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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479904 > unrolled thread

How does gravity slow time?

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

Contents

  How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-15 15:22 -0800
    Re: How does gravity slow time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 00:30 +0100
      Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-16 06:04 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 15:28 +0100
    Re: How does gravity slow time? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-15 15:44 -0800
      Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 16:17 -0800
    Re: How does gravity slow time? Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-16 01:02 +0000
      Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 20:14 -0800
    Re: How does gravity slow time? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 20:54 -0800
    Re: How does gravity slow time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-16 00:05 -0600
      Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-16 06:16 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 14:22 +0000
      Re: How does gravity slow time? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-16 13:08 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 13:56 -0800
          Re: How does gravity slow time? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-16 14:29 -0800
            Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 14:32 -0800
      Re: How does gravity slow time? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 19:36 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-16 23:57 -0600
          Re: How does gravity slow time? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-16 22:08 -0800
          Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-17 05:58 -0800
          Re: How does gravity slow time? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 10:29 -0800
            Re: How does gravity slow time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-20 20:42 -0600
              Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-21 06:30 -0800
    Re: How does gravity slow time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 06:15 +0000
      Re: How does gravity slow time? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 06:14 -0800
      Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-16 06:17 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-16 14:26 +0000
          Re: How does gravity slow time? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 14:30 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-16 06:27 -0800
    How does gravity slow time? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-16 09:22 -0800
      Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 11:58 -0800
    Re: How does gravity slow time? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 14:25 -0800
      Re: How does gravity slow time? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-16 14:44 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 15:21 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 15:24 -0800
          Re: How does gravity slow time? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-16 16:05 -0800
            Re: How does gravity slow time? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 01:14 -0800
              Re: How does gravity slow time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-17 06:43 -0800
              Re: How does gravity slow time? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-17 09:52 -0800
                Re: How does gravity slow time? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 11:53 -0800
                  Re: How does gravity slow time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-17 14:55 -0600
                    Re: How does gravity slow time? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 15:41 -0800
                      Re: How does gravity slow time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-17 23:32 -0800
                    Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 17:21 -0800
                  Re: How does gravity slow time? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-18 08:47 -0800
                    Re: How does gravity slow time? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 14:04 -0800
                      Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 14:13 -0800
                      Re: How does gravity slow time? alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-20 13:36 -0800
                        Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 14:43 -0800
                          Re: How does gravity slow time? Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-20 23:46 +0000
                            Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 16:31 -0800
                              Re: How does gravity slow time? Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-21 13:56 +0000
      Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-17 06:58 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 17:47 +0000
          Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-17 14:41 -0800
            Re: How does gravity slow time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 02:23 +0000
              Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-18 06:13 -0800
                Re: How does gravity slow time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 14:17 +0000
                  Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-19 07:06 -0800
                    Re: How does gravity slow time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-19 15:18 +0000
                    Re: How does gravity slow time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 19:00 +0000
                      Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-19 13:16 -0800
                        Re: How does gravity slow time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 02:35 +0000
                          Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 07:24 -0800
                            Re: How does gravity slow time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 15:48 +0000
                              Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:26 -0800
                                Re: How does gravity slow time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 22:53 +0000
                  Re: How does gravity slow time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 19:00 +0000
            Re: How does gravity slow time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 14:17 +0000
              Re: How does gravity slow time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-19 06:21 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-17 19:01 +0000
          Re: How does gravity slow time? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 11:40 -0800
          Re: How does gravity slow time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-17 11:44 -0800
          Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-17 15:17 -0800
            Re: How does gravity slow time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-18 04:50 +0000
              Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-18 07:27 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 11:55 -0800
    Re: How does gravity slow time? Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2018-12-17 08:21 +0100
      Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-17 06:15 -0800
        Re: How does gravity slow time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-17 18:49 +0000
          Re: How does gravity slow time? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 12:18 -0800
          Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-17 15:00 -0800
            Re: How does gravity slow time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-18 04:24 +0000
              Re: How does gravity slow time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-17 23:35 -0800
              Re: How does gravity slow time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-18 06:57 -0800

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#480067

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/16/18 9:36 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Any observation reflects what reality is perceived to be. For
> > example, when one tries to measure the length of a ladder, an
> > observation must be performed, and the result should somewhat
> > confidently represent what the length is. Clock tick measurement
> > should be no different. 
> 
> Yes. But to compare clock tick rates, one must compare clock tick rates, 
> and not SIGNALS from the other clock. Using signals, one must correct 
> for any effects on the signals;

You are mistaking clock tick rates with Doppler frequency.  You can easily record a movie and send the whole video to another.  In classical system, a remote, local second will always tick as an observed second regardless how skewed the signal is (Doppler shift).

