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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #474356 > unrolled thread

Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation

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

Contents

  Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 07:06 -0700
    Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 15:56 +0000
      Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 09:18 -0700
      Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 09:21 -0700
        Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 10:38 -0700
      Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-07 17:14 -0700
        Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 01:50 +0000
          Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-08 12:06 -0700
            Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 20:31 +0000
              Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-10-08 23:22 +0200
              Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-09 06:28 -0700
                Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation Paul Gish <uop@uwrwuao.tc> - 2018-10-09 14:02 +0000
    Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 19:19 +0000
      Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 12:33 -0700
        Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:36 +0000
          Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-07 14:03 -0700
    Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 12:51 -0700
      Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-10-08 23:23 +0200
        Re: Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-08 22:52 -0700

#474356 — Rejecting the SR concept of mutual time dilation

According to SR the rate of accumulating clock seconds by two clocks in relative motion is reciprocal. In other words, “A” predicts “B” accumulating clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma and “B” predicts that “A” accumulating clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma. This is known as “mutual time dilation”. The problem is: This reciprocity is never observed experimentally. Clocks will accumulate different number of clock seconds after a journey. This means that either “A” or “B” will accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate during relative motion and thus no asserted reciprocity.

The solution to the above problem is that each observer must include the possibility that the observed clock can run faster (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than his clock. In other words, “A” predicts that “B” accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma or at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. But only one of “A’s” prediction is correct. The above concept of time gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www/model (http://www/model)mechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#474365

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>The solution to the above problem

No, Stupid Ken, there is no problem, except in your addled mind.

>is that each observer must include the possibility that the observed 
>clock can run faster (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than 
>his clock.

Wrong. Such a theory cannot handle the following problem. (If you
disagree, show us!)

3 rockets leave the origin in the XY plane at the same time.  They all
move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.  Rocket A moves along
the +x direction.  Rocket B moves at a 120 degree angle to Rocket A/the x
axis, in the XY plane.  Rocket C moves at a 240 degree angle to A (or 120
degrees in the opposite direction), also in the XY plane.  Because of
geometry, Rockets B and C are also at a 120 degree angle to each other.


 B
  \
   \
    O------A
   /
  /
 C

Remember, all 3 rockets move at the same velocity as seen from O.

Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C.  A measures B's clock as
ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  A measures C's clock as
ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  In other words,
gamma=2 in both cases.

Tell us.  Using your IRT, what does B measure when measuring the rate of
A's clock? What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?

And now: What does B measure when measuring the rate of C's clock?
What does C measure when measuring the rate of B's clock?

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

#474367

On Sunday, 7 October 2018 17:56:43 UTC+2, Michael Moroney  wrote:

> 3 rockets leave the origin in the XY plane at the same time.  They all
> move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.  Rocket A moves along
> the +x direction.  Rocket B moves at a 120 degree angle to Rocket A/the x
> axis, in the XY plane.  Rocket C moves at a 240 degree angle to A (or 120
> degrees in the opposite direction), also in the XY plane.  Because of
> geometry, Rockets B and C are also at a 120 degree angle to each other.


We have GPS now, so we can be absolutely sure
these moroneyic delusions are nothing but
some delusions.

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

#474368

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

> Tell us.  Using your IRT, what does B measure when measuring the rate of
> A's clock? What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?

No answer idiot ken? your dIRT cant make any predictions?


> And now: What does B measure when measuring the rate of C's clock?
> What does C measure when measuring the rate of B's clock?

No answer idiot ken? your dIRT cant make any predictions?

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

#474377

The gravity strength you are in and your speed determine
slow time. There is a fastest time you begin to slow down from.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#474418

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >The solution to the above problem
> 
> No, Stupid Ken, there is no problem, except in your addled mind.
> 
> >is that each observer must include the possibility that the observed 
> >clock can run faster (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than 
> >his clock.
> 
> Wrong. Such a theory cannot handle the following problem. (If you
> disagree, show us!)
> 
> 3 rockets leave the origin in the XY plane at the same time.  They all
> move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.  Rocket A moves along
> the +x direction.  Rocket B moves at a 120 degree angle to Rocket A/the x
> axis, in the XY plane.  Rocket C moves at a 240 degree angle to A (or 120
> degrees in the opposite direction), also in the XY plane.  Because of
> geometry, Rockets B and C are also at a 120 degree angle to each other.
> 
> 
>  B
>   \
>    \
>     O------A
>    /
>   /
>  C
> 
> Remember, all 3 rockets move at the same velocity as seen from O.

