Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363251 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-16 11:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 09:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:26 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 12:53 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:38 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 15:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 17:16 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <set...@att.net> - 2015-09-07 01:39 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-07 02:44 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:56 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 10:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 11:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-06 15:24 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:47 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 13:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 18:33 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 17:52 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:55 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 18:47 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 22:19 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 09:18 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 08:39 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 10:05 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:34 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune strikes again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-07 12:10 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-07 21:48 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 12:37 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:53 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 13:13 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 10:24 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 14:42 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:06 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:50 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 14:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-12 17:07 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 14:08 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-12 20:07 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 13:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-12 21:25 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-13 10:21 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 19:45 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 06:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 09:14 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 09:12 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:34 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 12:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 16:20 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-14 23:26 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-14 22:36 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 07:01 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 09:11 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 08:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:15 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 13:40 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 16:21 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 06:28 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:15 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 11:36 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 16:22 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:03 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 10:32 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:43 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:16 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 19:04 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-17 08:20 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-17 07:09 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-16 16:21 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-15 14:43 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-15 06:51 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 09:10 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-13 20:49 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 00:20 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Frances Espinosa <franesp@portio.org> - 2015-09-13 14:37 +0000
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-13 11:17 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-13 21:15 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 15:46 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 09:17 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 00:16 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 03:53 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-14 07:15 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 11:12 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-14 10:18 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-14 16:37 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 12:55 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 11:13 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-14 22:08 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:25 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 14:03 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-15 18:42 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 11:46 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-09-16 16:10 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 08:15 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-07 10:38 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 12:55 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-08 10:23 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:29 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 10:44 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:11 -0700
Stephane Baune poser strikes again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 11:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 12:50 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 12:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 13:46 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:02 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 15:27 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 09:10 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-09 08:05 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:52 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 08:33 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:53 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 14:11 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-11 11:02 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-08 13:26 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-10 23:39 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 23:00 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-08 20:47 +0200
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-08 14:23 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2015-09-08 15:36 -0600
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:55 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 10:58 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 14:56 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-07 12:29 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 16:39 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-08 10:05 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 17:35 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 22:22 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-07 06:21 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-07 09:35 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 06:42 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:38 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:39 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 08:36 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 10:50 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 20:23 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 20:30 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 08:01 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-11 09:53 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 12:07 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:54 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-11 14:24 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-11 14:48 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 16:48 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-12 06:10 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 22:13 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:45 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:35 -0500
Re: SR is just another name for LET kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-09 08:41 -0700
SR is just another name for LET fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-16 06:50 -0700
Re: SR is just another name for LET kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-16 10:59 -0400
Re: SR is just another name for LET fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-16 11:24 -0700
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 07:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8e589ca-3712-44b7-b076-be5f2d245291@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364055 |
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:53:57 AM UTC-4, kefischer wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee > <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 9/12/15, 10:07 AM, wugi wrote: > > > >> In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of > >> the appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material > >> object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them. > > > >This is absolute nonsense. Although length contraction will vanish whenever the cause that results in the observed length contraction vanishes, time dilation is accumulated. Tom has failed in the past to understand what Koobee Wublee is talking about, but the lurkers don't have to be. The effect of every observed time dilation in the past accumulates and will affect the future reality while length contraction does not. This concept is ever so fvcking simple. So, why do self-styled physicists not able to understand this? <shrug> > > If it is so simple, explain with simple wording > the reason for how there is less accumulate time > on the trip clock. Because it takes a longer time for the arrival of the required energy to complete a transition of the Cs 133 atom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 11:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ghodva9v1q65obesiigm2jmuv0rln48urm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364065 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:15:25 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <setoken@att.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:53:57 AM UTC-4, kefischer wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
>> <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> >> On 9/12/15, 10:07 AM, wugi wrote:
>> >
>> >> In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of
>> >> the appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material
>> >> object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them.
