so even though the observers on > different geodesics are indeed moving differently (i.e. have nonzero relative > velocity). But an observer NOT on one of those geodesics can indeed obtain some > different value at simultaneous points on her worldline. > > So this is more subtle than you think, and "relative motion" may or may not > imply a difference in the observed age of the universe. Note also the the > definition of simultaneity is important as well (it makes no sense to compare > measurements of the age of the universe at points along the observers' > worldlines that are not "simultaneous"). The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 06:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7344503d-16de-49a6-8435-1db8d5c9ebc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368634 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:03:46 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > As we all know, a twins will age slower > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" > than the other. They do, however, have different elapsed > proper times between meetings, because they follow different > trajectories (worldlines) through spacetime. The twin scenario > does not demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates the > path dependence of path length. > > > > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > > Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models. > > Note, however, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, > there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to the dust > particles of the FRW manifold; in cosmological models these dust particles are > identified with the galaxies. For every observer following a geodesic of this > congruence, the "age of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since > the big bang (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes > observers located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to > the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we currently evolve). > > Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is > small enough that the difference between earth's geodesic > and the galaxy's [#] is negligible -- errors due to that > are smaller than the uncertainties in the measurements. > > [#] Insofar as this exists and is well defined. > > > > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > If you mean that differently-moving observers can obtain different values for > the age of the universe, then: yes that's true. But for observers following > geodesics of the congruence mentioned above, they obtain the same value for the > age of the universe at simultaneous points of their worldlines, once a sensible > definition of simultaneity is applied. This is so even though the observers on > different geodesics are indeed moving differently (i.e. have nonzero relative > velocity). But an observer NOT on one of those geodesics can indeed obtain some > different value at simultaneous points on her worldline. > > So this is more subtle than you think, and "relative motion" may or may not > imply a difference in the observed age of the universe. Note also the the > definition of simultaneity is important as well (it makes no sense to compare > measurements of the age of the universe at points along the observers' > worldlines that are not "simultaneous"). The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time....IOW the passage of a clock second in A's frame is corresponded to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. That is a false claim. The GPS refutes such claim. The GPS second is redfined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clcok second. This is designed to make the passage of a redesigned GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second. Such redefinition of the GPS second acknowledges the existence of universal interval of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 14:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1594o$566$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #368784 |
kenseto wrote: > The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is > what the clock measures". This definition assumes that a unit of clock > time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time.... Of course not, is simpler than that, can't you read: "what a clock shows". > IOW the passage > of a clock second in A's frame is corresponded to the passage of a clock > second in B's frame. That is a false claim. Yes. > The GPS refutes such claim. > The GPS second is redfined to have 4.46 more periods of Cs 133 radiation > than the ground clcok second. No, it is just establish a correspondence between the passage of time down on Earth and up there. > This is designed to make the passage of a > redesigned GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground > clock second. Such redefinition of the GPS second acknowledges the > existence of universal interval of time. This is similar to the theory of Divergent Matter. Have a nice day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 09:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n17vma$tbj$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #368784 |
On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This > definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time. Why do you think it makes any such assumption? Why not just take it for EXACTLY what it says, without adding anything extra from your own head? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 01:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cfc95aa0-2243-46ab-a2e8-a424f204ad72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368877 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 2 listopada 2015 16:32:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > > The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This > > definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time. > > Why do you think it makes any such assumption? Because it says directly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 07:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4e7b83d3-cd68-4cc3-9bae-ea3953733231@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368877 |
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:32:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > > The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This > > definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time. > > Why do you think it makes any such assumption? > Why not just take it for EXACTLY what it says, without adding anything > extra from your own head? SR makes such assumption becAUSE it claims that an A second measures the speed of light to be c and a B second measures the speed of light to be c. That means that a second is a universal interval of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 09:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1qdpi$fjc$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369316 |
