Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479904 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-15 15:22 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-12-18 06:57 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 85 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 19:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pve4gp$1u85$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #480216 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:14 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is >>>>>>> corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not at all what the LT says. I’m not surprised you would make this >>>>>> mistake because you don’t understand what mathematical equations say. >>>>> >>>>> You are a woodworker.....you don’t know what the LT says. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. It’s easy to know what the LT says. All you have to do is READ. >>>> You don’t do that. >>> >>> Then tell us what the following equation says: >>> Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) >> >> See? You are confessing that you have not read any physics book that >> describes what this means. I have. You haven’t. It’s as simple as that. > > Just answer the question, cut out the bullshit. Had you read a single book on the subject, you would know this: Given two events in the unprimed frame that occur in the same place (in that frame) and are separated in time by delta(t) in that frame, then in a different primed frame in which those same events do not occur in the same place, they will be separated in time by an amount delta(t’) given by the relation above. But you haven’t read a single damn book on the subject and do you have no idea what the LT says. > >> You don’t know what that equation means because you don’t understand math, >> and you’ve not read any physics books. You only pretend. > > I will give the meaning of this equation in my theory after you give your answer. > Nobody cares what the equations mean in your theory, any more than they care that words mean completely different things in your theory. The question was what the LTs mean, which you claimed to know but you don’t. You had to beg somebody to explain them to you here. And you STILL don’t know what they mean, even after I just told you. Because you can’t read. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 13:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cbceaed3-1178-4edb-9d9f-0e7f3fd5d517@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480241 |
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 2:00:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:14 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is > >>>>>>> corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is not at all what the LT says. I’m not surprised you would make this > >>>>>> mistake because you don’t understand what mathematical equations say. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are a woodworker.....you don’t know what the LT says. > >>>> > >>>> Bullshit. It’s easy to know what the LT says. All you have to do is READ. > >>>> You don’t do that. > >>> > >>> Then tell us what the following equation says: > >>> Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) > >> > >> See? You are confessing that you have not read any physics book that > >> describes what this means. I have. You haven’t. It’s as simple as that. > > > > Just answer the question, cut out the bullshit. > > Had you read a single book on the subject, you would know this: Given two > events in the unprimed frame that occur in the same place (in that frame) > and are separated in time by delta(t) in that frame, then in a different > primed frame in which those same events do not occur in the same place, > they will be separated in time by an amount delta(t’) given by the relation > above. So what is wrong with my explanation that 1 second in the primed frame is worth gamma seconds in the unprimed frame? > > But you haven’t read a single damn book on the subject and do you have no > idea what the LT says. > > > > >> You don’t know what that equation means because you don’t understand math, > >> and you’ve not read any physics books. You only pretend. > > > > I will give the meaning of this equation in my theory after you give your answer. > > > > Nobody cares what the equations mean in your theory, any more than they > care that words mean completely different things in your theory. > > The question was what the LTs mean, which you claimed to know but you > don’t. You had to beg somebody to explain them to you here. And you STILL > don’t know what they mean, even after I just told you. Because you can’t > read. > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 02:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pvev63$95s$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #480257 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 2:00:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:14 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is >>>>>>>>> corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is not at all what the LT says. I’m not surprised you would make this >>>>>>>> mistake because you don’t understand what mathematical equations say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are a woodworker.....you don’t know what the LT says. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit. It’s easy to know what the LT says. All you have to do is READ. >>>>>> You don’t do that. >>>>> >>>>> Then tell us what the following equation says: >>>>> Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) >>>> >>>> See? You are confessing that you have not read any physics book that >>>> describes what this means. I have. You haven’t. It’s as simple as that. >>> >>> Just answer the question, cut out the bullshit. >> >> Had you read a single book on the subject, you would know this: Given two >> events in the unprimed frame that occur in the same place (in that frame) >> and are separated in time by delta(t) in that frame, then in a different >> primed frame in which those same events do not occur in the same place, >> they will be separated in time by an amount delta(t’) given by the relation >> above. > > So what is wrong with my explanation that 1 second in the primed frame is > worth gamma seconds in the unprimed frame? That’s not what the LT means. I’ve just told you what the equation you wrote down means. It has nothing to do with what seconds are worth. > >> >> But you haven’t read a single damn book on the subject and do you have no >> idea what the LT says. >> >>> >>>> You don’t know what that equation means because you don’t understand math, >>>> and you’ve not read any physics books. You only pretend. >>> >>> I will give the meaning of this equation in my theory after you give your answer. >>> >> >> Nobody cares what the equations mean in your theory, any more than they >> care that words mean completely different things in your theory. >> >> The question was what the LTs mean, which you claimed to know but you >> don’t. You had to beg somebody to explain them to you here. And you STILL >> don’t know what they mean, even after I just told you. Because you can’t >> read. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2018-12-20 07:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ef0f246a-8ac4-41d8-bd27-d7e7370edacd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480275 |
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:35:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 2:00:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:14 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is > >>>>>>>>> corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That is not at all what the LT says. I’m not surprised you would make this > >>>>>>>> mistake because you don’t understand what mathematical equations say. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are a woodworker.....you don’t know what the LT says. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bullshit. It’s easy to know what the LT says. All you have to do is READ. > >>>>>> You don’t do that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Then tell us what the following equation says: > >>>>> Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) > >>>> > >>>> See? You are confessing that you have not read any physics book that > >>>> describes what this means. I have. You haven’t. It’s as simple as that. > >>> > >>> Just answer the question, cut out the bullshit. > >> > >> Had you read a single book on the subject, you would know this: Given two > >> events in the unprimed frame that occur in the same place (in that frame) > >> and are separated in time by delta(t) in that frame, then in a different > >> primed frame in which those same events do not occur in the same place, > >> they will be separated in time by an amount delta(t’) given by the relation > >> above. > > > > So what is wrong with my explanation that 1 second in the primed frame is > > worth gamma seconds in the unprimed frame? > > That’s not what the LT means. > I’ve just told you what the equation you wrote down means. > It has nothing to do with what seconds are worth. Idiot what I said is the simplified form of what you said. Consider the beginning of a second is event 1 and the end of a second is event 2. In the unprimed frame: Delta(t)=(0,t)=Delta(t) In the primed frame: Delta(t’)=(0,t’)=Delta(t’) > > > > >> > >> But you haven’t read a single damn book on the subject and do you have no > >> idea what the LT says. > >> > >>> > >>>> You don’t know what that equation means because you don’t understand math, > >>>> and you’ve not read any physics books. You only pretend. > >>> > >>> I will give the meaning of this equation in my theory after you give your answer. > >>> > >> > >> Nobody cares what the equations mean in your theory, any more than they > >> care that words mean completely different things in your theory. > >> > >> The question was what the LTs mean, which you claimed to know but you > >> don’t. You had to beg somebody to explain them to you here. And you STILL > >> don’t know what they mean, even after I just told you. Because you can’t > >> read. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2018-12-20 15:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pvgdkn$nou$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #480305 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:35:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 2:00:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:14 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is >>>>>>>>>>> corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is not at all what the LT says. I’m not surprised you would make this >>>>>>>>>> mistake because you don’t understand what mathematical equations say. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are a woodworker.....you don’t know what the LT says. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bullshit. It’s easy to know what the LT says. All you have to do is READ. >>>>>>>> You don’t do that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then tell us what the following equation says: >>>>>>> Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) >>>>>> >>>>>> See? You are confessing that you have not read any physics book that >>>>>> describes what this means. I have. You haven’t. It’s as simple as that. >>>>> >>>>> Just answer the question, cut out the bullshit. >>>> >>>> Had you read a single book on the subject, you would know this: Given two >>>> events in the unprimed frame that occur in the same place (in that frame) >>>> and are separated in time by delta(t) in that frame, then in a different >>>> primed frame in which those same events do not occur in the same place, >>>> they will be separated in time by an amount delta(t’) given by the relation >>>> above. >>> >>> So what is wrong with my explanation that 1 second in the primed frame is >>> worth gamma seconds in the unprimed frame? >> >> That’s not what the LT means. >> I’ve just told you what the equation you wrote down means. >> It has nothing to do with what seconds are worth. > > Idiot what I said is the simplified form of what you said. No, what you said is an INCORRECT version of what I said. > Consider the beginning of a second is event 1 and the end of a second is event 2. You are missing the part about events happening at the same location in the unprimed frame and at different location in the primed frame. “A second” does not have a location. An event does. It is not possible to describe this equation correctly without events and their details. Your attempt to do so results in your statement becoming wrong. You MUST learn the basic concepts. Any bypassing of that will result in you making mistakes. > In the unprimed frame: > Delta(t)=(0,t)=Delta(t) > In the primed frame: > Delta(t’)=(0,t’)=Delta(t’) > >> >>> >>>> >>>> But you haven’t read a single damn book on the subject and do you have no >>>> idea what the LT says. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You don’t know what that equation means because you don’t understand math, >>>>>> and you’ve not read any physics books. You only pretend. >>>>> >>>>> I will give the meaning of this equation in my theory after you give your answer. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nobody cares what the equations mean in your theory, any more than they >>>> care that words mean completely different things in your theory. >>>> >>>> The question was what the LTs mean, which you claimed to know but you >>>> don’t. You had to beg somebody to explain them to you here. And you STILL >>>> don’t know what they mean, even after I just told you. Because you can’t >>>> read. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 13:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <82c3f59f-ee2e-4872-93ef-a95bff28d798@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480308 |
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 10:48:42 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:35:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 2:00:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:14 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is > >>>>>>>>>>> corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That is not at all what the LT says. I’m not surprised you would make this > >>>>>>>>>> mistake because you don’t understand what mathematical equations say. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You are a woodworker.....you don’t know what the LT says. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Bullshit. It’s easy to know what the LT says. All you have to do is READ. > >>>>>>>> You don’t do that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Then tell us what the following equation says: > >>>>>>> Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> See? You are confessing that you have not read any physics book that > >>>>>> describes what this means. I have. You haven’t. It’s as simple as that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Just answer the question, cut out the bullshit. > >>>> > >>>> Had you read a single book on the subject, you would know this: Given two > >>>> events in the unprimed frame that occur in the same place (in that frame) > >>>> and are separated in time by delta(t) in that frame, then in a different > >>>> primed frame in which those same events do not occur in the same place, > >>>> they will be separated in time by an amount delta(t’) given by the relation > >>>> above. > >>> > >>> So what is wrong with my explanation that 1 second in the primed frame is > >>> worth gamma seconds in the unprimed frame? > >> > >> That’s not what the LT means. > >> I’ve just told you what the equation you wrote down means. > >> It has nothing to do with what seconds are worth. > > > > Idiot what I said is the simplified form of what you said. > > No, what you said is an INCORRECT version of what I said. It is what you said. > > > > Consider the beginning of a second is event 1 and the end of a second is event 2. > > You are missing the part about events happening at the same location in the > unprimed frame and at different location in the primed frame. “A second” > does not have a location. An event does. My watches at the same location in my frame (the unprimed frame). Your watch is at different location in the your primed frame. The beginning of a second on my watch is a location and at the end of a second is another location. > > It is not possible to describe this equation correctly without events and > their details. Your attempt to do so results in your statement becoming > wrong. It is possible--your assertion is not valid. > You MUST learn the basic concepts. Any bypassing of that will result in you > making mistakes. > > > In the unprimed frame: > > Delta(t)=(0,t)=Delta(t) > > In the primed frame: > > Delta(t’)=(0,t’)=Delta(t’) > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> But you haven’t read a single damn book on the subject and do you have no > >>>> idea what the LT says. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> You don’t know what that equation means because you don’t understand math, > >>>>>> and you’ve not read any physics books. You only pretend. > >>>>> > >>>>> I will give the meaning of this equation in my theory after you give your answer. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Nobody cares what the equations mean in your theory, any more than they > >>>> care that words mean completely different things in your theory. > >>>> > >>>> The question was what the LTs mean, which you claimed to know but you > >>>> don’t. You had to beg somebody to explain them to you here. And you STILL > >>>> don’t know what they mean, even after I just told you. Because you can’t > >>>> read. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-20 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pvh6gp$dqv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #480337 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 10:48:42 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:35:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 2:00:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:14 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is >>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is not at all what the LT says. I’m not surprised you would make this >>>>>>>>>>>> mistake because you don’t understand what mathematical equations say. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are a woodworker.....you don’t know what the LT says. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. It’s easy to know what the LT says. All you have to do is READ. >>>>>>>>>> You don’t do that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then tell us what the following equation says: >>>>>>>>> Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See? You are confessing that you have not read any physics book that >>>>>>>> describes what this means. I have. You haven’t. It’s as simple as that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just answer the question, cut out the bullshit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Had you read a single book on the subject, you would know this: Given two >>>>>> events in the unprimed frame that occur in the same place (in that frame) >>>>>> and are separated in time by delta(t) in that frame, then in a different >>>>>> primed frame in which those same events do not occur in the same place, >>>>>> they will be separated in time by an amount delta(t’) given by the relation >>>>>> above. >>>>> >>>>> So what is wrong with my explanation that 1 second in the primed frame is >>>>> worth gamma seconds in the unprimed frame? >>>> >>>> That’s not what the LT means. >>>> I’ve just told you what the equation you wrote down means. >>>> It has nothing to do with what seconds are worth. >>> >>> Idiot what I said is the simplified form of what you said. >> >> No, what you said is an INCORRECT version of what I said. > > It is what you said. >> >> >>> Consider the beginning of a second is event 1 and the end of a second is event 2. >> >> You are missing the part about events happening at the same location in the >> unprimed frame and at different location in the primed frame. “A second” >> does not have a location. An event does. > > My watches at the same location in my frame (the unprimed frame). > Your watch is at different location in the your primed frame. The > beginning of a second on my watch is a location and at the end of a > second is another location. See? You cannot read. You do not understand the plain English I typed. It’s hopeless. I’m not conversing with someone who understands English. >> >> It is not possible to describe this equation correctly without events and >> their details. Your attempt to do so results in your statement becoming >> wrong. > > It is possible--your assertion is not valid. > >> You MUST learn the basic concepts. Any bypassing of that will result in you >> making mistakes. >> >>> In the unprimed frame: >>> Delta(t)=(0,t)=Delta(t) >>> In the primed frame: >>> Delta(t’)=(0,t’)=Delta(t’) >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But you haven’t read a single damn book on the subject and do you have no >>>>>> idea what the LT says. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don’t know what that equation means because you don’t understand math, >>>>>>>> and you’ve not read any physics books. You only pretend. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will give the meaning of this equation in my theory after you give your answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody cares what the equations mean in your theory, any more than they >>>>>> care that words mean completely different things in your theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question was what the LTs mean, which you claimed to know but you >>>>>> don’t. You had to beg somebody to explain them to you here. And you STILL >>>>>> don’t know what they mean, even after I just told you. Because you can’t >>>>>> read. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 19:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pve4gq$1u85$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #480212 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:14 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is >>>>>> corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. >>>>> >>>>> That is not at all what the LT says. I’m not surprised you would make this >>>>> mistake because you don’t understand what mathematical equations say. >>>> >>>> You are a woodworker.....you don’t know what the LT says. I’ll just point out to you, Ken, that you disparage me for what I do for a living, as though that has any bearing on what I know about another subject. The fact is, ANYBODY who has read any physics at all knows more physics than you do because you’ve read NOTHING on the subject. A high school student who has passed high school physics and is going to become a gardener or an appliance repairman will still know more physics than you because you’ve read nothing. You have decided to pretend that it doesn’t matter what you’ve read, and that all that matters is that you WANT to be thought of as a physicist and this is enough to call yourself one. >>> >>> Bullshit. It’s easy to know what the LT says. All you have to do is READ. >>> You don’t do that. >> >> Then tell us what the following equation says: >> Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) > > See? You are confessing that you have not read any physics book that > describes what this means. I have. You haven’t. It’s as simple as that. > > You don’t know what that equation means because you don’t understand math, > and you’ve not read any physics books. You only pretend. > >> >> >>> >>> Shameless bigotry, Ken. Pathetic. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This means that a clock second of absolute time on a movie clock >>>>>> contains gamma seconds of absolute time on the observer’s clock. IOW, a >>>>>> clock second contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pvdjta$scd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #480087 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:47:17 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is >>> corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer’s clock. >> >> That is not at all what the LT says. I’m not surprised you would make this >> mistake because you don’t understand what mathematical equations say. > > You are a woodworker.....you don’t know what the LT says. A woodworker who has read a lot of physics books knows more physics than a retired chemical engineer who has read no physics books. > >> >>> This means that a clock second of absolute time on a movie clock >>> contains gamma seconds of absolute time on the observer’s clock. IOW, a >>> clock second contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. >>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 06:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d097e3c6-0f34-470d-8152-f87cc782b941@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480211 |