>> >
>> >This is absolute nonsense. Although length contraction will vanish whenever the cause that results in the observed length contraction vanishes, time dilation is accumulated. Tom has failed in the past to understand what Koobee Wublee is talking about, but the lurkers don't have to be. The effect of every observed time dilation in the past accumulates and will affect the future reality while length contraction does not. This concept is ever so fvcking simple. So, why do self-styled physicists not able to understand this? <shrug>
>>
>> If it is so simple, explain with simple wording
>> the reason for how there is less accumulate time
>> on the trip clock.
>
>Because it takes a longer time for the arrival of the required energy to complete a transition of the Cs 133 atom.
Absolutely not, that is what people have been
trying to explain you are wrong about.
The distance of the trip is less when moving,
and lesser when moving faster.
While it is likely nobody will agree with me,
I think the gravity model Divergent Matter explains
this best, since the actual distance is always getting
longer (in the model), the faster the trip, the less
distance it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1bfb311-9c01-40a8-a9db-5054fbe89f55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364069 |
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 11:12:20 AM UTC-4, kefischer wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:15:25 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <setoken@att.net> > wrote: > > >On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:53:57 AM UTC-4, kefischer wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee > >> <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > >> >> On 9/12/15, 10:07 AM, wugi wrote: > >> > > >> >> In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of > >> >> the appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material > >> >> object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them. > >> > > >> >This is absolute nonsense. Although length contraction will vanish whenever the cause that results in the observed length contraction vanishes, time dilation is accumulated. Tom has failed in the past to understand what Koobee Wublee is talking about, but the lurkers don't have to be. The effect of every observed time dilation in the past accumulates and will affect the future reality while length contraction does not. This concept is ever so fvcking simple. So, why do self-styled physicists not able to understand this? <shrug> > >> > >> If it is so simple, explain with simple wording > >> the reason for how there is less accumulate time > >> on the trip clock. > > > >Because it takes a longer time for the arrival of the required energy to complete a transition of the Cs 133 atom. > > Absolutely not, that is what people have been > trying to explain you are wrong about. How would you know what people have been trying to explain to me when they all said that you were wrong in everything? > > The distance of the trip is less when moving, > and lesser when moving faster. This is stupid....when the Cs 133 atom is moving faster the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete a transition will take longer. Gee you are stupid. > > > While it is likely nobody will agree with me, Right....no body will agree with you. > I think the gravity model Divergent Matter explains > this best, since the actual distance is always getting > longer (in the model), the faster the trip, the less > distance it is. DM explains nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 16:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kmbevalb4de9f0038f469388dk2cucnu2r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364078 |
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:18:09 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <setoken@att.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 11:12:20 AM UTC-4, kefischer wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:15:25 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <setoken@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:53:57 AM UTC-4, kefischer wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
>> >> <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> >> >> On 9/12/15, 10:07 AM, wugi wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation" are merely results of
>> >> >> the appropriate GEOMETRICAL PROJECTIONS. In particular, no material
>> >> >> object is ever "modified" or "changed" by them.
>> >> >
>> >> >This is absolute nonsense. Although length contraction will vanish whenever the cause that results in the observed length contraction vanishes, time dilation is accumulated. Tom has failed in the past to understand what Koobee Wublee is talking about, but the lurkers don't have to be. The effect of every observed time dilation in the past accumulates and will affect the future reality while length contraction does not. This concept is ever so fvcking simple. So, why do self-styled physicists not able to understand this? <shrug>
>> >>
>> >> If it is so simple, explain with simple wording
>> >> the reason for how there is less accumulate time
>> >> on the trip clock.
>> >
>> >Because it takes a longer time for the arrival of the required energy to complete a transition of the Cs 133 atom.
>>
>> Absolutely not, that is what people have been
>> trying to explain you are wrong about.
>
>How would you know what people have been trying to explain to me when they all said that you were wrong in everything?
