Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #482472 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 05:01 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 15:30 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 08:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 11:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 21:38 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-27 16:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:36 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-28 22:07 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 08:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-29 04:47 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 06:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-01-31 00:34 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 18:36 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 19:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:57 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-27 10:10 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 17:53 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 14:15 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 16:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:42 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 14:21 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-01 08:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-02 11:59 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 14:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 11:29 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 02:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 14:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 19:26 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:38 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:14 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 14:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 07:46 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:15 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 11:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 09:07 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 12:03 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:29 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 21:42 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 15:31 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:00 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-30 20:45 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 23:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 18:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2019-01-31 10:57 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 12:21 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 06:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 12:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 08:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-01-31 07:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 12:47 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-02-01 20:03 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 20:10 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 19:16 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 01:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 12:12 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:14 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:35 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:19 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 18:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:55 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 17:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 04:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 22:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 10:05 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 23:37 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 18:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 06:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 00:32 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 17:32 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 10:43 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 19:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 15:17 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-02 23:19 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 23:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 16:02 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:56 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 23:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 18:23 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 14:46 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:49 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 09:37 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 18:21 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 16:31 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 22:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-05 02:04 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-02-05 09:27 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 10:40 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:07 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-02-04 10:29 -0600
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-02-04 18:16 +0100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-31 09:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 09:33 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 20:48 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-31 20:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 03:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 03:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:10 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-28 11:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 16:44 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-01 21:53 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 14:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-01 08:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 09:31 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 21:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 22:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 22:43 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 11:11 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 07:13 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-02 22:06 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 11:31 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 04:12 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 17:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:25 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 10:50 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 22:23 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:11 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:33 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-06 17:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-06 00:00 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 15:18 +0000
Daft as Keith Stein eh! "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2019-02-04 08:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-05 11:49 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-03 19:51 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 09:26 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 06:39 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2019-02-04 10:08 -0500
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-04 07:35 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 16:51 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-02-05 07:45 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 08:13 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 21:52 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 12:02 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-04 23:43 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-04 04:49 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:23 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-04 13:28 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 00:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2019-02-03 12:58 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 10:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 23:13 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-28 22:18 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 04:55 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-29 00:28 +1100
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 05:48 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-01-28 07:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 09:25 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:50 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:41 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:44 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:56 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:24 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> - 2019-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:03 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-01 20:05 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:24 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:29 -0800
Re: Daft as Einstein eh! carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2019-02-03 15:33 -0800
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-02 18:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q358p3$16bu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482695 |
On 1/31/2019 6:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1/31/2019 11:35 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>> My real point is that >>>>>> time dilation is a myth, >>>>> >>>>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >>>>> >>>>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines >>>> >>>> Let me stop you right there Tom, >>>> >>>> To support my FANTASY, as you call it, i do not have to explain >>>> anything whatsoever about the behavior of "pion beamlines". >>>> >>>> The only thing i have to do is show that real MACROSCOPIC CLOCKS, >>>> and real macroscopic TWINS, do NOT actually behave in the bizarre manner >>>> suggested by Einstein in his 1905 "Special Relativity", and held as >>>> dogma in all physics departments even today eh! >>> >>> Not so, and this is a key point. >>> >>> You have in mind a PARTICULAR experiment that would convince you >>> personally, and you’re really not interested in other experimental results. >>> >>> >>> However, physicists consider the collective body of evidence, including >>> things where relativity is a crucial design factor in the operational >>> success of a built system, such as the pion beamline that Tom references. >>> >>> If anyone would say, for example, that antimatter is a bogus concept, I >>> would ask “How do you explain then how PET scanners work? Because they DO >>> work.” >>> >>> This illustrates how deeply divergent you are, Keith, from thinking like a >>> physicist. >> >> As if Odd knows how a physicist thinks! <snort> >> >> Odd there is absolutely ZERO evidence that biological "clocks" like say >> the age of a person is influenced by relativity. > > Nor do there need to be. This is of the same variety of “what kind of > evidence would convince me personally” that Keith has been yammering for. Doubtless because everyone talks about "twins" getting younger and older but there is zero evidence for the effect. >> Pointing to >> electromagnetic effects that can be explained in other ways is not science. > > Do tell about the electromagnetic effects of the pion beamline. Irrelevant. What is relevant is that while many "electromagnetic clocks" do follow SR predictions, it has theoretically at least been suggested that some DO NOT! That is an interesting result. And biological clocks needed for "twins" are way off any practical experience. >> >>>> In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought, >>>> than like Einstein thought, at least that's my "FANTASY", Tom >>>> >>>>> 1 km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed >>>>> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >>>>> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times >>>>> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to >>>>> travel 1 km? >>>>> >>>>> The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the >>>>> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside >>>>> the beamline is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. >>>>> >>>>> Tom Roberts >>>> >>>> Never mind 26 ns Tom, show me the -25 us/day on the ISS, >>>> and then you have proved my fantasy is a fantasy, but if real >>>> clock on the ISS do not really run slow (then real twins >>>> would not either eh!), and then it is your "reality" is the >>>> " fantasy " Tom. >>>> >>>> keith stein >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-03 14:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q36urh$k9n$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482801 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/31/2019 6:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 1/31/2019 11:35 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>> My real point is that >>>>>>> time dilation is a myth, >>>>>> >>>>>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >>>>>> >>>>>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines >>>>> >>>>> Let me stop you right there Tom, >>>>> >>>>> To support my FANTASY, as you call it, i do not have to explain >>>>> anything whatsoever about the behavior of "pion beamlines". >>>>> >>>>> The only thing i have to do is show that real MACROSCOPIC CLOCKS, >>>>> and real macroscopic TWINS, do NOT actually behave in the bizarre manner >>>>> suggested by Einstein in his 1905 "Special Relativity", and held as >>>>> dogma in all physics departments even today eh! >>>> >>>> Not so, and this is a key point. >>>> >>>> You have in mind a PARTICULAR experiment that would convince you >>>> personally, and you’re really not interested in other experimental results. >>>> >>>> >>>> However, physicists consider the collective body of evidence, including >>>> things where relativity is a crucial design factor in the operational >>>> success of a built system, such as the pion beamline that Tom references. >>>> >>>> If anyone would say, for example, that antimatter is a bogus concept, I >>>> would ask “How do you explain then how PET scanners work? Because they DO >>>> work.” >>>> >>>> This illustrates how deeply divergent you are, Keith, from thinking like a >>>> physicist. >>> >>> As if Odd knows how a physicist thinks! <snort> >>> >>> Odd there is absolutely ZERO evidence that biological "clocks" like say >>> the age of a person is influenced by relativity. >> >> Nor do there need to be. This is of the same variety of “what kind of >> evidence would convince me personally” that Keith has been yammering for. > > Doubtless because everyone talks about "twins" getting younger and older > but there is zero evidence for the effect. I don’t think any “gedanken” experiment (e.g. pole and barn) has ever been thought of as needing direct experimental instantiation. Do you? > >>> Pointing to >>> electromagnetic effects that can be explained in other ways is not science. >> >> Do tell about the electromagnetic effects of the pion beamline. > > Irrelevant. What is relevant is that while many "electromagnetic clocks" > do follow SR predictions, it has theoretically at least been suggested > that some DO NOT! By whom? And as anything more than an idle speculation? > That is an interesting result. An idle speculation is not a result. > And biological clocks > needed for "twins" are way off any practical experience. > >>> >>>>> In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought, >>>>> than like Einstein thought, at least that's my "FANTASY", Tom >>>>> >>>>>> 1 km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed >>>>>> indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >>>>>> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times >>>>>> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to >>>>>> travel 1 km? >>>>>> >>>>>> The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the >>>>>> pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside >>>>>> the beamline is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>> >>>>> Never mind 26 ns Tom, show me the -25 us/day on the ISS, >>>>> and then you have proved my fantasy is a fantasy, but if real >>>>> clock on the ISS do not really run slow (then real twins >>>>> would not either eh!), and then it is your "reality" is the >>>>> " fantasy " Tom. >>>>> >>>>> keith stein >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 10:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <M9adne-_xN2t8MXBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #482693 |
On 1/31/19 4:56 PM, benj wrote: > there is absolutely ZERO evidence that biological "clocks" like say > the age of a person is influenced by relativity. Yes. Nor is there any expectation that biological clocks could demonstrate relativistic effects, as in practice the latter are VASTLY smaller than the accuracies of such clocks. But given that biological processes are at base chemistry, chemical processes are determined by the properties of the electrons in atoms, and atomic clock tick rates are likewise determined by the properties of the electrons in atoms, it would be UNREASONABLE to expect that biological clocks behave differently from atomic clocks; atomic clocks, of course, confirm the predictions of relativity. > everyone talks about "twins" getting younger and older but there is > zero evidence for the effect. In relativity, the twins never get "younger", they merely do not age by the same total amount between meetings. The use of "twins" is a rhetorical technique only. Actual experiments using several different types of clocks have demonstrated the validity of the twin paradox -- clocks following different paths between a given pair of events in spacetime DO experience different elapsed proper times. > it has theoretically at least been suggested that some [clocks] DO > NOT [obey relativistic predictions]! Only by people who do not understand relativity. Moreover, there is no EVIDENCE of this. "Fools can put forth more hypotheses than wise men can ever refute." -- Ayn Rand > And biological clocks needed for "twins" are way off any practical > experience. Irrelevant. Identical atomic clocks are also "twins", as are identical muons, etc. All you have are sham arguments and misunderstandings. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 09:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <731bf737-943e-4dc5-95e3-a637998cf1d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482895 |