> in GR the entire effect is due to the way signals are measured.

There are no such differences in GR.  What is discussed above also applies to GR.  A remote, local second can easily be observed from a movie regardless how GR Doppler shift it is.

> As I said.

This is all in the mathematics as well.  What you said is attempting to stir up mysticism.

> > So, an observation should confidently determine whose clock tick rate
> > is running slower or faster just through observations. 
> 
> Only if the clocks ACTUALLY tick at different rates. They don't.

According to the GR mathematics, they must tick at different rates.  That is why two clocks synchronized to the same time at the same altitude will accumulate different amounts of time at different altitude.  Thus, the only proper interpretation to such observations can only be that each altitude manifests its own clock tick rate.

> one finds that identical clocks tick at identical proper rates,

There is no such thing as the proper time.  Both SR and GR mathematics do not say such mystic physics exists.  It is all made up.

Finally, GR has a problem claiming everywhere will measure the speed of light to a universal agreement.  It violates a few laws of physics discussed in details in chapter J of the following treatise.

http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf

Ahjohng

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

#480365

On 12/17/18 12:29 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 12/16/18 9:36 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> Any observation reflects what reality is perceived to be. For 
>>> example, when one tries to measure the length of a ladder, an 
>>> observation must be performed, and the result should somewhat 
>>> confidently represent what the length is. Clock tick measurement 
>>> should be no different.
>> 
>> Yes. But to compare clock tick rates, one must compare clock tick
>> rates, and not SIGNALS from the other clock. Using signals, one
>> must correct for any effects on the signals;
> 
> You are mistaking clock tick rates with Doppler frequency.

It is not I who does that, it is people who compare one clock to a
signal from a second clock, and claim to be comparing clock tick rates.

> You can easily record a movie and send the whole video to another.

As usual, your words are ambiguous, in precisely the point at issue. If 
you make a movie of a clock ticking, using a local camera, and send the 
tape to someone else who watches it using a local viewer, that person 
will see the image of your clock ticking at the same rate as their own 
clock. But if either camera or viewer is not local (telescopes), there 
can be differences.

> In classical system, a remote, local second will always tick as an
> observed second regardless how skewed the signal is (Doppler shift).

That's meaningless -- you must specify how "a remote, local second" is 
to be compared to "an observed second".

But we do know that 1 second is equal to 9,192,631,770 periods of the 
Cs133 ground-state hyperfine transition. That is implicitly a local 
measurement, and applies everywhere.

>> Only if the clocks ACTUALLY tick at different rates. They don't.
> 
> According to the GR mathematics, they must tick at different rates.

Nonsense! In GR, every clock advances 1 second for each second of its 
proper time. That is, they ALL tick at the same rate.

> That is why two clocks synchronized to the same time at the same
> altitude will accumulate different amounts of time at different
> altitude. 

That is a DIFFERENT physical situation, and is NOT comparing clock tick 
rates. That is comparing elapsed proper times over different paths 
through spacetime. Sure, those can be different.

> Thus, the only proper interpretation to such observations
> can only be that each altitude manifests its own clock tick rate.

Nope. One can interpret it as showing that GR is correct, and spacetime 
is curved.

> There is no such thing as the proper time.  Both SR and GR
> mathematics do not say such mystic physics exists.  It is all made
> up.

You are wrong. Completely.

