Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407690 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-03 08:30 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-04 05:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 65 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 08:30 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 10:32 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 10:16 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:18 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 10:38 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:44 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-04 06:13 +1100
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 13:36 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 05:30 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-04 16:27 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 08:46 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-04 21:51 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 11:28 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:28 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-04 15:40 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 16:03 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-06 11:20 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-03 19:49 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-05 03:40 +1100
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 14:30 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-05 03:41 +1100
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 12:30 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-03 19:46 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 14:02 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:26 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 14:52 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:07 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 05:20 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:30 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-06 00:55 +1100
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:37 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-05 08:22 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:57 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-05 19:48 +0100
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-06 09:10 +1100
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-05 21:24 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-06 11:22 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 05:33 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-03 11:03 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-02-04 15:37 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 09:35 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-05 08:27 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 08:47 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-06 11:28 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 10:55 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-06 11:29 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-05 18:24 +0000
Re: What Causes Ken Shito's imbecility? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-03 10:30 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 09:04 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 10:34 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-03 18:32 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-03 10:38 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-03 19:44 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 20:00 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-04 06:31 +1100
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 19:58 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:45 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-03 20:53 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:26 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-04 08:40 +0000
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 06:05 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 07:34 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 15:51 -0600
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-03 14:00 -0800
Re: What Causes of TIME Dilation? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-02-04 05:47 -0800
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 08:30 -0800 |
| Subject | What Causes of TIME Dilation? |
| Message-ID | <a43d35a0-ffc3-47f3-bc8a-8c98d72e0192@googlegroups.com> |
What causes time dilation? The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation. Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. Why then clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates? The answer: A clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time. What this mean is that a clock second will represent a different amount of absolute time in different frames----different states of absolute motion. Therefore clocks in different frames (different states of absolute motion) will accumulates clock seconds at different rates. Why does a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion)? The answer: The passage of a clock second is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock and that, in turn, is dependent on the arrival of a specific amount of energy to complete: 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. The higher is the state of absolute motion of the Cs clock the longer absolute time content for its clock second.....IOW, a clock second will contain a larger amount of absolute time. Why does completing 9,192,631,770 periods of transition of Cs 133 radiation take different amount of absolute time in different frames? The answer: The completion of 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation is dependent of the arrival of the required energy from the ether and the speed of arrival of this energy is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the Cs 133 clock.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 10:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o72bav$ufp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407690 |
On 2/3/2017 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > What causes time dilation? > The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation. > Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. Assertion is not an argument. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 10:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <77589359-44af-4bb7-b324-c174859d9caf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407692 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:32:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/3/2017 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > > What causes time dilation? > > The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation. > > Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. > > Assertion is not an argument. There is no assertion. What I said is correct according to IRT. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 12:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o72hia$1aj9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407710 |