On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 8:49:58 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 1/31/19 4:56 PM, benj wrote: > > everyone talks about "twins" getting younger and older but there is > > zero evidence for the effect. > > In relativity, the twins never get "younger", they merely do not age by > the same total amount between meetings. The statement above contradicts itself. When two persons do not age by the same total amount between meetings, at least one of them must be younger. > Actual experiments using several different types of clocks have > demonstrated the validity of the twin paradox -- clocks following > different paths between a given pair of events in spacetime DO > experience different elapsed proper times. There is no such thing as the proper time. In fact, there is not a single experiment that has identified this proper time thing. The following treatise shows how the mutual time dilation is a fatal contradiction of the special theory of relativity. http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf > > it has theoretically at least been suggested that some [clocks] DO > > NOT [obey relativistic predictions]! > > Only by people who do not understand relativity. Since the prediction of relativity is a fatal contradiction, it is extremely safe to say real life DOES NOT obey relativity. It is also very safe to say that those who support relativity DO NOT understand relativity. > "Fools can put forth more hypotheses than wise men can > ever refute." -- Ayn Rand Yes, these who worship the religion of relativity are such fools predicted by Alisa Rosenbaum, a philosopher. > > And biological clocks needed for "twins" are way off any practical > > experience. > > Identical atomic clocks are also "twins", as are identical muons, etc. > All you have are sham arguments and misunderstandings. Time dilation of muons do not support the nonsense of mutual time dilation claimed by relativity. The same treatise above explains offers no such embarrassing prediction as relativity does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 18:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q39vrj$943$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482901 |
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 8:49:58 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 1/31/19 4:56 PM, benj wrote: > >>> everyone talks about "twins" getting younger and older but there is >>> zero evidence for the effect. >> >> In relativity, the twins never get "younger", they merely do not age by >> the same total amount between meetings. > > The statement above contradicts itself. When two persons do not age by > the same total amount between meetings, at least one of them must be younger. This is the problem with colloquial language. There is much ambiguity that could be avoided by using math and measurable quantities clearly defined. “Getting younger” could mean: — going through some physical process that reverses aging — going through some physical process that changed the rate at which all processes proceed, thus retarding aging — traveling through spacetime on a route different than another, such that at re-encounter the elapsed proper time is no longer synchronized, though this involves no change in any physical process > >> Actual experiments using several different types of clocks have >> demonstrated the validity of the twin paradox -- clocks following >> different paths between a given pair of events in spacetime DO >> experience different elapsed proper times. > > There is no such thing as the proper time. In fact, there is not a > single experiment that has identified this proper time thing. This is a little like saying that there has been no experiment that establishes the existence of inertial reference frames or of acceleration. Proper time is DEFINED in terms of a measurement protocol. > The following treatise shows how the mutual time dilation is a fatal > contradiction of the special theory of relativity. > > http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf > >>> it has theoretically at least been suggested that some [clocks] DO >>> NOT [obey relativistic predictions]! >> >> Only by people who do not understand relativity. > > Since the prediction of relativity is a fatal contradiction, it is > extremely safe to say real life DOES NOT obey relativity. It is also > very safe to say that those who support relativity DO NOT understand relativity. > >> "Fools can put forth more hypotheses than wise men can >> ever refute." -- Ayn Rand > > Yes, these who worship the religion of relativity are such fools > predicted by Alisa Rosenbaum, a philosopher. > >>> And biological clocks needed for "twins" are way off any practical >>> experience. >> >> Identical atomic clocks are also "twins", as are identical muons, etc. >> All you have are sham arguments and misunderstandings. > > Time dilation of muons do not support the nonsense of mutual time > dilation claimed by relativity. The same treatise above explains offers > no such embarrassing prediction as relativity does. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 13:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c4b6c5b8-be3f-4680-a806-3fa552387af5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482901 |