Tom Roberts

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

#480380

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 9:42:44 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/17/18 12:29 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 12/16/18 9:36 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >>> Any observation reflects what reality is perceived to be. For 
> >>> example, when one tries to measure the length of a ladder, an 
> >>> observation must be performed, and the result should somewhat 
> >>> confidently represent what the length is. Clock tick measurement 
> >>> should be no different.
> >> 
> >> Yes. But to compare clock tick rates, one must compare clock tick
> >> rates, and not SIGNALS from the other clock. Using signals, one
> >> must correct for any effects on the signals;
> > 
> > You are mistaking clock tick rates with Doppler frequency.
> 
> It is not I who does that, it is people who compare one clock to a
> signal from a second clock, and claim to be comparing clock tick rates.
> 
> > You can easily record a movie and send the whole video to another.
> 
> As usual, your words are ambiguous, in precisely the point at issue. If 
> you make a movie of a clock ticking, using a local camera, and send the 
> tape to someone else who watches it using a local viewer, that person 
> will see the image of your clock ticking at the same rate as their own 
> clock. But if either camera or viewer is not local (telescopes), there 
> can be differences.
> 
> > In classical system, a remote, local second will always tick as an
> > observed second regardless how skewed the signal is (Doppler shift).
> 
> That's meaningless -- you must specify how "a remote, local second" is 
> to be compared to "an observed second".
> 
> But we do know that 1 second is equal to 9,192,631,770 periods of the 
> Cs133 ground-state hyperfine transition. That is implicitly a local 
> measurement, and applies everywhere.
> 
> >> Only if the clocks ACTUALLY tick at different rates. They don't.
> > 
> > According to the GR mathematics, they must tick at different rates.
> 
> Nonsense! In GR, every clock advances 1 second for each second of its 
> proper time. That is, they ALL tick at the same rate.

This is true only if a clock second is a universal interval of time.....it is NOT. In SR a clock second on B’s clock is predicted to be gamma*seconds in observer A’s clock. IOW, the passage of a clock second on B’s clock is corresponded to the passage of gamma*seconds on observer A’s clock.

> 
> > That is why two clocks synchronized to the same time at the same
> > altitude will accumulate different amounts of time at different
> > altitude. 
> 
> That is a DIFFERENT physical situation, and is NOT comparing clock tick 
> rates. That is comparing elapsed proper times over different paths 
> through spacetime. Sure, those can be different.
> 
> > Thus, the only proper interpretation to such observations
> > can only be that each altitude manifests its own clock tick rate.
> 
> Nope. One can interpret it as showing that GR is correct, and spacetime 
> is curved.
> 
> > There is no such thing as the proper time.  Both SR and GR
> > mathematics do not say such mystic physics exists.  It is all made
> > up.
> 
> You are wrong. Completely.
> 
> Tom Roberts

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

#479923

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

> The above question was asked in Quora an my answer is as follows:

>Before I answer this question I will give a brief definition of time:
>The only time exists is Absolute Time. The passage of Absolute Time is

You are trying to sabotage people trying to learn about physics? Just like
Archimedes Plutonium has been trying to do?  Why are you trying to
sabotage science?

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

#479937

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:15:34 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> > The above question was asked in Quora an my answer is as follows:
> 
> >Before I answer this question I will give a brief definition of time:
> >The only time exists is Absolute Time. The passage of Absolute Time is
> 
> You are trying to sabotage people trying to learn about physics? Just like
> Archimedes Plutonium has been trying to do?  Why are you trying to
> sabotage science?

He can't, he is too much of an imbecile. People see thru his attempts. He's just the village idiot. 

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

#479939

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:15:34 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> > The above question was asked in Quora an my answer is as follows:
> 
> >Before I answer this question I will give a brief definition of time:
> >The only time exists is Absolute Time. The passage of Absolute Time is
> 
> You are trying to sabotage people trying to learn about physics? Just like
> Archimedes Plutonium has been trying to do?  Why are you trying to
> sabotage science?

No  moron, I am trying to teach people real physics.

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

#479941

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:15:34 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> > The above question was asked in Quora an my answer is as follows:
>> 
>> >Before I answer this question I will give a brief definition of time:
>> >The only time exists is Absolute Time. The passage of Absolute Time is
>> 
>> You are trying to sabotage people trying to learn about physics? Just like
>> Archimedes Plutonium has been trying to do?  Why are you trying to
>> sabotage science?

>No  moron, I am trying to teach people real physics.

So you really are trying to sabotage science by claiming it is 'real
physics'. Why? Are you in cahoots with Plutonium who has a similar
sabotage plan?

Fortunately, Dono is correct. You are too much of an imbecile to make any
progress at that sabotage.