On 11/7/2015 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:32:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This >>> definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time. >> >> Why do you think it makes any such assumption? >> Why not just take it for EXACTLY what it says, without adding anything >> extra from your own head? > > SR makes such assumption becAUSE it claims that an A second measures the speed of light to be c and a B > second measures the speed of light to be c. First of all, you need more than a second to measure the speed of anything. I'm sure you know what the other thing is. > That means that a second is a universal interval of time. No, it means no such thing. This is what you've added on your own. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 08:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <48c22649-f8c6-4354-8bde-8360fbb921f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369437 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:23:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/7/2015 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:32:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This > >>> definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time. > >> > >> Why do you think it makes any such assumption? > >> Why not just take it for EXACTLY what it says, without adding anything > >> extra from your own head? > > > > SR makes such assumption becAUSE it claims that an A second measures the speed of light to be c and a B > > second measures the speed of light to be c. > > First of all, you need more than a second to measure the speed of > anything. I'm sure you know what the other thing is. That's irrelevant... SR (and you) assumes that you can compare an A second directly with a B second means that a second is a universal interval of time. > > > That means that a second is a universal interval of time. > > No, it means no such thing. This is what you've added on your own. Sure it means that....if not then the SR concept of time dilation is refuted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 10:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1qhhb$pd2$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369441 |
On 11/9/2015 10:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:23:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/7/2015 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:32:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This >>>>> definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time. >>>> >>>> Why do you think it makes any such assumption? >>>> Why not just take it for EXACTLY what it says, without adding anything >>>> extra from your own head? >>> >>> SR makes such assumption becAUSE it claims that an A second measures the speed of light to be c and a B >>> second measures the speed of light to be c. >> >> First of all, you need more than a second to measure the speed of >> anything. I'm sure you know what the other thing is. > > That's irrelevant... SR (and you) assumes that you can compare an A second directly with a B second means > that a second is a universal interval of time. No, it doesn't. I can easily compare two things that are not equal. What makes you think that you can only compare to things if they are the same? >> >>> That means that a second is a universal interval of time. >> >> No, it means no such thing. This is what you've added on your own. > > Sure it means that....if not then the SR concept of time dilation is refuted. > No, it's not. Time dilation does not hinge on things you've added on your own. Time is what a clock measures. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing about universal anything. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 12:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a6fd1236-e440-4ded-8f08-f921ac53582d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369443 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:27:27 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/9/2015 10:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:23:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/7/2015 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:32:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/1/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> The main problem of modern physics is the definition of time...."time is what the clock measures". This > >>>>> definition assumes that a unit of clock time "a clock second" is a universal interval of time. > >>>> > >>>> Why do you think it makes any such assumption? > >>>> Why not just take it for EXACTLY what it says, without adding anything > >>>> extra from your own head? > >>> > >>> SR makes such assumption becAUSE it claims that an A second measures the speed of light to be c and a B > >>> second measures the speed of light to be c. > >> > >> First of all, you need more than a second to measure the speed of > >> anything. I'm sure you know what the other thing is. > > > > That's irrelevant... SR (and you) assumes that you can compare an A second directly with a B second means > > that a second is a universal interval of time. > > No, it doesn't. I can easily compare two things that are not equal. > What makes you think that you can only compare to things if they are the > same? It is meaningless to compare two things directly that have different values. The SR math convert a second in B's frame to observer A's frame....and the result is gamma seconds on A's clock. > > >> > >>> That means that a second is a universal interval of time. > >> > >> No, it means no such thing. This is what you've added on your own. > > > > Sure it means that....if not then the SR concept of time dilation is refuted. > > > > No, it's not. Time dilation does not hinge on things you've added on > your own. I didn't add on anything....my point is that if you claim time dilation is what the clocks show then you are assuming that a unit of clock time (a clock second) represents the same interval of time in different frames. Unfortunately for you they are not. > Time is what a clock measures. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing about > universal anything. A clock second in different frame represents a different amount of time. That's why we use SR or IRT math to convert a moving clock second to our frame and the result is gamma seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 15:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1r4uu$9an$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369464 |