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 15:17:17 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > A woodworker who has read a lot of physics books knows more physics than Odd, poor idiot, you don't even know Pythagorean theorem. As most idiots of the universe you're imagining you have some superior knowledge. That's all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 19:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pv8rqr$od4$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #480046 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is >corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. And, according to an observer moving along with the moving clock, a clock second on the first clock corresponds to gamma seconds on the moving clock. > This >means that a clock second of absolute time on a movie clock contains >gamma seconds of absolute time on the observer's clock. No, it doesn't, since A sees B's clock as running slow, and B sees A's clock as running slow. There is no way to define this in the terms of some artificial "absolute time" where both statements are true, but that is irrelevant, since it is an appearance only. It's like if we stand next to each other and we see each other as normal height. Then we walk apart. I now see you as small, and you now see me as small. Neither one of us shrank, we are both the same height. You have been told this many, many times, yet you insist on continuing to make the same mistakes. Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <13d1e37b-edfb-4b54-bb5f-2457383a517e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480069 |
Gravity's strength slows time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 11:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7b35d7d6-dae4-4a43-9068-64ea047ba001@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480069 |
On Monday, 17 December 2018 20:01:49 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > And, according to an observer moving along with the moving clock And, according to an observer on a street trees and buildings are running around him. An idiot said!!! It just has to be true,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 15:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c479f1fa-5dc1-418d-aefe-34935b55f47f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480069 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 2:01:49 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is > >corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. > > And, according to an observer moving along with the moving clock, a clock > second on the first clock corresponds to gamma seconds on the moving clock. No moron there is no reciprocity between relative clocks......clcoks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > > This > >means that a clock second of absolute time on a movie clock contains > >gamma seconds of absolute time on the observer's clock. > > No, it doesn't, since A sees B's clock as running slow, and B sees A's > clock as running slow. This is a faulty statement. The proper statements are as follows: 1a. A predicts B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. 1b. A predicts B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma_ab. ONLY ONE OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS IS CORRECT. 2a. B predicts A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. 2b. B predicts A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma_ab. ONLY ONE OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS IS CORRECT. > > There is no way to define this in the terms of some artificial "absolute > time" where both statements are true, but that is irrelevant, since it is > an appearance only. It's like if we stand next to each other and we see > each other as normal height. Then we walk apart. I now see you as small, > and you now see me as small. Neither one of us shrank, we are both the > same height. You have been told this many, many times, yet you insist on continuing to > make the same mistakes. Why? Moron, proper time is absolute time. Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. This effect is not just appearance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 04:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pv9uas$50d$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #480093 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 2:01:49 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is >> >corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. >> >> And, according to an observer moving along with the moving clock, a clock >> second on the first clock corresponds to gamma seconds on the moving clock. >No moron there is no reciprocity between relative clocks......clcoks in >relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. Maybe in your failed Model Mechanics, but definitely not so in SR. >> > This >> >means that a clock second of absolute time on a movie clock contains >> >gamma seconds of absolute time on the observer's clock. >> >> No, it doesn't, since A sees B's clock as running slow, and B sees A's >> clock as running slow. >This is a faulty statement. Your assertion is not a valid argument. > The proper statements are as follows: Your assertion is not a valid argument. >1a. A predicts B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. >1b. A predicts B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma_ab. A can predict whatever he wamts. It's irrelevant, since we're talking about science here, not Tarot cards. What matters is what A measures, not what A predicts. >ONLY ONE OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS IS CORRECT. Neither are, since, in SR, we're talking about how A observes and measures B's clock. >2a. B predicts A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. >2b. B predicts A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma_ab. It doesn't matter if B can tell fortunes with Tarot cards either. Science is all about observation and measurement, not Ouija boards. >ONLY ONE OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS IS CORRECT. No, both are wrong since, once again, this is how B observes/measures A's clock. >> There is no way to define this in the terms of some artificial "absolute >> time" where both statements are true, but that is irrelevant, since it is >> an appearance only. It's like if we stand next to each other and we see >> each other as normal height. Then we walk apart. I now see you as small, >> and you now see me as small. Neither one of us shrank, we are both the >> same height. You have been told this many, many times, yet you insist on continuing to >> make the same mistakes. Why? >Moron, proper time is absolute time. Wrong. 