They spelled "right" wrong.
>> The distance of the trip is less when moving,
>> and lesser when moving faster.
>
>This is stupid....when the Cs 133 atom is moving faster the speed of arrival of the required energy to complete a transition will take longer. Gee you are stupid.
No, you are confused, the atom doesn't move
in that way, there is a small part of it that moves,
and a detector real close "sees" it.
>> While it is likely nobody will agree with me,
>
>Right....no body will agree with you.
So, most people are wrong a lot,
gossip is almost always wrong.
>> I think the gravity model Divergent Matter explains
>> this best, since the actual distance is always getting
>> longer (in the model), the faster the trip, the less
>> distance it is.
>
>DM explains nothing.
It explains "getting there quick before the
distance gets longer, causes less elapsed
time on the clock" perfectly.
That may not be truth, but it is clear as a bell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 12:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ErWdnSO6oJeyl2rInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #364053 |
On 9/14/15 9/14/15 - 2:16 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Although length contraction will vanish whenever > the cause that results in the observed length contraction vanishes, time > dilation is accumulated. You are comparing a differential instrument (ruler) to an integrating/accumulating instrument (clock). Both "length contraction" and "time dilation" relate to INTERVALS, and are DIFFERENTIAL measurements. To look at "time dilation" one must make a differential measurement, such as of the frequency of the oscillator inside the clock. The counter inside the clock does not participate, because it is the integrating/accumulating part of the clock. If you used an odometer to measure length, then "length contraction" would not vanish, either. Because an odometer is an ACCUMULATOR of distance, just like an ordinary clock is an ACCUMULATOR of time intervals. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d394fe34-2123-4724-82de-6a4ccbdc3353@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364090 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 14 września 2015 19:56:00 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 9/14/15 9/14/15 - 2:16 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Although length contraction will vanish whenever > > the cause that results in the observed length contraction vanishes, time > > dilation is accumulated. > > You are comparing a differential instrument (ruler) to an > integrating/accumulating instrument (clock). Both "length contraction" and "time > dilation" relate to INTERVALS, and are DIFFERENTIAL measurements. > > To look at "time dilation" one must make a differential measurement, such as of > the frequency of the oscillator inside the clock. The counter inside the clock > does not participate, because it is the integrating/accumulating part of the clock. > > If you used an odometer to measure length, then "length contraction" would not > vanish, either. Because an odometer is an ACCUMULATOR of distance, just like an > ordinary clock is an ACCUMULATOR of time intervals. > > > Tom Roberts wrong... any real measurement is an integration in fact, because there is no point signal possible... what is noticed long ago, say: dp x dt > h, or dE x dt > h. that is just a direct consequence of an integration process.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 22:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt79g6$9rg$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #364090 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ErWdnSO6oJeyl2rInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |To look at "time dilation" one must make a differential measurement, such as of |the frequency of the oscillator inside the clock. Nonsense, as expected from a relativistic moron. Time is defined by Great Guru as indications of clocks. Oscillator frequency has nothing to do with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4a85f8b-1914-41d7-82ef-ac83ea348ff7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364090 |
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 10:56:00 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/14/15, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Although length contraction will vanish whenever the cause that > > results in the observed length contraction vanishes, time dilation > > is accumulated. > > You are comparing a differential instrument (ruler) to an > integrating/accumulating instrument (clock). Both "length contraction" > and "time dilation" relate to INTERVALS, and are DIFFERENTIAL > measurements. Neither time dilation nor length contraction deals with differential measurement. Both are observed phenomena or artifacts of SR. However, time dilation is more interesting. It deals with the rate of time slow down or going faster per observer's own reference time. Elapsed time is what is accumulated by the time dilation, and time dilation describes this observed slowdown in clock tick rate. There are very different things. <shrug> Say the observed gamma factor is half. Every second ticked locally will be observed to tick only half a second by a remote observer, and a local meter will be observed to be only half a meter. Say the condition lasts for 10 seconds and go back to a gamma factor of one. Every local second is observed to one second, and every local meter is observed to be one meter. However, the local watch shows 10 seconds, but the observer's (remote) watch will show only 5 seconds. There is no such accumulated length through length contraction. The mutually observed 5 seconds of time difference is what the Twin paradox is all about. <shrug> Time dilation does not manifest the Twin paradox. The fatal contradiction of the paradox is convicted through the past accumulated time dilation or the sum of observed time dilated clock tick rate. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b430d9a-2956-441e-8e16-3967f9024778@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363883 |
On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:08:34 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote: > I take it that in SR they are as well "material" and "physical" ;-) No. In SR, Length contraction and time dilation are 'obsevables'. SR says that if you *measure* the length it will be lessened by the gamma factor. Similar claim for clocks. The parameters x,x',t,t' etc in SR represent the result obtained by a measurement. > It's the interpretations that are different. Sort of. In LET, there is the 'real' contraction when viewed from the ether frame. But there is also the *measured* contraction which is the same interpretation as SR. > In LET they would be seen as deformations of an absolute rest state, Yes. > the one in the "ether frame". Resulting in mutual observed deformations > between any two inertial systems, as if any inertial observer were > always himself in the ether frame (which couldn't be true); and in the > unability to distinguish the ether frame at all (which is frustrating). Yes...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <brol@brol.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 18:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt9hqc$hbe$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363921 |
rotchm schreef op 12/09/2015 om 23:03: > On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:08:34 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote: > >> I take it that in SR they are as well "material" and "physical" ;-) > > No. In SR, Length contraction and time dilation are 'obsevables'. > SR says that if you *measure* the length it will be lessened by the > gamma factor. Similar claim for clocks. The parameters x,x',t,t' etc > in SR represent the result obtained by a measurement. Yes. And I even agree with Tom Roberts that these are projective quantities (I just recall that any inertial frame can be chosen as the canonical/orthonormal/howucallit frame in Minkovsky space-time, and one can swap, or even smoothly morf, between it and any other. Those are projective properties indeed). But I maintain that they do reflect the physical manifestation of an object belonging to one inertial state/frame, within another one. And, as already said, and commented in the Bell's spaceship thread: one cannot and could not swap, or map, a 'non-moving' object instantly on to an identical 'moving' object just passing by (in neither frame with their own simultaneity axis; see also the pole-barn 'paradox'), without some physical rearrangement of its body (or, non-instantly, going through a phase with acceleration forces, Born-wise, or else even acceleration AND internal forces) : -----O------------L--------- -----O---------L'-----L"----> Whereas with their Galilean counterparts this is instantly do-able : -----O------------L--------- -----O------------L---------> -- guido google wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 11:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6948c78d-9f61-440e-86f2-b1c5b0a202fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364194 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:42:58 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote: > rotchm schreef op 12/09/2015 om 23:03: > > No. In SR, Length contraction and time dilation are 'obsevables'. > > SR says that if you *measure* the length it will be lessened by the > > gamma factor. Similar claim for clocks. The parameters x,x',t,t' etc > > in SR represent the result obtained by a measurement. > > Yes. And I even agree with Tom You better. > But I maintain that they do reflect the physical manifestation of an > object Perhaps, but irrelevant: What will that change for SR's predictions? Will such concerns change the LT's ? > And, as already said, and commented in the Bell's spaceship thread: > one cannot and could not swap, or map, a 'non-moving' object instantly > on to an identical 'moving' object just passing by... > > -----O------------L--------- > -----O---------L'-----L"----> > > Whereas with their Galilean counterparts this is instantly do-able : > > -----O------------L--------- > -----O------------L---------> Galilean is doable mathematically but not practically; it does not permit a way to measure. This is because there are no ways to define 'time' operationally. The only way is e-synch (and a few others) which is what SR uses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <brol@brol.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 16:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtbtam$kb1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364201 |
