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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407690 > unrolled thread

What Causes of TIME Dilation?

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

Contents

  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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#407954

On 2/4/2017 5:37 PM, pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote:
> Do you realize that the kenseto can't understand any of what you wrote?

I understand that 90% of what Ken writes is something that he has 
borrowed from someone else. Examples are "Assertion is not an argument" 
and "ROTFL. Pot, kettle, black."

Ken has for years claimed for himself the work done by others, including 
his own family's accomplishments. He's a pathological thief.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#407970

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 10:35:37 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/4/2017 5:37 PM, pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote:
> > Do you realize that the kenseto can't understand any of what you wrote?
> 
> I understand that 90% of what Ken writes is something that he has 
> borrowed from someone else. Examples are "Assertion is not an argument" 
> and "ROTFL. Pot, kettle, black."

Idiot....if you look it up you will find that I was the originator of assertion is not a valid argument. Gee you are stupid....you want to waste time arguing who originated a stupid phrase instead of discussing physics. 

> 
> Ken has for years claimed for himself the work done by others, including 
> his own family's accomplishments. He's a pathological thief.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#407980

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 9:27:53 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>
> Idiot....if you look it up you will find that I was the originator of
> assertion is not a valid argument.

No, you weren't.  I used it before you did, and it originated from neither
of us.

> Gee you are stupid....you want to waste time arguing who originated a
> stupid phrase instead of discussing physics. 

You delude yourself in believing that what you discuss is physics.  It's
not.  It's nothing but cow plop.

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

#408123

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 11:47:51 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 9:27:53 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > Idiot....if you look it up you will find that I was the originator of
> > assertion is not a valid argument.
> 
> No, you weren't.  I used it before you did, and it originated from neither
> of us.
> 
> > Gee you are stupid....you want to waste time arguing who originated a
> > stupid phrase instead of discussing physics. 
> 
> You delude yourself in believing that what you discuss is physics.  It's
> not.  It's nothing but cow plop.

What I said is more physics than you. You said that two identical clocks in a moving Van can show a difference in accumulated time after a journey.

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

#407984

On 2/5/2017 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 10:35:37 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/4/2017 5:37 PM, pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote:
>>> Do you realize that the kenseto can't understand any of what you wrote?
>>
>> I understand that 90% of what Ken writes is something that he has
>> borrowed from someone else. Examples are "Assertion is not an argument"
>> and "ROTFL. Pot, kettle, black."
>
> Idiot....if you look it up you will find that I was the originator of assertion is not a
> valid argument. Gee you are stupid....you want to waste time arguing who originated a
> stupid phrase instead of discussing physics.

It's a matter of your character, Ken.
You have a pattern of defects of character, which is exhibited in your 
history. It has an impact on how you think.

>
>>
>> Ken has for years claimed for himself the work done by others, including
>> his own family's accomplishments. He's a pathological thief.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#408124

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 11:55:44 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/5/2017 10:27 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 10:35:37 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 2/4/2017 5:37 PM, pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote:
> >>> Do you realize that the kenseto can't understand any of what you wrote?
> >>
> >> I understand that 90% of what Ken writes is something that he has
> >> borrowed from someone else. Examples are "Assertion is not an argument"
> >> and "ROTFL. Pot, kettle, black."
> >
> > Idiot....if you look it up you will find that I was the originator of assertion is not a
> > valid argument. Gee you are stupid....you want to waste time arguing who originated a
> > stupid phrase instead of discussing physics.
> 
> It's a matter of your character, Ken.
> You have a pattern of defects of character, which is exhibited in your 
> history. It has an impact on how you think.


ROTFLOL.....pot,kettle black.
> 
> >
> >>
> >> Ken has for years claimed for himself the work done by others, including
> >> his own family's accomplishments. He's a pathological thief.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#407995

kenseto wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > pcardinale wrote:
< > >
> > > Do you realize that the kenseto can't understand any of what
< > > you wrote?
> >
> > I understand that 90% of what Ken writes is something that he
> > has borrowed from someone else. Examples are "Assertion is not
> > an argument" and "ROTFL. Pot, kettle, black."
>
> Idiot....if you look it up you will find that I was the originator
> of assertion is not a valid argument.

You're a very stupid liar, Kenseto. That axiom is attributed to
Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784, well before your time.

You're a bumbling idiot.

----snup----

> > Ken has for years claimed for himself the work done by
> > others, including his own family's accomplishments.
> > He's a pathological thief.

Don't you mmean "compulsive" or some such?

Ned

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

#407714 — Re: What Causes Ken Shito's imbecility?

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 10:16:31 AM UTC-8, 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
> 
> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Q: What causes Ken Shito's imbecility? 
A: He was born this way. 