On 11/9/2015 2:22 PM, kenseto wrote: > It is meaningless to compare two things directly that have different values. Completely disagree with that. I can shop for a car in Japan and get a value for that car in yen. I can shop for a car in the US and get a value for that car in dollars. I can also compare dollars to yen DIRECTLY, even though they have different values. Today 123.19 yen is the same as 1 dollar. I can measure the length of a table in centimeters. I can measure the height of a table in inches. I can also compare inches to centimeters DIRECTLY, even though they have different values. Today, 1 inch is the same as 2.54 centimeters. I can measure the duration between two events in seconds according to a clock at rest in S. I can measure the duration between two events in seconds according to a clock at rest in S' I can also compare the seconds according to a clock at rest in S with seconds according to a clock at rest in S', even though they have different values. You see? The comparison is easy. Dollars and yen. Centimeters and inches. Clock seconds in S and clock seconds in S'. I don't know why you ever thought you can't compare two things that have different values. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 06:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eb2ba013-f7eb-4171-8aae-51a4a175d83b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369478 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:58:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/9/2015 2:22 PM, kenseto wrote: > > It is meaningless to compare two things directly that have different values. > > Completely disagree with that. > I can shop for a car in Japan and get a value for that car in yen. > I can shop for a car in the US and get a value for that car in dollars. > I can also compare dollars to yen DIRECTLY, even though they have > different values. Today 123.19 yen is the same as 1 dollar. Idiot....here you were not comparing a yen with a dollar directly. You you convert the dollar to yens before making the comparison. In the case of of time you convert the traveling clock second using the SR or IRT equation before making the comparison and the result is (1/gamma traveling second) to (1 second) on the observer's clock. > > I can measure the length of a table in centimeters. > I can measure the height of a table in inches. > I can also compare inches to centimeters DIRECTLY, even though they have > different values. Today, 1 inch is the same as 2.54 centimeters. > > I can measure the duration between two events in seconds according to a > clock at rest in S. > I can measure the duration between two events in seconds according to a > clock at rest in S' > I can also compare the seconds according to a clock at rest in S with > seconds according to a clock at rest in S', even though they have > different values. > > You see? The comparison is easy. > Dollars and yen. > Centimeters and inches. > Clock seconds in S and clock seconds in S'. > > I don't know why you ever thought you can't compare two things that have > different values. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 08:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1sv5c$r8b$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369531 |
On 11/10/2015 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:58:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/9/2015 2:22 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> It is meaningless to compare two things directly that have different values. >> >> Completely disagree with that. >> I can shop for a car in Japan and get a value for that car in yen. >> I can shop for a car in the US and get a value for that car in dollars. >> I can also compare dollars to yen DIRECTLY, even though they have >> different values. Today 123.19 yen is the same as 1 dollar. > > Idiot....here you were not comparing a yen with a dollar directly. You you convert the dollar to > yens before making the comparison. No, I do not. Comparison is not necessarily between equal things. "Less than" or "greater than" are comparisons, as well as "equal to". 123.19 yen is the same as one dollar is a comparison. I have absolutely no idea where you ever got the foolish idea that comparisons can only be made by equal things. > In the case of of time you convert the traveling clock second using the SR or IRT equation before > making the comparison and the result is (1/gamma traveling second) to (1 second) on the observer's clock. > >> >> I can measure the length of a table in centimeters. >> I can measure the height of a table in inches. >> I can also compare inches to centimeters DIRECTLY, even though they have >> different values. Today, 1 inch is the same as 2.54 centimeters. >> >> I can measure the duration between two events in seconds according to a >> clock at rest in S. >> I can measure the duration between two events in seconds according to a >> clock at rest in S' >> I can also compare the seconds according to a clock at rest in S with >> seconds according to a clock at rest in S', even though they have >> different values. >> >> You see? The comparison is easy. >> Dollars and yen. >> Centimeters and inches. >> Clock seconds in S and clock seconds in S'. >> >> I don't know why you ever thought you can't compare two things that have >> different values. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 06:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <84d858b4-61bc-41c8-9ae4-43f4f5319909@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369536 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:32:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/10/2015 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:58:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/9/2015 2:22 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> It is meaningless to compare two things directly that have different values. > >> > >> Completely disagree with that. > >> I can shop for a car in Japan and get a value for that car in yen. > >> I can shop for a car in the US and get a value for that car in dollars. > >> I can also compare dollars to yen DIRECTLY, even though they have > >> different values. Today 123.19 yen is the same as 1 dollar. > > > > Idiot....here you were not comparing a yen with a dollar directly. You you convert the dollar to > > yens before making the comparison. > > No, I do not. Comparison is not necessarily between equal things. Yes you did. If you don't compare equal things then yur comparison is meaningless. > "Less than" or "greater than" are comparisons, as well as "equal to". > 123.19 yen is the same as one dollar is a comparison. Right....you