rotchm schreef op 15/09/2015 om 20:46: > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:42:58 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote: >> rotchm schreef op 12/09/2015 om 23:03: > >>> No. In SR, Length contraction and time dilation are 'obsevables'. >>> SR says that if you *measure* the length it will be lessened by the >>> gamma factor. Similar claim for clocks. The parameters x,x',t,t' etc >>> in SR represent the result obtained by a measurement. >> >> Yes. And I even agree with Tom > > You better. > >> But I maintain that they do reflect the physical manifestation of an >> object > > Perhaps, but irrelevant: What will that change for SR's predictions? > Will such concerns change the LT's ? No, but would you call the physical aspect behind coordinates irrelevant? And ditto for thinking about the limits of a theory? Neither SRT nor GRT seem to have been concerned much with extended rigid (non-inertial) motion, confining themselves mostly to local/point matter acceleration. A pity meseems. >> And, as already said, and commented in the Bell's spaceship thread: >> one cannot and could not swap, or map, a 'non-moving' object instantly >> on to an identical 'moving' object just passing by... > >> >> -----O------------L--------- >> -----O---------L'-----L"----> See for example a scheme of mine http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/giffls/tiik7.htm (acceleration by an extremity, internal reaction forces elsewhere, retarded by light velocity). Or also this: http://www.av8n.com/physics/hyperbolic-motion.htm (advocating what I understood to be Born acceleration, ie well-synchronised through the rigid object) >> Whereas with their Galilean counterparts this is instantly do-able : >> >> -----O------------L--------- >> -----O------------L---------> > > Galilean is doable mathematically but not practically; it does not permit a way to measure. This is because there are no ways to define 'time' operationally. The only way is e-synch (and a few others) which is what SR uses. It's doable anyway without bothering to measure, by making sure that at any moment the acceleration is constant throughout the object. -- guido
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 08:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <afe1a5e5-3e27-4849-b5dc-936a67e3346a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364275 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 10:11:41 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote: > rotchm schreef op 15/09/2015 om 20:46: > > Perhaps, but irrelevant: What will that change for SR's predictions? > > Will such concerns change the LT's ? > > No, but would you call the physical aspect behind coordinates > irrelevant? Yes. The 'causes', the 'physical explanation' or 'stuff' becomes irrelevant when you have the mathematical formulation (the model that makes predictions). No matter what you tell me the causes are, I still apply, say, SR and get the answer. > And ditto for thinking about the limits of a theory? Same thing. Outside the limits of a model, you then use/find another model; there you may use 'causes' to help you find the model. But once found it becomes just another math formulation where the variables are observables. The causes become immaterial. > Neither SRT nor GRT seem to have been concerned much with extended rigid > (non-inertial) motion, confining themselves mostly to local/point matter ?? Of course they are concerned with such matters and are part of SR (and general relativity). Many books and docs go through that. > See for example a scheme of mine > http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/giffls/tiik7.htm > (acceleration by an extremity, internal reaction forces elsewhere, > retarded by light velocity). Although not often discussed, thats not new. As I said, there is much literature on that. > > Galilean is doable mathematically but not practically; it does not... > > It's doable anyway without bothering to measure, by making sure that at > any moment the acceleration is constant throughout the object. We are talking about physical models here. So for the model to be useful, it must be able to be verified by exp's; it must relate to measurements. You need to measure to verify a physical model. When you say "by making sure that at any moment the acceleration is" MEANS that you are measuring, so you are contradicting yourself in your statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6dafeb28-3a8a-492e-a034-bf39d300acdf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363359 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 11:18:26 AM UTC-4, Mike_Fontenot wrote: > On 9/6/15 9:19 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 9/6/15 9/6/15 6:52 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > >> > >> IF that is true, I don't understand how it is not > >> contradicted by Michelson-Morley. Can