On 2/3/2017 12:16 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:32:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/3/2017 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> What causes time dilation? >>> The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation. >>> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. >> >> Assertion is not an argument. > > There is no assertion. What I said is correct according to IRT. > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf And IRT is a baseless assertion. When you just SAY SOMETHING IS TRUE without making a sound case that it is true, then that's an assertion, Ken. You SAY IT IS TRUE that the only time that exists is absolute time, but you haven't made any sound case that it is true, then you have made an assertion. Assertion is not an argument. > > >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8343c6d0-063b-4d18-8be5-90a8e2303ddc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407711 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:18:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/3/2017 12:16 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:32:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/3/2017 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> What causes time dilation? > >>> The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation. > >>> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. > >> > >> Assertion is not an argument. > > > > There is no assertion. What I said is correct according to IRT. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > And IRT is a baseless assertion. Then SRT and LET are baseless assertions. In fact all physics theories are baseless assertions. Gee you are stupid. > > When you just SAY SOMETHING IS TRUE without making a sound case that it > is true, then that's an assertion, Ken. > > You SAY IT IS TRUE that the only time that exists is absolute time, but > you haven't made any sound case that it is true, then you have made an > assertion. > > Assertion is not an argument. > > > > > > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 12:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o72j31$1d32$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407718 |
On 2/3/2017 12:38 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:18:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/3/2017 12:16 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:32:34 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/3/2017 10:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> What causes time dilation? >>>>> The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation. >>>>> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable. >>>> >>>> Assertion is not an argument. >>> >>> There is no assertion. What I said is correct according to IRT. >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >> >> And IRT is a baseless assertion. > > Then SRT and LET are baseless assertions. In fact all physics theories are baseless > assertions. Gee you are stupid. Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with measured facts IS the case that the claim is true. THAT, Ken, is the difference. You have not made one single quantitative calculation and compared it to experiment. Not one. > >> >> When you just SAY SOMETHING IS TRUE without making a sound case that it >> is true, then that's an assertion, Ken. >> >> You SAY IT IS TRUE that the only time that exists is absolute time, but >> you haven't made any sound case that it is true, then you have made an >> assertion. >> >> Assertion is not an argument. >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 06:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o72ko4$1g61$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407721 |
On 04/02/17 05:44, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/3/2017 12:38 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> What causes time dilation? >>>>>> The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation. >>>>>> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute >>>>>> time is not dilatable. >>>>> >>>>> Assertion is not an argument. >>>> >>>> There is no assertion. What I said is correct according to IRT. >>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >>> >>> And IRT is a baseless assertion. >> >> Then SRT and LET are baseless assertions. In fact all physics theories >> are baseless >> assertions. Gee you are stupid. > > Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against > experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day > out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with > measured facts IS the case that the claim is true. Crap! Not one aspect of SRT has been verified by any experiment. > THAT, Ken, is the difference. You have not made one single quantitative > calculation and compared it to experiment. Not one. Time flow cannot be dependent of speed for the simple reason that speed has dimensions L/T. Of course time flow is absolute, universal and invariant. Gee, you really are stupid, Bodkin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 13:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o72m3i$1hut$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407724 |
On 2/3/2017 1:13 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > On 04/02/17 05:44, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/3/2017 12:38 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> What causes time dilation? >>>>>>> The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation. >>>>>>> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute >>>>>>> time is not dilatable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Assertion is not an argument. >>>>> >>>>> There is no assertion. What I said is correct according to IRT. >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf >>>> >>>> And IRT is a baseless assertion. >>> >>> Then SRT and LET are baseless assertions. In fact all physics theories >>> are baseless >>> assertions. Gee you are stupid. >> >> Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against >> experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day >> out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with >> measured facts IS the case that the claim is true. > > Crap! Not one aspect of SRT has been verified by any experiment. Denial of reality is an classified illness. > >> THAT, Ken, is the difference. You have not made one single quantitative >> calculation and compared it to experiment. Not one. > > Time flow cannot be dependent of speed for the simple reason that speed > has dimensions L/T. Argument on the basis of what goes on the left side of an equation? > > Of course time flow is absolute, universal and invariant. Assertion is not an argument. > > Gee, you really are stupid, Bodkin. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 05:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2db50cb4-6166-48ea-99c8-49bdb21c432b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407734 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:36:21 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/3/2017 1:13 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > On 04/02/17 05:44, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/3/2017 12:38 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > >>>>>>> What causes time dilation? > >>>>>>> The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation. > >>>>>>> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute > >>>>>>> time is not dilatable. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Assertion is not an argument. > >>>>> > >>>>> There is no assertion. What I said is correct according to IRT. > >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > >>>> > >>>> And IRT is a baseless assertion. > >>> > >>> Then SRT and LET are baseless assertions. In fact all physics theories > >>> are baseless > >>> assertions. Gee you are stupid. > >> > >> Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against > >> experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day > >> out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with > >> measured facts IS the case that the claim is true. > > > > Crap! Not one aspect of SRT has been verified by any experiment. > > Denial of reality is an classified illness. SRT is not based on reality. It is based on the assumption that the speed of light is a universal constant and such assumption is based on that the meter is redefined to be: 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds. In case you failed to realize.....that's using the speed of light to define the speed of light!!! Circular definition? You bet!! > > > > >> THAT, Ken, is the difference. You have not made one single quantitative > >> calculation and compared it to experiment. Not one. > > > > Time flow cannot be dependent of speed for the simple reason that speed > > has dimensions L/T. > > Argument on the basis of what goes on the left side of an equation? > > > > > Of course time flow is absolute, universal and invariant. > > Assertion is not an argument. > > > > > Gee, you really are stupid, Bodkin. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 16:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o74vdo$khs$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #407816 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:36:21 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against >> >> experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day >> >> out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with >> >> measured facts IS the case that the claim is true. >> > >> > Crap! Not one aspect of SRT has been verified by any experiment. >> >> Denial of reality is an classified illness. >SRT is not based on reality. It is based on the assumption that the speed >of light is a universal constant and such assumption is based on that the >meter is redefined to be: 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds. In case you >failed to realize.....that's using the speed of light to define the speed >of light!!! Circular definition? You bet!! No, Stupid Ken. That definition of the meter did not exist when Einstein derived SR. At that time, the meter was the length of some platinum rod in Paris. No circular definition. The fact is, no matter how much you and Ralph deny it, SR really is verified by experiment, day in and day out. If SR and GR didn't work, particle accelerators would never work, muons would never reach the ground and the GPS system would never work. Just to list a few. Of course, later we measured the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s. And we knew the speed of light was always the same regardless of source motion. Because it is much easier and more accurate to measure a distance by measuring the time light takes to traverse the distance than it is to measure the distance with a meter stick, the current most accurate definition of the meter does define it in terms of c, but note that this happened LONG AFTER it was known that SR was real and c was a constant. Relativity k00ks love to k00k about this definition of the meter, but they never acknowledge that SR was derived and understood long before that ever happened.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 08:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4e0b31e6-a121-47dc-9bf4-702af2f11d9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407829 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:27:38 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:36:21 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against > >> >> experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day > >> >> out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with > >> >> measured facts IS the case that the claim is true. > >> > > >> > Crap! Not one aspect of SRT has been verified by any experiment. > >> > >> Denial of reality is an classified illness. > > >SRT is not based on reality. It is based on the assumption that the speed > >of light is a universal constant and such assumption is based on that the > >meter is redefined to be: 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds. In case you > >failed to realize.....that's using the speed of light to define the speed > >of light!!! Circular definition? You bet!! > > No, Stupid Ken. That definition of the meter did not exist when Einstein > derived SR. At that time, the meter was the length of some platinum rod > in Paris. No circular definition. The point is: There is no need for a defined constant c. The redefinition of the meter is needed only for SRT. LET and IRT work just fine without such circular definition. > > The fact is, no matter how much you and Ralph deny it, SR really is > verified by experiment, day in and day out. If SR and GR didn't work, > particle accelerators would never work, muons would never reach the > ground and the GPS system would never work. Just to list a few. > > Of course, later we measured the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s. > And we knew the speed of light was always the same regardless of source > motion. Because it is much easier and more accurate to measure a distance > by measuring the time light takes to traverse the distance than it is to > measure the distance with a meter stick, the current most accurate > definition of the meter does define it in terms of c, but note that this > happened LONG AFTER it was known that SR was real and c was a constant. > Relativity k00ks love to k00k about this definition of the meter, but they > never acknowledge that SR was derived and understood long before that ever > happened.