need to convert a dollar to yens before making the comparison. I noticed that you failed to argue regarding my comparison on clock seconds. > > I have absolutely no idea where you ever got the foolish idea that > comparisons can only be made by equal things. That's because you are stupid? > > > In the case of of time you convert the traveling clock second using the SR or IRT equation before > > making the comparison and the result is (1/gamma traveling second) to (1 second) on the observer's clock. > > > >> > >> I can measure the length of a table in centimeters. > >> I can measure the height of a table in inches. > >> I can also compare inches to centimeters DIRECTLY, even though they have > >> different values. Today, 1 inch is the same as 2.54 centimeters. > >> > >> I can measure the duration between two events in seconds according to a > >> clock at rest in S. > >> I can measure the duration between two events in seconds according to a > >> clock at rest in S' > >> I can also compare the seconds according to a clock at rest in S with > >> seconds according to a clock at rest in S', even though they have > >> different values. > >> > >> You see? The comparison is easy. > >> Dollars and yen. > >> Centimeters and inches. > >> Clock seconds in S and clock seconds in S'. > >> > >> I don't know why you ever thought you can't compare two things that have > >> different values. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 13:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1thf1$arb$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369543 |
On 11/10/2015 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:32:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/10/2015 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:58:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/9/2015 2:22 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> It is meaningless to compare two things directly that have different values. >>>> >>>> Completely disagree with that. >>>> I can shop for a car in Japan and get a value for that car in yen. >>>> I can shop for a car in the US and get a value for that car in dollars. >>>> I can also compare dollars to yen DIRECTLY, even though they have >>>> different values. Today 123.19 yen is the same as 1 dollar. >>> >>> Idiot....here you were not comparing a yen with a dollar directly. You you convert the dollar to >>> yens before making the comparison. >> >> No, I do not. Comparison is not necessarily between equal things. > > Yes you did. If you don't compare equal things then yur comparison is meaningless. That's nuts, Ken. If I tell you that 9 is greater than 5, you're going to tell me that isn't a comparison because they're not equal? It's just nuts. > >> "Less than" or "greater than" are comparisons, as well as "equal to". >> 123.19 yen is the same as one dollar is a comparison. > > Right....you need to convert a dollar to yens before making the comparison. > I noticed that you failed to argue regarding my comparison on clock seconds. > >> >> I have absolutely no idea where you ever got the foolish idea that >> comparisons can only be made by equal things. > > That's because you are stupid? > >> >>> In the case of of time you convert the traveling clock second using the SR or IRT equation before >>> making the comparison and the result is (1/gamma traveling second) to (1 second) on the observer's clock. >>> >>>> >>>> I can measure the length of a table in centimeters. >>>> I can measure the height of a table in inches. >>>> I can also compare inches to centimeters DIRECTLY, even though they have >>>> different values. Today, 1 inch is the same as 2.54 centimeters. >>>> >>>> I can measure the duration between two events in seconds according to a >>>> clock at rest in S. >>>> I can measure the duration between two events in seconds according to a >>>> clock at rest in S' >>>> I can also compare the seconds according to a clock at rest in S with >>>> seconds according to a clock at rest in S', even though they have >>>> different values. >>>> >>>> You see? The comparison is easy. >>>> Dollars and yen. >>>> Centimeters and inches. >>>> Clock seconds in S and clock seconds in S'. >>>> >>>> I don't know why you ever thought you can't compare two things that have >>>> different values. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 06:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <796abe83-69e3-4599-8e33-0d073793fbc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369570 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 2:44:37 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/10/2015 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:32:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/10/2015 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:58:59 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/9/2015 2:22 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> It is meaningless to compare two things directly that have different values. > >>>> > >>>> Completely disagree with that. > >>>> I can shop for a car in Japan and get a value for that car in yen. > >>>> I can shop for a car in the US and get a value for that car in dollars. > >>>> I can also compare dollars to yen DIRECTLY, even though they have > >>>> different values. Today 123.19 yen is the same as 1 dollar. > >>> > >>> Idiot....here you were not comparing a yen with a dollar directly. You you convert the dollar to > >>> yens before making the comparison. > >> > >> No, I do not. Comparison is not necessarily between equal things. > > > > Yes you did. If you don't compare equal things then yur comparison is meaningless. > > That's nuts, Ken. > If I tell you that 9 is greater than 5, you're going to tell me that > isn't a comparison because they're not equal? Sure you can say that 9 is greater than 5 and that's because the basic unit of one (1) is equal in both cases. But in the case of clock time you can't say that an A second is equal to a B second. SR math says that a B second is worth gamma seconds on observer A's clock. > > It's just nuts. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 09:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1vls5$lsr$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369658 |
On 11/11/2015 8:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > Sure you can say that 9 is greater than 5 and that's because the basic unit of one (1) is equal in both cases. > But in the case of clock time you can't say that an A second is equal to a B second. SR math says that a B second > is worth gamma seconds on observer A's clock. And can I say that an inch is greater than a centimeter? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[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