anyone set me straight about that? > > > > LET is based on an ether at rest in a unique ether frame. In frames > > moving relative to the ether frame, one applies the Lorentz transform > > ether-frame => moving-frame. > > [...] > > Tom Roberts > > I understand your response (I think), but I don't see how that explains > how LET is consistent with Michelson-Morley. Michelson-Morley (I think) > said that no matter where the earth is in its orbit, it is always at > rest wrt the ether (if there IS an ether). So the question is, how can > the earth always be at rest wrt the ether, even though the earth is > constantly changing its velocity wrt the sun? I've heard the idea that > any large mass "entrains" the ether, and thus is locally always at rest > wrt it, but that seems like a stretch to me ... and I would think that > motion wrt the ether should then be detectible on a larger distance > scale, and that hasn't happened. If you take time to study the structure of the E-Matrix you will find that no matter how a meter stick moves in the E-Matrix it will take light the same time to traverse its length in any directions. IOW, the speed of light in the E-Matrix is isotropic and that's why the MMX null result. A description of the E-Matrix is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf > -- > https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame > All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dbeb32f5-27ff-4d8b-986d-695d99a61005@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363378 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 1:38:23 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > A description of the E-Matrix is available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unfinication.pdf Hello sir. You might not know me, but I would just like to mention to you that the above link doesnt work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 10:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5fadnYl6Lq7KYHPInZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #363359 |
On 9/7/15 9/7/15 - 10:18 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > On 9/6/15 9:19 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> LET is based on an ether at rest in a unique ether frame. In frames moving >> relative to the ether frame, one applies the Lorentz transform ether-frame >> => moving-frame. > > I understand your response (I think), but I don't see how that explains how > LET is consistent with Michelson-Morley. OK, I'll expand on this below. > Michelson-Morley (I think) said that no matter where the earth is in its > orbit, it is always at rest wrt the ether (if there IS an ether). No, they never "said" that. What they did do is analyze their result in terms of the then-current aether theory. In that theory, there is a unique (but unknown) inertial frame in the vicinity of the solar system in which the aether is at rest; light is a wave in the aether; bodies like the earth travel freely through the aether without friction. Given this theory, it is clear that regardless of which frame is the aether frame, sometime during a year the earth will travel at least with its orbital speed relative to the aether -- their experiment was designed to detect this motion. But their conclusion was that "the relative velocity of the earth and the aether is probably less than one sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-forth". > So the question is, how can the earth always be at rest wrt the ether, even > though the earth is constantly changing its velocity wrt the sun? In the aether theory Michelson and Morley used, this question does not make sense. But in the larger class of aether theories, this can happen if the earth drags the aether with it. But this, of course, conflicts with Fizeau's measurement of the speed of light in moving water, and with observations of stellar aberration. Both of those measurements, and literally hundreds of others, are consistent with the predictions of SR. If one considers the many variations on aether that have been tried and found wanting, it is rather remarkable that SR can "thread" its way through ALL the different measurements, being consistent with ALL of them (within its domain). In LET, one analyzes the MMX by first assuming some frame (any frame) is the ether frame, and the earth moves relative to it with some (unknown) velocity. Light of course travels in vacuum isotropically with speed c relative to the aether frame. Transforming from ether frame to earth frame, one finds that the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c relative to the earth frame (this is a mathematical property of the Lorentz transform, independent of which frame was selected as the "ether frame"). Thus the fringe position in the MMX interferometer is predicted to be independent of its orientation, as observed. rotchm wrote: > In LET, there is a "material" contraction of matter (objects) by the gamma > factor. There is also a "physical" slowing of clocks by the same factor > (actually, its the same process for the length contraction). These "two" > effects conspire to cancel each out no matter the speed of the frame in the > ether frame. One could