On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 6:37:09 PM UTC+1, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > There is no such thing as the proper time. What are you talking about. Proper time is simply what the clock shows as it's moving. In a sense it's the simplest time measurement possible. > In fact, there is not a single experiment that has identified this proper time thing. Nonsense. > The following treatise shows how the mutual time dilation is a fatal contradiction of the special theory of relativity. > > http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf It;'s not any "fatal contradiction", get over it. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 16:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <yOCdnXN7H73cIMXBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #482901 |
On 2/4/19 11:37 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 8:49:58 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 1/31/19 4:56 PM, benj wrote: >>> everyone talks about "twins" getting younger and older but there >>> is zero evidence for the effect. >> In relativity, the twins never get "younger", they merely do not >> age by the same total amount between meetings. > > The statement above contradicts itself. When two persons do not age > by the same total amount between meetings, at least one of them must > be younger. You need to learn how to read, and what very basic English words mean. The twins never GET "younger", as I said; after they rejoin one will BE younger than the other. Neither will be younger than when they separated. > There is no such thing as the proper time. Obviously you do not know what "proper time" actually means. A clock's proper time is what it displays, about which there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER. > Since the prediction of relativity is a fatal contradiction, No, it isn't. It's just that YOU do not understand relativity. The contradiction is in YOUR PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS. > Time dilation of muons do not support the nonsense of mutual time > dilation claimed by relativity. Nobody ever said that it did, because mutual "time dilation" only applies to A DIFFERENT PHYSICAL SITUATION. You are VERY confused, and REALLY need to learn how to read. You also need to learn what SR actually says. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 22:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2dc43e73-9b8d-419d-9241-444c9391c873@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482920 |
On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:31:35 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: > On 2/4/19 11:37 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > When two persons do not age by the same total amount between meetings, > > at least one of them must be younger. > > You need to learn how to read, and what very basic English words mean. Basic English words mean when two persons do not age by the same total amount between meetings, at least one of them must be younger. This is simple logic. <shrug> > The twins never GET "younger", as I said; Youth is relative. Try to get a clue. > after they rejoin one will BE younger than the other. Neither will be > younger than when they separated. This is not what SR predicts. <shrug> > > There is no such thing as the proper time. > > you do not know what "proper time" actually means. A clock's > proper time is what it displays, about which there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER. Obviously, you do not understand the mathematics of SR aka the Lorentz transform. The religion of relativity says the proper time thing is none other than spacetime (in length) divided by the speed of light. This thing becomes a mythic quantity. It is so ludicrous to talk about the proper time thing. <shrug> > > Since the prediction of relativity is a fatal contradiction, > > No, it isn't. It's YOU do not understand relativity. The contradiction is in ALL OVER the Lorentz transform that you apparently have never understood. > > Time dilation of muons do not support the nonsense of mutual time > > dilation claimed by relativity. > > Nobody ever said that it did, because mutual "time dilation" only > applies to A DIFFERENT PHYSICAL SITUATION. Mutual time dilation is EXACTLY what the Lorentz transform predicts. Section E of chapter G lays out definitively how the fatal contradiction of the Lorentz transform manifests the mutual time dilation. http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf Ahjohng
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@volney.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-05 02:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q3bcam$6jk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #482935 |
On 2/5/2019 1:27 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 2:31:35 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 2/4/19 11:37 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> When two persons do not age by the same total amount between meetings, >>> at least one of them must be younger. >> >> You need to learn how to read, and what very basic English words mean. > > Basic English words mean when two persons do not age by the same total amount between meetings, at least one of them must be younger. This is simple logic. <shrug> One of them IS younger. None of them GOT younger (aged in reverse). > >> The twins never GET "younger", as I said; > > Youth is relative. Try to get a clue. Nobody aged in reverse, so nobody GOT younger. Both actually got older! > >> after they rejoin one will BE younger than the other. Neither will be >> younger than when they separated. > > This is not what SR predicts. <shrug> It is. The twins experience different amounts of spacetime. > >>> There is no such thing as the proper time. >> >> you do not know what "proper time" actually means. A clock's >> proper time is what it displays, about which there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER. > > Obviously, you do not understand the mathematics of SR aka the Lorentz transform. The religion of relativity says the proper time thing is none other than spacetime (in length) divided by the speed of light. This thing becomes a mythic quantity. It is so ludicrous to talk about the proper time thing. <shrug> That isn't the definition of 'proper time' at all! Proper time is the time a clock always local to an observer keeps. Think of wristwatches that the traveling twins wear. The Lorentz transform isn't even involved in proper time! Since a clock is always local to itself, proper time of a clock being what the clock displays is an excellent description, even if it's tautological.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-05 09:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a3edad2-2265-46c9-9db0-5033164d738b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482937 |