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o75idd$794$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #407834 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:27:38 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> Denial of reality is an classified illness. >> >> >SRT is not based on reality. It is based on the assumption that the speed >> >of light is a universal constant and such assumption is based on that the >> >meter is redefined to be: 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds. In case you >> >failed to realize.....that's using the speed of light to define the speed >> >of light!!! Circular definition? You bet!! >> >> No, Stupid Ken. That definition of the meter did not exist when Einstein >> derived SR. At that time, the meter was the length of some platinum rod >> in Paris. No circular definition. >The point is: There is no need for a defined constant c. No, Stupid Ken. Even when using Newtonian mechanics you need to use the speed of light constant. For example, designing antenna systems, waveguides, communicating with distant spacecraft and so forth. (technically, semi- Newtonian mechanics since pure Newtonian mechanics assumes the speed of light is infinite) >The redefinition of the meter is needed only for SRT. LET and IRT work just >fine without such circular definition. No, Stupid Ken. SR and LET work just fine with or without the current definition of the meter. IRT never works at all, so it doesn't matter. As I stated, the only reason for the change in definition is because it is easier and more accurate to measure distances by timing how long light takes to travel the distance than it is to measure it with a meter stick. Thus the meter being redefined in terms of c leads to more accurate measurements when necessary. Just like how redefining the second from 1/86,400 of a day to the cesium clock standard makes for more accurate measurements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 11:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <52255381-7b6d-4c9e-95a4-6b0d040efc4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407829 |
W dniu sobota, 4 lutego 2017 17:27:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > verified by experiment, day in and day out. If SR and GR didn't work, > particle accelerators would never work, muons would never reach the > ground and the GPS system would never work. Just to list a few. A lie , as expected from relativistic trash. GPS wouldn't work, if someone treated your Shit and your moronic "standards" seriously. And accelerators similiarly. >And we knew the speed of light was always the same regardless of source >motion. Even your idiot guru wasn't stupid enough to insist on that. GR rejects it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 17:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o75o3d$1u0s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407816 |
On 2/4/2017 7:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > SRT is not based on reality. It is based on the assumption that the speed of light > is a universal constant and such assumption is based on that the meter is redefined > to be: 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds. In case you failed to realize.....that's > using the speed of light to define the speed of light!!! Circular definition? You bet!! c was determined to be a constant experimentally decades before the meter was redefined. You were saying something about denying reality? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 15:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d5d60ad5-b6fb-47a4-967a-03ed89dc8645@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407894 |
W dniu niedziela, 5 lutego 2017 00:28:50 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > c was determined to be a constant experimentally decades before the > meter was redefined. Indeed. And in the same time the fact: c - v has been determined.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 16:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8eaeba28-a809-4375-b8f6-34467f8f88c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407894 |
W dniu niedziela, 5 lutego 2017 00:28:50 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > c was determined to be a constant experimentally decades before the > meter was redefined. c is constant, while speed of light is variable. Even your idiot guru was not stupid enough to insist it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 11:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d12e1efb-6c04-479a-9adc-faf8f73fc014@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407894 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 6:28:50 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/4/2017 7:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > > SRT is not based on reality. It is based on the assumption that the speed of light > > is a universal constant and such assumption is based on that the meter is redefined > > to be: 1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds. In case you failed to realize.....that's > > using the speed of light to define the speed of light!!! Circular definition? You bet!! > > > c was determined to be a constant experimentally decades before the > meter was redefined. c is constant locally....not universally. Why? Because a clock second use to define speed is not a universal interval of time. The LT predicts that a moving clock second is worth gamma seconds on the observer's clock. > > > You were saying something about denying reality? Yes it appears that you are denying reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 19:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o72ms3$cei$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #407724 |
"HGW, DSc." <HG@....> writes: >On 04/02/17 05:44, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/3/2017 12:38 PM, kenseto wrote: >> Physics theories can calculate numbers that can be matched against >> experimental observations. This has been done with SRT day in and day >> out. You've yet to do this even once. In science, the comparison with >> measured facts IS the case that the claim is true. >Crap! Not one aspect of SRT has been verified by any experiment. Ralph, you are in denial of reality. Do you realize that denial of reality means that you are delusional? Do you know what it means if you are delusional, Ralph? Let's say you had better contact a mental health professional, and quick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 03:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o7504o$ne6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407739 |
On 04/02/17 06:49, Michael Moroney wrote: <message deleted by nonsense filter>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 14:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <46514d40-1493-433e-a53e-9767226f5889@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407724 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:13:13 PM UTC-7, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > Crap! Not one aspect of SRT has been verified by any experiment. Repeating lies do not make them true. > Time flow cannot be dependent of speed for the simple reason that speed > has dimensions L/T. “Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking.” -- L. Frank Baum > Of course time flow is absolute, universal and invariant. "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." -- Albert Einstein > Gee, you really are stupid, Bodkin. “Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.” – Psalms 101:5 “A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.” ― George Eliot "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." — Harlan Ellison
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web