presumably argue that since E&M forces are mediated by the aether, and since E&M forces hold atoms and material objects together, motion relative to the aether could conceivably induce such contraction and dilation. BUT it is ALSO required that clocks de-synchronize in a moving frame, and that is just so weird that the whole edifice of LET seems too fantastic to be believable. Mutual "time dilation" and "length contraction" are also problematical for LET -- why should a frame moving slowly relative to the aether appear to be "contracted and dilated" when looked at from a frame moving faster??? -- remember the latter is physically more "contracted and dilated" than the former. The geometry of relativity is a FAR better basis for belief and understanding -- after all, we have no reason to expect space to be Euclidean, so assuming spacetime is locally Minkowskian is really no stretch at all. In particular, EVERY observation that space is Euclidean is consistent with spacetime being locally Minkowskian, but there are zillions of observations that disagree with Euclidean space but are consistent with the (local) Minkowski spacetime of SR. Of course there are lots of people around here who either refuse to learn what relativity actually says, or are simply unable to understand it. So sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 09:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a94b6ad7-66f1-4341-8b95-f0c99fa84386@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363465 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 11:23:06 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > rotchm wrote: > > In LET, there is a "material" contraction of matter (objects) by the gamma > > factor. There is also a "physical" slowing of clocks by the same factor > > (actually, its the same process for the length contraction). These "two" > > effects conspire to cancel each out no matter the speed of the frame in the > > ether frame. > > One could presumably argue that since E&M forces are > mediated by the aether, and since E&M forces hold atoms and > material objects together, motion relative to the aether could > conceivably induce such contraction and dilation. Note that it is also shown [by many authors] that for simple configurations of charges/atoms, that they "contract" or "get closer" to one another by the gamma factor. IOW, Maxwell's eqs imply such contraction of the fields/particles for simple configs. For more elaborate configs, its inconclusive due to the difficulties in solving the PDE's. Such contractions are a general feature of hyperbolic PDE's btw. So, such LET's strongly suggest "material contractions" and "time dilation". > BUT it is ALSO required that clocks de-synchronize in a moving frame, No, not at all. The "desynch" is simply due to the definition of the synch procedure used, the e-synch. The term xv/c^2 appears because of the e-synch procedure. If one uses a different procedure, you get a different synch term. If you analyze the e-synch procedure via LET, then you get the xv/c^2 term; its not an extra postulate nor magic. > to be believable. Mutual "time dilation" and "length contraction" > are also problematical for LET -- why should a frame moving slowly > relative to the aether appear to be "contracted and > dilated" when looked at from a frame moving faster??? All due to the used definitions of distance and time (e-synch). If you analyze the length measurement procedures and time measurement procedures via LET, you get the Lorentz transformations. > -- remember the latter is physically more "contracted and dilated" > than the former. Yes, in LET there is the 'physical' aspect. This aspect, coupled with the conventional measurement procedures implies the "appearance" of LC and TD; it all implies the LT's, implies that when one measures lengths and time, the values obtained are LC and TD. > The geometry of relativity is a FAR better basis for belief and understanding Far better basis yes, nicer symmetry, mathematically much more elegant. As for understanding, well, that depends on the person; some are more at ease with a dynamic view (LET), while some prefer a principle view (SR). > after all, we have no reason to expect space to be Euclidean, True, nor Minkowskian. They each can model to a certain extent our universe. They dont dictate our universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 10:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <55EF1052.7020705@comcast.net> |
| In reply to | #363465 |