On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 11:00:41 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote: > On 2/5/2019 1:27 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Basic English words mean when two persons do not age by the same > > total amount between meetings, at least one of them must be younger. > > This is simple logic. <shrug> > > One of them IS younger. Yes, one of them can be younger than the other. > None of them GOT younger (aged in reverse). Yes. <shrug> > > Youth is relative. Try to get a clue. > > Nobody aged in reverse, so nobody GOT younger. Both actually got older! Yes, aging process cannot be reversed given today’s technology, but one can still be younger than the other. > > This is not what SR predicts. <shrug> > > It is. The twins experience different amounts of spacetime. Spacetime does not measure aging. Only time does. Get a clue. <shrug> > > Obviously, you do not understand the mathematics of SR aka the Lorentz > > transform. The religion of relativity says the proper time thing is > > none other than spacetime (in length) divided by the speed of light. > > This thing becomes a mythic quantity. It is so ludicrous to talk about > > the proper time thing. <shrug> > > That isn't the definition of 'proper time' at all! Go to argue with Paul Anderson. > Proper time is the time a clock always local to an observer keeps. The self-styled physicists do not refer the local clock accumulating local clock tick rates as the proper time. > Since a clock is always local to itself, proper time of a clock being > what the clock displays is an excellent description, even if it's > tautological. If you define the proper time as local clock, the eventual outcome is recognition the illogical nature of relativity. No, self-styled physicists dare to go near what you are claiming. <shrug> For a better understanding of the nonsense of relativity, check out the following treatise. http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf Ahjohng
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 10:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <405ce7eb-b120-4126-9cf1-9cbae24cb2d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482667 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 8:14:11 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote: > On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > >> My real point is that > >> time dilation is a myth, > > > > You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. > > > > To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines > > Let me stop you right there Tom, > > To support my FANTASY, as you call it, i do not have to explain > anything whatsoever about the behavior of "pion beamlines". > > The only thing i have to do is show that real MACROSCOPIC CLOCKS,[etc.] So how does this differ from what Henry told you already: that you require that the experiment be done on a Sunday, with the entire technical staff having been born on Tuesday, and only if it had hailed 287 days and 17 hours previously, precisely? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tHH4E.276785$1D1.165486@fx29.am4> |
| In reply to | #482674 |
On 31/01/2019 18:40, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 8:14:11 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> My real point is that
>>>> time dilation is a myth,
>>>
>>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth.
>>>
>>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines
>>
>> Let me stop you right there Tom,
>>
>> To support my FANTASY, as you call it, i do not have to explain
>> anything whatsoever about the behavior of "pion beamlines".
>>
>> The only thing i have to do is show that real MACROSCOPIC CLOCKS,[etc.]
>
> So how does this differ from what Henry told you already: that you require that
> the experiment be done on a Sunday, with the entire technical staff having been
> born on Tuesday, and only if it had hailed 287 days and 17 hours previously, precisely?
>
> --
> Jan
"In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought,
than like Einstein thought."
Can i take that you disagree with the statement
"In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought,
than like Einstein thought." ?
and
Would you still disagree even if experiment were to show that clocks
on the International Space Station actually run at the same rate as
identical clocks on Earth ?
keith stein
"In reality clocks and twins behave much more like Newton thought,
than like Einstein thought."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 10:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Z4idnSKpwOLB9cXBnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #482667 |
On 1/31/19 10:14 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> My real point is that
>>> time dilation is a myth,
>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth.
>>
>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines
>
> Let me stop you right there Tom,
>
> To support my FANTASY, as you call it, i do not have to explain
> anything whatsoever about the behavior of "pion beamlines".
Sure you do! To establish your claim that "time dilation is a myth" you
have to provide an explanation of EVERY experimental confirmation of
"time dilation". I simply picked one that I think is the most direct.
You REALLY need to learn what science actually is.