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

#479999

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 8:26:05 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:15:34 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> > The above question was asked in Quora an my answer is as follows:
> >> 
> >> >Before I answer this question I will give a brief definition of time:
> >> >The only time exists is Absolute Time. The passage of Absolute Time is
> >> 
> >> You are trying to sabotage people trying to learn about physics? Just like
> >> Archimedes Plutonium has been trying to do?  Why are you trying to
> >> sabotage science?
> 
> >No  moron, I am trying to teach people real physics.
> 
> So you really are trying to sabotage science by claiming it is 'real
> physics'. Why? Are you in cahoots with Plutonium who has a similar
> sabotage plan?
> 
> Fortunately, Dono is correct. You are too much of an imbecile to make any
> progress at that sabotage.

Quora has only weak filters against nonsense, and you find yourself 
answering the same questions over and over and over again... 

Which is why I left.

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

#479942

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 6:17:53 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:15:34 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> > 
> > > The above question was asked in Quora an my answer is as follows:
> > 
> > >Before I answer this question I will give a brief definition of time:
> > >The only time exists is Absolute Time. The passage of Absolute Time is
> > 
> > You are trying to sabotage people trying to learn about physics? Just like
> > Archimedes Plutonium has been trying to do?  Why are you trying to
> > sabotage science?
> 
> No  moron, I am trying to teach people real physics.

A cretin like you, teach? LOL

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

#479962

“ How does gravity slow time? “

How does “Increased Pressure” cause  “Increase Wave Speed” ?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1

((c^7*(hbar*G^7))/(c^5/(hbar*G^2)))^0.5 = c = Wave Speed 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=EXxcwFfovkc

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

#479975

Higher quantity strength of gravity...
mathematically slows quantity rate for time.
Slow rate also associates with speed and
its increase.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#479996

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 3:22:27 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> The above question was asked in Quora an my answer is as follows:
> 
> Before I answer this question I will give a brief definition of time:
> The only time exists is Absolute Time.

You can say anything you want but you need to back it up. Current theories happen
not to rely on absolute time. This may change in the future, of course, but for now
no such viable theory exists.
> 
> Now to answer your question: How does gravity slow (clock) time.
> 
> Near a massive body the medium that carries the energy to complete a transition by the Cesium atom is curved.

That's cute and everything but it's just random talk. The answer to the question
"how does gravity slow clock time" is: "We don't know. We only have models which
model and quantify the process."

--
Jan

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

#480001

W dniu niedziela, 16 grudnia 2018 23:25:54 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> You can say anything you want but you need to back it up. Current theories happen not to rely on absolute time.

Excluding these fully correct mathematicaly theoriy:
newton, and any other obvious self-evident, hence classical.

> This may change in the future, of course, but for now
> no such viable theory exists.

There is no any other theory, unfortunately.

The SR, QM, BB, ect. are a common human fallacies only;
like: astrology, geocentrism, communism, and many other megalomanic nonsenses.

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

#480002

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:44:51 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 16 grudnia 2018 23:25:54 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> 
> > You can say anything you want but you need to back it up. Current theories happen not to rely on absolute time.
> 
> Excluding these fully correct mathematicaly theoriy:
> newton, and any other obvious self-evident, hence classical.
> 
> > This may change in the future, of course, but for now
> > no such viable theory exists.
> 
> There is no any other theory, unfortunately.
> 
> The SR, QM, BB, ect. are a common human fallacies only;
> like: astrology, geocentrism, communism, and many other megalomanic nonsenses.

There was an Absolute Big Beginning of original space time.

BB 0

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#480003

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:44:51 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 16 grudnia 2018 23:25:54 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> 
> > You can say anything you want but you need to back it up. Current theories happen not to rely on absolute time.
> 
> Excluding these fully correct mathematicaly theoriy:
> newton, and any other obvious self-evident, hence classical.

Newton is not correct, just ask any banker sitting on the board of a consortium
administering your favourite particle accelerator. He will tell you all you need to
know about how Newton and his theory predict the balance on the electric bill.

> > This may change in the future, of course, but for now
> > no such viable theory exists.
> 
> There is no any other theory, unfortunately.
> 
> The SR, QM, BB, ect. are a common human fallacies only;

Since you don't know those theories, how about posting about poetry instead?