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

#407695

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:30:28 AM UTC-10, 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.
> 
> 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.

Time theory has made progress. Time grows out of matter at the speed c.
If you travel away from matter that exudes time, less time can pass you 
as you depart the Earth. If you go 1/2 of c speed, then only half 
of the time from Earth can pass by your rocket. Dilation is shrinkage.

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

#407717

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-5, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:30:28 AM UTC-10, 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Time theory has made progress. Time grows out of matter at the speed c.
> If you travel away from matter that exudes time, less time can pass you 
> as you depart the Earth. If you go 1/2 of c speed, then only half 
> of the time from Earth can pass by your rocket. Dilation is shrinkage.

Your model of time is refuted by the GPS.

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

#407715

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>What causes time dilation?

Why are you parading your ignorance here?
I keep telling you to learn SR for once, so that you'd know the answer.

<snip unsupported assertions>

Ken, you always say "assertion is not evidence" yet here you post assertion
after assertion and claim it is all true.  Why do you do this if you
already know it's not evidence, and you have no evidence at all?

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

#407719

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:32:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >What causes time dilation?
> 
> Why are you parading your ignorance here?
> I keep telling you to learn SR for once, so that you'd know the answer.
> 
> <snip unsupported assertions>
> 
> Ken, you always say "assertion is not evidence" yet here you post assertion
> after assertion and claim it is all true.  Why do you do this if you
> already know it's not evidence, and you have no evidence at all?

No wonder your name is Moron-y.

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

#407737

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:32:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >What causes time dilation?
>> 
>> Why are you parading your ignorance here?
>> I keep telling you to learn SR for once, so that you'd know the answer.
>> 
>> <snip unsupported assertions>
>> 
>> Ken, you always say "assertion is not evidence" yet here you post assertion
>> after assertion and claim it is all true.  Why do you do this if you
>> already know it's not evidence, and you have no evidence at all?

>No wonder your name is Moron-y.

Is all you have are insults, Stupid Ken? I asked a simple question, why do
you make a bunch of assertions if you know that "assertion is not evidence"?

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

#407743

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>No wonder your name is Moron-y.
> 
> Is all you have are insults, Stupid Ken? I asked a simple question, why
> do

No, really. Your name is Moron(ey). Take a look.

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

#407729

On 04/02/17 03:30, 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.

This is true. The idea of 'time dilation' came originally from the
logically flawed 'light clock' notion that a vertical light beam becomes 
diagonal in a moving frame.

> Why then clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at
> different rates?

Motion can have no effect on time or the oscillators that drive clocks.

> 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.

That might be true in aether theories...but there is NO aether.
Time dilation has never been detected and doesn't happen. The whole idea
is ridiculous and supported mainly by idiots who think they might be 
able to live forever.

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

#407742

kenseto wrote:

> 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.

Absolutely correct. Even thought you forgot to explain why they accumulate 
those things differently. Only my Divergent Matter Model can explain that.

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

#407750

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 8:30:28 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> What causes time dilation?

We don't know. We do have a mathematical model representing it.

> The answer: Nothing....there is no such thing as time dilation.

There is. Otherwise particle accelerators costing lots of money would
not work.

> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is not dilatable.

It's just a random claim. Nobody knows that for sure.

(The rest of your post is just a repetition of your pet claims, most
of them in the "not even wrong" category.)

--
Jan

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

#407752

JanPB wrote:

>> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is
>> not dilatable.
> 
> It's just a random claim. Nobody knows that for sure.

Way you should do! Locally time is NOT dilatable, as Dr. Kenseto correctly 
suggests.

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

#407780

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC-8, Emmaline Coots wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time is
> >> not dilatable.
> > 
> > It's just a random claim. Nobody knows that for sure.
> 
> Way you should do! Locally time is NOT dilatable, as Dr. Kenseto correctly 
> suggests.

You are just _saying_ "Locally time is NOT dilatable". Anyone can say anything.

--
Jan

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

#407805

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC-8, Emmaline Coots wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> >> Why? Because the only TIME exists is absolute time and absolute time
>> >> is not dilatable.
>> > 
>> > It's just a random claim. Nobody knows that for sure.
>> 
>> Way you should do! Locally time is NOT dilatable, as Dr. Kenseto
>> correctly suggests.
> 
> You are just _saying_ "Locally time is NOT dilatable". Anyone can say
> anything. -- Jan

Yes, you are right of course. It's just saying. But in Science what counts 
is that you can't say anything to the contrary. 

By convention the Natural Frequency of Caesium is taken as constant and 
Standard. That thing is NOT dilatable L O C A L L Y - which is the same 
thing to say. As Dr. Kenseto very correctly suggests.

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web