No Moron, A, B and C cannot use O as reference for velocity wrt each other. Each observer must measure each other’s velocity and use the LT to calculate each other’s clock rate.

> 
> Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C.  A measures B's clock as
> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  A measures C's clock as
> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  In other words,
> gamma=2 in both cases.

No moron, A does not measure B’s clock rate....he predicts. 

> 
> Tell us.  Using your IRT, what does B measure when measuring the rate of
> A's clock? What does C measure when measuring the rate of A’s clock?

IRT says:
A measures B’s velocity and gets a gamma factor of Gamma_ab then use the LT to predict B’s clock rate as running slow by a factor of 1/gamma_ab.
A measures B’s velocity and gets a gamma factor of Gamma_ab then use the LT to predict that B’s clock rate as running fast by a factor Gamma_ab
Only one of the above prediction is correct.

B follows the above procedure to predict the clock rate of A and C.
C follows the above procedure to predict the clock rate of A and B.

> 
> And now: What does B measure when measuring the rate of C's clock?
> What does C measure when measuring the rate of B's clock?

See above.

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

#474427

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> >The solution to the above problem

>> No, Stupid Ken, there is no problem, except in your addled mind.

>> >is that each observer must include the possibility that the observed
>> >clock can run faster (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than
>> >his clock.

>> Wrong. Such a theory cannot handle the following problem. (If you
>> disagree, show us!)

>> 3 rockets leave the origin in the XY plane at the same time.  They all
>> move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.  Rocket A moves along
>> the +x direction.  Rocket B moves at a 120 degree angle to Rocket A/the x
>> axis, in the XY plane.  Rocket C moves at a 240 degree angle to A (or 120
>> degrees in the opposite direction), also in the XY plane.  Because of
>> geometry, Rockets B and C are also at a 120 degree angle to each other.


>>  B
>>   \
>>    \
>>     O------A
>>    /
>>   /
>>  C

>> Remember, all 3 rockets move at the same velocity as seen from O.

>No Moron, A, B and C cannot use O as reference for velocity wrt each other.

Why not? They left from O.

>> Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C.  A measures B's clock as
>> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  A measures C's clock as
>> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  In other words,
>> gamma=2 in both cases.

>No moron, A does not measure B's clock rate....he predicts.

And why couldn't A measure?

>> Tell us.  Using your IRT, what does B measure when measuring the rate of
>> A's clock? What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?

>IRT says:

<snip empty blather>

I see that IRT, or you, are unable to make any predictions from my
initial conditions. Just as I thought. Just as well, since if you did,
you'd quickly find a contradiction and the problem isn't doable.
Meanwhile, SR has no problem with this situation.

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

#474490

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:50:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >> >The solution to the above problem
> 
> >> No, Stupid Ken, there is no problem, except in your addled mind.
> 
> >> >is that each observer must include the possibility that the observed
> >> >clock can run faster (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than
> >> >his clock.
> 
> >> Wrong. Such a theory cannot handle the following problem. (If you
> >> disagree, show us!)
> 
> >> 3 rockets leave the origin in the XY plane at the same time.  They all
> >> move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.  Rocket A moves along
> >> the +x direction.  Rocket B moves at a 120 degree angle to Rocket A/the x
> >> axis, in the XY plane.  Rocket C moves at a 240 degree angle to A (or 120
> >> degrees in the opposite direction), also in the XY plane.  Because of
> >> geometry, Rockets B and C are also at a 120 degree angle to each other.
> 
> 
> >>  B
> >>   \
> >>    \
> >>     O------A
> >>    /
> >>   /
> >>  C
> 
> >> Remember, all 3 rockets move at the same velocity as seen from O.
> 
> >No Moron, A, B and C cannot use O as reference for velocity wrt each other.
> 
> Why not? They left from O.

You can use O as reference only if O is in a state of absolute rest. But no object in the universe (including O)  is in a state of absolute rest.
> 
> >> Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C.  A measures B's clock as
> >> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  A measures C's clock as
> >> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  In other words,
> >> gamma=2 in both cases.
> 
> >No moron, A does not measure B's clock rate....he predicts.
> 
> And why couldn’t A measure?