Hint: it is NOT whatever it is that you think you are doing.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-04 18:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <06b00e93-2586-5323-cb9d-b838bd32fce9@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #482893 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 1/31/19 10:14 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >> On 31/01/2019 15:23, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> My real point is that >>>> time dilation is a myth, >>> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >>> >>> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines >> Let me stop you right there Tom, >> >> To support my FANTASY, as you call it, i do not have to explain >> anything whatsoever about the behavior of "pion beamlines". > > Sure you do! To establish your claim that "time dilation is a myth" you > have to provide an explanation of EVERY experimental confirmation of > "time dilation". … in such a way that time dilation or anything equivalent to it, or anything that has it as a consequence, does not figure in it. (Good luck with that.) (You avoided stating the obvious, but I think it is important in this [nut]case.) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 09:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <31c5ae86-4202-40d0-819d-b6e41a996f80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482659 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 10:23:25 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > My real point is that > > time dilation is a myth, > > You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. > > To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines 1 > km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed > indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 > microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times > shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to > travel 1 km? 26 nanoseconds in the moving muon frame is worth (corresponded to) gamma*26 ns on the lab clock. That’s why the pion is able to live long enough to travel 1 km. > > The ratio is actually considerably larger, as > 90% of the > pions survive the trip, so the proper time elapsed inside > the beamline is a tiny fraction of 26 ns. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 09:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d47fa6a5-c46c-4e19-895c-c6983d9c337a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482659 |
On Thursday, 31 January 2019 16:23:25 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote: > On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: > > My real point is that > > time dilation is a myth, > > You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. > > To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines 1 > km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with speed > indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 > microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times > shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to > travel 1 km? Tom, poor idiot, think again. If the pions really lived 26 ns and had speed ~c they couldn't travel 1km.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Káèek Cnemu <upkp@kawpwnus.cv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 20:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2vmv1$8ah$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #482672 |
maluwozniak wrote: > On Thursday, 31 January 2019 16:23:25 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 1/30/19 10:24 PM, Keith Stein wrote: >> > My real point is that time dilation is a myth, >> >> You mean your FANTASY is that time dilation is a myth. >> >> To support your fantasy you must explain how it is that pion beamlines >> 1 km long exist at Fermilab and CERN. In them the pions travel with >> speed indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), which takes 3.33 >> microseconds. But the pion lifetime is only 26 nanoseconds -- 128 times >> shorter. Without "time dilation" how does the pion live long enough to >> travel 1 km? > > Tom, poor idiot, think again. If the pions really lived 26 ns and had > speed ~c they couldn't travel 1km. this is your time. However it's more complicated. With length contraction your "1km" has to be smaller than 7.8 meters. Very funny indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6ede818f-6792-4168-9f9b-a80cd33f2e06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482637 |
On Thursday, 31 January 2019 02:21:57 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > Relativity describes the results for inertial observers. It doesn't > require everything to be inertial. Sorry, lady, but Your tales of observers didn't match the real observers even in Galileo time. Face it - Your physics can deal with muons or alike, but an observer's brain is far, far, far too complicated for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 20:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gbfsdnF3dhpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #482645 |
On 31/01/2019 6:13 pm, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, 31 January 2019 02:21:57 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> Relativity describes the results for inertial observers. It doesn't >> require everything to be inertial. > > Sorry, lady, but Your tales of observers > didn't match the real observers even in > Galileo time. Face it - Your physics can > deal with muons or alike, but an observer's > brain is far, far, far too complicated > for it. > A brain functions by way of a collection of physical processes. If our perception of time isn't a consequence of the rate at which those processes occur, then what is it a consequence of? And how? If it is such a consequence, then why would those processes be singled out by the universe for different treatment from muons, and in a consistent way so as not to mess things up by having a relative change in the rates of various processes, which I can't imagine would be a good thing for a brain. Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | maluwozniak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 03:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <89db3a5c-32e8-4dc8-8c07-2f857e9dd975@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #482650 |
On Thursday, 31 January 2019 10:11:21 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 31/01/2019 6:13 pm, maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, 31 January 2019 02:21:57 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> Relativity describes the results for inertial observers. It doesn't > >> require everything to be inertial. > > > > Sorry, lady, but Your tales of observers > > didn't match the real observers even in > > Galileo time. Face it - Your physics can > > deal with muons or alike, but an observer's > > brain is far, far, far too complicated > > for it. > > > > A brain functions by way of a collection of physical processes. If our > perception of time isn't a consequence of the rate at which those > processes occur, then what is it a consequence of? And how? Have You heard of a man called Copernicus? How did it happen that before him the perception said "Sun moves" and after him it said oppositely? Did he change the physical processes behind it? The perception of a human is a REALLY complicated process. The example of Copernicus shows it's beyond a single brain. If You take OSI layers - physics can talk about the first or(sometimes) the second one. The observation is a process from 7 or 8. Physicists know NOTHING about it. They never did. > If it is such a consequence But it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web