On 9/8/15 9:23 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > [...] > rotchm's comments seem to be closest to resolving the confusion I was having about Michelson-Morley. I had heard somewhere that M/M found that the earth was always at rest wrt the ether, and so that was my (erroneous) starting point, and I now think that view of what M/M showed was incorrect. I now think M/M showed that any light beam always has the same speed c when measured wrt the earth. That obviously is consistent with special relativity, but it is ALSO consistent with LET, whether the earth is moving wrt the ether or not. So the M/M results didn't actually invalidate either SR or LET, and it didn't show that the earth was always at rest wrt the ether. I've also thought more about WHY the M/M results were consistent with LET, even if the earth was moving wrt the ether, and I think I know the answer to that: when you take the observer frame in LET to be the ether frame, and when you assume that any light beam always will be measured to have the same speed c wrt the ether, and that rods in a moving frame are ACTUALLY compressed as per the length contraction result (along the direction of motion), and that clocks in the moving frame are ACTUALLY running slow as per the time dilation result, then you get the Lorentz equations, which give the moving coordinates x and t as functions of the ether coordinates X and T. In LET, the Lorentz equation derivation doesn't assume anything about what the moving frame concludes about the ether frame. But that then means that IF we can invert those two equations, and get X and T as functions of x and t, then those inverse equations will tell us what a moving (inertial) frame will conclude about the ether frame. Those original equations CAN always be inverted, and the unusual thing about the inverse equations is that they always are essentially the SAME as the original equations (usually with only the speed v changing sign). So a moving frame concludes that rods in the ether frame contract according to the length contraction result, and that clocks in the ether frame run slow according to the time dilation result. And those inverse equations also say that the speed of any light beam will always be measured to have the same value c. So M/M definitely did not say that the earth was always at rest wrt the ether. Of course, even though SR and LET both get the same results for all experiments (because they both are completely specified for all experimental purposes by the same Lorentz equations), their EXPLANATIONS are quite different: LET says that only the moving frames ACTUALLY have length contraction, and actually have time dilation, and that the ether frame is the only frame that ACTUALLY has NO length contraction, and ACTUALLY has NO time dilation ... the moving frames (because of their motion-affected rods and clocks just erroneously THINK the ether frame has those characteristics. -- https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 10:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4996849d-8a03-4d9a-998f-0716d48aad35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363474 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:44:05 PM UTC-4, Mike_Fontenot wrote: > So the M/M results didn't actually invalidate either SR or LET, Correct, contrary to what many books say. Only very few have realized that and is well indicated in some literature and in this NG. Even Einstein "said" it in his famous quote "...we have not proven that the ether doesnt exist, we have merely proven that we dont need it...". But again, dont confound the many versions of "ether". The ponderable/entrained "ether" has been discarded due to Fizault types of exp's. > ...rods in a moving frame > are ACTUALLY compressed as per the length contraction result (along the > direction of motion), and that clocks in the moving frame are ACTUALLY > running slow as per the time dilation result, then you get the Lorentz > equations, which give the moving coordinates x and t as functions of the > ether coordinates X and T. Yes. That is well documented from many various independent sources. > In LET, the Lorentz equation derivation > doesn't assume anything about what the moving frame concludes about the > ether frame. But that then means that IF we can invert those two > equations, and get X and T as functions of x and t, then those inverse > equations will tell us what a moving (inertial) frame will conclude > about the ether frame. You might think so, but if you look closely, all conspires that you can never solve for the ether's X and T. This is why, "we dont need the ether frame" as Einstein pointed (and as pointed out by Poincare, before Einstein!) out We only have access to (x,t) via measurements. You cant find the v thus there exist infinite possibilities for X and T. > Of course, even though SR and LET both get the same results for all > experiments (because they both are completely specified for all > experimental purposes by the same Lorentz equations), their EXPLANATIONS > are quite different: Correct. > LET says that only the moving frames ACTUALLY have > length contraction, and actually have time dilation, and that the ether > frame is the only frame that ACTUALLY has NO length contraction, and > ACTUALLY has NO time dilation ... Thats it. Nothing new there!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 11:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Stephane Baune poser strikes again |
| Message-ID | <a3ab4d56-737f-40c2-97c9-a839d078d4c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363477 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 10:11:13 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: >The ponderable/entrained "ether" has been discarded due to Fizault types of exp's. > Yep, "Fizault". Pretender. You are such a fraud, Stephane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web