Moron, He doesn’t measure clock rate of B. He predict B’s relative velocity by assuming that light from B is at constant c and from that he predict B’s velocity relative to him Vab. He then use the Vab to calculate the value of Gamma_ab. Then he use the LT to predict the clock rate of B.  
> 
> >> Tell us.  Using your IRT, what does B measure when measuring the rate of
> >> A's clock? What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?
> 
> >IRT says:
> 
> <snip empty blather>

Moron, you snipped the correct calculations. 
> 
> I see that IRT, or you, are unable to make any predictions from my
> initial conditions. Just as I thought. Just as well, since if you did,
> you'd quickly find a contradiction and the problem isn't doable.
> Meanwhile, SR has no problem with this situation.

Moron I showed you the correct IRT calculations. Gee you are so fcucking stupid. No wonder you name is Moron_y.

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

#474499

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:50:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> >On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> >> >The solution to the above problem

>> >> No, Stupid Ken, there is no problem, except in your addled mind.

>> >> >is that each observer must include the possibility that the observed
>> >> >clock can run faster (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than
>> >> >his clock.

>> >> Wrong. Such a theory cannot handle the following problem. (If you
>> >> disagree, show us!)

>> >> 3 rockets leave the origin in the XY plane at the same time.  They all
>> >> move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.  Rocket A moves along
>> >> the +x direction.  Rocket B moves at a 120 degree angle to Rocket A/the x
>> >> axis, in the XY plane.  Rocket C moves at a 240 degree angle to A (or 120
>> >> degrees in the opposite direction), also in the XY plane.  Because of
>> >> geometry, Rockets B and C are also at a 120 degree angle to each other.


>> >>  B
>> >>   \
>> >>    \
>> >>     O------A
>> >>    /
>> >>   /
>> >>  C

>> >> Remember, all 3 rockets move at the same velocity as seen from O.

>> >No Moron, A, B and C cannot use O as reference for velocity wrt each other.

>> Why not? They left from O.

>You can use O as reference only if O is in a state of absolute rest. But no
>object in the universe (including O)  is in a state of absolute rest.

So IRT is useless also because it cannot find any relative velocity
because nothing in the universe is in a state of absolute rest?

As if we needed another reason!

Anyway, all 3 spaceships leave O at the same speed, then we ignore O and
measure/predict the velocities between them.

>> >> Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C.  A measures B's clock as
>> >> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  A measures C's clock as
>> >> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  In other words,
>> >> gamma=2 in both cases.

>> >No moron, A does not measure B's clock rate....he predicts.

>> And why couldn't A measure?

>Moron, He doesn't measure clock rate of B. He predict B's relative 
>velocity by assuming that light from B is at constant c and from that he 
>predict B's velocity relative to him Vab. He then use the Vab to 
>calculate the value of Gamma_ab. Then he use the LT to predict the clock 
>rate of B.

So why can't A do both? Predict the relative velocity and measure it?

>> >> Tell us.  Using your IRT, what does B measure when measuring the rate of
>> >> A's clock? What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?

>> >IRT says:

>> <snip empty blather>

>Moron, you snipped the correct calculations.

THERE WEREN'T ANY CALCULATIONS! Only your explanations of how IRT works.

>> I see that IRT, or you, are unable to make any predictions from my
>> initial conditions. Just as I thought. Just as well, since if you did,
>> you'd quickly find a contradiction and the problem isn't doable.
>> Meanwhile, SR has no problem with this situation.

>Moron I showed you the correct IRT calculations. Gee you are so fcucking 
>stupid. No wonder you name is Moron_y.

THERE WEREN'T ANY CALCULATIONS!!!

Now, can you solve this problem?  Since I know you can't do math, I'll
even do the calculations for you if you give the IRT expressions and the
values to substitute for the variables.