> like: astrology, geocentrism, communism, and many other megalomanic nonsenses.

Not even wrong. Gobbledygook. Also, "nonsense" does not have a plural in English.

--
Jan

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

#480005

W dniu poniedziałek, 17 grudnia 2018 00:24:26 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> Newton is not correct, just ask any banker sitting on the board of a consortium administering your favourite particle accelerator. He will tell you all you need to know about how Newton and his theory predict the balance on the electric bill.

This is still fully consistent with the Newton law:
F = ma.

Newton did not limited this realation in any way:
thus the mass m is not const there, but any - variable.

Hence SR can provide:
F = gamma.m0 a = ma - what is still the same.

even the so-called idiotic longitudinal force in SR pseudoscience:

F = gamma^3 m0 * a, is still the same,

because this is an integrated form of the oryginal: F = ma,
when the mass m increases with a speed, which still grows: v(t) = at.
 
> > The SR, QM, BB, ect. are a common human fallacies only;
> 
> Since you don't know those theories, how about posting about poetry instead?

Don't worry, bombus.
I know 100 times more than you about the surrogates in the science.

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

#480029

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 4:05:42 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 17 grudnia 2018 00:24:26 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> 
> > Newton is not correct, just ask any banker sitting on the board of a consortium administering your favourite particle accelerator. He will tell you all you need to know about how Newton and his theory predict the balance on the electric bill.
> 
> This is still fully consistent with the Newton law:
> F = ma.

As I said, Newton's theory predicts INCORRECT electric bills for collider-type
accelerators (Newton's predictions are much too high.)

> Newton did not limited this realation in any way:
> thus the mass m is not const there, but any - variable.

Irrelevant.

> Hence SR can provide:
> F = gamma.m0 a = ma - what is still the same.
> 
> even the so-called idiotic longitudinal force in SR pseudoscience:

SR is science. Your claims are not even pseudoscience, they are just gobbledygook.

> F = gamma^3 m0 * a, is still the same,
> 
> because this is an integrated form of the oryginal: F = ma,
> when the mass m increases with a speed, which still grows: v(t) = at.

Gobbledygook.

--
Jan

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

#480044

On Monday, 17 December 2018 10:15:02 UTC+1, JanPB  wrote:
> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 4:05:42 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 17 grudnia 2018 00:24:26 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > 
> > > Newton is not correct, just ask any banker sitting on the board of a consortium administering your favourite particle accelerator. He will tell you all you need to know about how Newton and his theory predict the balance on the electric bill.
> > 
> > This is still fully consistent with the Newton law:
> > F = ma.
> 
> As I said, Newton's theory predicts INCORRECT electric bills for collider-type
> accelerators (Newton's predictions are much too high.)


You said and you lied. As expected from
fanatic lying shit.

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

#480063

W dniu poniedziałek, 17 grudnia 2018 10:15:02 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> > This is still fully consistent with the Newton law:
> > F = ma.
> 
> As I said, Newton's theory predicts INCORRECT electric bills for collider-type
> accelerators (Newton's predictions are much too high.)

Nonsense. You just still use the standard math formulas,
which is nothing but the 'Newton theory' in fact!

Newton invented some mathematical formulas only -
self-evident type, indestructible like:
actin = reaction, force = mass x accel, speed = accel x t, ect.
 
> SR is science. Your claims are not even pseudoscience, they are just gobbledygook.

SR/GR/QM... are primitive surrogates only,
and interpretational fantasies, not theories in the formal sense.

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

#480072

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:52:51 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 17 grudnia 2018 10:15:02 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> 
> > > This is still fully consistent with the Newton law:
> > > F = ma.
> > 
> > As I said, Newton's theory predicts INCORRECT electric bills for collider-type
> > accelerators (Newton's predictions are much too high.)
> 
> Nonsense. You just still use the standard math formulas,
> which is nothing but the 'Newton theory' in fact!

It's not a "fact" because if you calculate the energies required to get a desired
collision, you'll end up with a $$$ amount that's way too high.

This discrepancy is so large that AFAIK all modern accelerators are of the
collider type (Tom will know this better than I).

No banker will ever allow you to use Newtonian mechanics for that machine.

--
Jan

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

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web