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

#474504

Op 08-okt-2018 om 22:31 schreef Michael Moroney:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:50:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
>>>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
>>>>>> The solution to the above problem
> 
>>>>> No, Stupid Ken, there is no problem, except in your addled mind.
> 
>>>>>> is that each observer must include the possibility that the observed
>>>>>> clock can run faster (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than
>>>>>> his clock.
> 
>>>>> Wrong. Such a theory cannot handle the following problem. (If you
>>>>> disagree, show us!)
> 
>>>>> 3 rockets leave the origin in the XY plane at the same time.  They all
>>>>> move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.  Rocket A moves along
>>>>> the +x direction.  Rocket B moves at a 120 degree angle to Rocket A/the x
>>>>> axis, in the XY plane.  Rocket C moves at a 240 degree angle to A (or 120
>>>>> degrees in the opposite direction), also in the XY plane.  Because of
>>>>> geometry, Rockets B and C are also at a 120 degree angle to each other.
> 
> 
>>>>>   B
>>>>>    \
>>>>>     \
>>>>>      O------A
>>>>>     /
>>>>>    /
>>>>>   C
> 
>>>>> Remember, all 3 rockets move at the same velocity as seen from O.
> 
>>>> No Moron, A, B and C cannot use O as reference for velocity wrt each other.
> 
>>> Why not? They left from O.
> 
>> You can use O as reference only if O is in a state of absolute rest. But no
>> object in the universe (including O)  is in a state of absolute rest.
> 
> So IRT is useless also because it cannot find any relative velocity
> because nothing in the universe is in a state of absolute rest?
> 
> As if we needed another reason!
> 
> Anyway, all 3 spaceships leave O at the same speed, then we ignore O and
> measure/predict the velocities between them.
> 
>>>>> Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C.  A measures B's clock as
>>>>> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  A measures C's clock as
>>>>> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  In other words,
>>>>> gamma=2 in both cases.
> 
>>>> No moron, A does not measure B's clock rate....he predicts.
> 
>>> And why couldn't A measure?
> 
>> Moron, He doesn't measure clock rate of B. He predict B's relative
>> velocity by assuming that light from B is at constant c and from that he
>> predict B's velocity relative to him Vab. He then use the Vab to
>> calculate the value of Gamma_ab. Then he use the LT to predict the clock
>> rate of B.
> 
> So why can't A do both? Predict the relative velocity and measure it?
> 
>>>>> Tell us.  Using your IRT, what does B measure when measuring the rate of
>>>>> A's clock? What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?
> 
>>>> IRT says:
> 
>>> <snip empty blather>
> 
>> Moron, you snipped the correct calculations.
> 
> THERE WEREN'T ANY CALCULATIONS! Only your explanations of how IRT works.

These are Seto's calculations:

} IRT says:
} A measures B’s velocity and gets a gamma factor of Gamma_ab then use
} the LT to predict B’s clock rate as running slow by a factor of
} 1/gamma_ab.
} A measures B’s velocity and gets a gamma factor of Gamma_ab then
} use the LT to predict that B’s clock rate as running fast by a
} factor Gamma_ab
} Only one of the above prediction is correct.
}
} B follows the above procedure to predict the clock rate of A and C.
} C follows the above procedure to predict the clock rate of A and B.

You see, never challenge an idiot. All, you'll get is
another bucket of horse manure over your head, and *you*
are the one who needs the shower.

Dirk Vdm

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

#474535

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:31:39 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:50:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >> >On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 11:56:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >> >> >The solution to the above problem
> 
> >> >> No, Stupid Ken, there is no problem, except in your addled mind.
> 
> >> >> >is that each observer must include the possibility that the observed
> >> >> >clock can run faster (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than
> >> >> >his clock.
> 
> >> >> Wrong. Such a theory cannot handle the following problem. (If you
> >> >> disagree, show us!)
> 
> >> >> 3 rockets leave the origin in the XY plane at the same time.  They all
> >> >> move at the same speed, as measured at the origin O.  Rocket A moves along
> >> >> the +x direction.  Rocket B moves at a 120 degree angle to Rocket A/the x
> >> >> axis, in the XY plane.  Rocket C moves at a 240 degree angle to A (or 120
> >> >> degrees in the opposite direction), also in the XY plane.  Because of
> >> >> geometry, Rockets B and C are also at a 120 degree angle to each other.
> 
> 
> >> >>  B
> >> >>   \
> >> >>    \
> >> >>     O------A
> >> >>    /
> >> >>   /
> >> >>  C
> 
> >> >> Remember, all 3 rockets move at the same velocity as seen from O.
> 
> >> >No Moron, A, B and C cannot use O as reference for velocity wrt each other.
> 
> >> Why not? They left from O.
> 
> >You can use O as reference only if O is in a state of absolute rest. But no
> >object in the universe (including O)  is in a state of absolute rest.
> 
> So IRT is useless also because it cannot find any relative velocity
> because nothing in the universe is in a state of absolute rest?

Idiot I already showed you how to get relative velocity between any two objects. Here it is again:
v=c/2((source frequency - incoming return frequency)/source frequency))
Gee you are so stupid......no wonder you can solve the simple problem of (-6/-3).
> 
> As if we needed another reason!
> 
> Anyway, all 3 spaceships leave O at the same speed, then we ignore O and
> measure/predict the velocities between them.

Moron, that’s exactly what IRT says. It is irrelevant what speed they leave O. Each observer must determine the velocities of the other two to get the gamma factor to predict the the clock rates of the other two.
> 
> >> >> Now, A measures the clock rates of B and C.  A measures B's clock as
> >> >> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  A measures C's clock as
> >> >> ticking at exactly half the rate of A's clock.  In other words,
> >> >> gamma=2 in both cases.
> 
> >> >No moron, A does not measure B's clock rate....he predicts.
> 
> >> And why couldn't A measure?
> 
> >Moron, He doesn't measure clock rate of B. He predict B's relative 
> >velocity by assuming that light from B is at constant c and from that he 
> >predict B's velocity relative to him Vab. He then use the Vab to 
> >calculate the value of Gamma_ab. Then he use the LT to predict the clock 
> >rate of B.
> 
> So why can't A do both? Predict the relative velocity and measure it?
> 
> >> >> Tell us.  Using your IRT, what does B measure when measuring the rate of
> >> >> A's clock? What does C measure when measuring the rate of A's clock?
> 
> >> >IRT says:
> 
> >> <snip empty blather>
> 
> >Moron, you snipped the correct calculations.
> 
> THERE WEREN'T ANY CALCULATIONS! Only your explanations of how IRT works.
> 
> >> I see that IRT, or you, are unable to make any predictions from my
> >> initial conditions. Just as I thought. Just as well, since if you did,
> >> you'd quickly find a contradiction and the problem isn't doable.
> >> Meanwhile, SR has no problem with this situation.
> 
> >Moron I showed you the correct IRT calculations. Gee you are so fcucking 
> >stupid. No wonder you name is Moron_y.
> 
> THERE WEREN'T ANY CALCULATIONS!!!
> 
> Now, can you solve this problem?  Since I know you can't do math, I'll
> even do the calculations for you if you give the IRT expressions and the
> values to substitute for the variables.

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

#474538

kenseto wrote:

> On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:31:39 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> So IRT is useless also because it cannot find any relative velocity
>> because nothing in the universe is in a state of absolute rest?
> 
> Idiot I already showed you how to get relative velocity between any two
> objects. Here it is again:
> v=c/2((source frequency - incoming return frequency)/source frequency))
> Gee you are so stupid......no wonder you can solve the simple problem of
> (-6/-3).

Excellent approach. We all are thankinging you.

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

#474389

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> According to SR the rate of accumulating clock seconds by two clocks in
> relative motion is reciprocal. In other words, “A” predicts “B”
> accumulating clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma and “B” predicts that “A”
> accumulating clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma. This is known as “mutual
> time dilation”. The problem is: This reciprocity is never observed experimentally. 

Untrue. 

> Clocks will accumulate different number of clock seconds after a journey. 

That’s not the case where it is observed. 

> This means that either “A” or “B” will accumulate clock seconds at a
> faster rate during relative motion and thus no asserted reciprocity.
> 
> The solution to the above problem is that each observer must include the
> possibility that the observed clock can run faster (accumulates clock
> seconds at a faster rate) than his clock. In other words, “A” predicts
> that “B” accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma
> or at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. But only one of “A’s”
> prediction is correct. The above concept of time gives rise to a new
> theory of relativity called IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the
> following link: http://www/model (http://www/model)mechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> 



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

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

#474393

On Sunday, 7 October 2018 21:19:48 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin  wrote:

> 
> > Clocks will accumulate different number of clock seconds after a journey. 
> 
> That’s not the case where it is observed. 


That's only a case where some fanatic idiots
scream and wave their arms.

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

#474402

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 October 2018 21:19:48 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> Clocks will accumulate different number of clock seconds after a journey. 
>> 
>> That’s not the case where it is observed. 
> 
> 
> That's only a case where some fanatic idiots
> scream and wave their arms.
> 
> 

Not true. That may be the only thing you’re aware of. But you’re uneducated
in this field. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#474408

On Sunday, 7 October 2018 22:36:56 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 7 October 2018 21:19:48 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >>> Clocks will accumulate different number of clock seconds after a journey. 
> >> 
> >> That’s not the case where it is observed. 
> > 
> > 
> > That's only a case where some fanatic idiots
> > scream and wave their arms.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Not true. That may be the only thing you’re aware of. But you’re uneducated
> in this field. 

A lie. As expected from fanatic trash, imagining
that GPS engineers made GPS broken.

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

#474492

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 7:06:02 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> According to SR the rate of accumulating clock seconds by two clocks in relative motion is reciprocal. In other words, “A” predicts “B” accumulating clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma and “B” predicts that “A” accumulating clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma. This is known as “mutual time dilation”. The problem is: This reciprocity is never observed experimentally. Clocks will accumulate different number of clock seconds after a journey. This means that either “A” or “B” will accumulate clock seconds at a faster rate during relative motion and thus no asserted reciprocity.
> 
> The solution to the above problem is that each observer must include the possibility that the observed clock can run faster (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than his clock. In other words, “A” predicts that “B” accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma or at a faster rate by a factor of gamma. But only one of “A’s” prediction is correct. The above concept of time gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www/model (http://www/model)mechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

You are stuck on that after how many decades?

--
Jan

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

#474505

Op 08-okt-2018 om 21:51 schreef JanPB:
> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 7:06:02 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> According to SR the rate of accumulating clock seconds by two
>> clocks in relative motion is reciprocal. In other words, “A”
>> predicts “B” accumulating clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma and
>> “B” predicts that “A” accumulating clock seconds at a rate of
>> 1/gamma. This is known as “mutual time dilation”. The problem is:
>> This reciprocity is never observed experimentally. Clocks will
>> accumulate different number of clock seconds after a journey. This
>> means that either “A” or “B” will accumulate clock seconds at a
>> faster rate during relative motion and thus no asserted
>> reciprocity.
>> 
>> The solution to the above problem is that each observer must
>> include the possibility that the observed clock can run faster
>> (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than his clock. In
>> other words, “A” predicts that “B” accumulate clock seconds at a
>> slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma or at a faster rate by a factor
>> of gamma. But only one of “A’s” prediction is correct. The above
>> concept of time gives rise to a new theory of relativity called
>> IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
>> http://www/model (http://www/model)mechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> 
> You are stuck on that after how many decades?

Three.
And counting.

Dirk Vdm

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

#474524

On Monday, 8 October 2018 23:23:35 UTC+2, Dirk Van de moortel  wrote:
> Op 08-okt-2018 om 21:51 schreef JanPB:
> > On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 7:06:02 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >> According to SR the rate of accumulating clock seconds by two
> >> clocks in relative motion is reciprocal. In other words, “A”
> >> predicts “B” accumulating clock seconds at a rate of 1/gamma and
> >> “B” predicts that “A” accumulating clock seconds at a rate of
> >> 1/gamma. This is known as “mutual time dilation”. The problem is:
> >> This reciprocity is never observed experimentally. Clocks will
> >> accumulate different number of clock seconds after a journey. This
> >> means that either “A” or “B” will accumulate clock seconds at a
> >> faster rate during relative motion and thus no asserted
> >> reciprocity.
> >> 
> >> The solution to the above problem is that each observer must
> >> include the possibility that the observed clock can run faster
> >> (accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate) than his clock. In
> >> other words, “A” predicts that “B” accumulate clock seconds at a
> >> slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma or at a faster rate by a factor
> >> of gamma. But only one of “A’s” prediction is correct. The above
> >> concept of time gives rise to a new theory of relativity called
> >> IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
> >> http://www/model (http://www/model)mechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> > 
> > You are stuck on that after how many decades?
> 
> Three.
> And counting.

You're probably stuck on your Shit longer.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web