'Proper time' has an explicit definition in SR, and it does not involve crap you made up like 'absolute time'. Go look it up. > Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. Your broken Model Mechanics can address only two observers/clocks. If A measures B's clock as running slow by gamma, then B measures A's clock as running fast, by 1/gamma. When I gave you my 3 rockets leaving a common point gedanken, you just ran away. SR can handle it just fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 07:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c8b85400-cd77-4b90-9d54-bc832f2dd339@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480109 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 11:50:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 2:01:49 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >The LT agrees with what I said. A clock second on a moving clock is > >> >corresponded to gamma seconds on the observer's clock. > >> > >> And, according to an observer moving along with the moving clock, a clock > >> second on the first clock corresponds to gamma seconds on the moving clock. > > >No moron there is no reciprocity between relative clocks......clcoks in > >relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > Maybe in your failed Model Mechanics, but definitely not so in SR. Moron, in our universe when comparing two clocks in relative motion the possibilities are: 1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B by a factor of gamma_ab. 2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rain accumulating clock second at a faster rate than Bthe than B by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. 3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. Only one of the above possibilities is correct. If B is accumulating clock second at a slower rate than A then the only correct solution is that A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B. There is no reciprocity between A and B. > > >> > This > >> >means that a clock second of absolute time on a movie clock contains > >> >gamma seconds of absolute time on the observer's clock. > >> > >> No, it doesn't, since A sees B's clock as running slow, and B sees A's > >> clock as running slow. > > >This is a faulty statement. > > Your assertion is not a valid argument. > > > The proper statements are as follows: > > Your assertion is not a valid argument. > > >1a. A predicts B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. > >1b. A predicts B accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma_ab. > > A can predict whatever he wamts. It's irrelevant, since we're talking > about science here, not Tarot cards. What matters is what A measures, > not what A predicts. > > >ONLY ONE OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS IS CORRECT. > > Neither are, since, in SR, we're talking about how A observes and measures > B's clock. > > >2a. B predicts A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate by a factor of 1/gamma_ab. > >2b. B predicts A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate by a factor of gamma_ab. > > It doesn't matter if B can tell fortunes with Tarot cards either. Science > is all about observation and measurement, not Ouija boards. Moron prediction is not Ouija board. > > >ONLY ONE OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS IS CORRECT. > > No, both are wrong since, once again, this is how B observes/measures A's > clock. > > >> There is no way to define this in the terms of some artificial "absolute > >> time" where both statements are true, but that is irrelevant, since it is > >> an appearance only. It's like if we stand next to each other and we see > >> each other as normal height. Then we walk apart. I now see you as small, > >> and you now see me as small. Neither one of us shrank, we are both the > >> same height. You have been told this many, many times, yet you insist on continuing to > >> make the same mistakes. Why? > > >Moron, proper time is absolute time. > > Wrong. 'Proper time' has an explicit definition in SR, and it does not > involve crap you made up like 'absolute time'. Go look it up. > > > Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > Your broken Model Mechanics can address only two observers/clocks. If A > measures B's clock as running slow by gamma, then B measures A's clock as > running fast, by 1/gamma. When I gave you my 3 rockets leaving a common > point gedanken, you just ran away. SR can handle it just fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 11:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f90e7e70-8813-470a-923b-804651acbf1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480046 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:59:00 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:25:54 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > 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. > > The LT agrees with what I said. Yes, but the point is a theory exists (it's called relativity) which models all the numbers while not having to rely on aether. That's simply the story so far. As I said, it may change (as all theories in physics are eventually eclipsed (but not necessarily abandoned - see Newton, Maxwell, Schroedinger, etc.)). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 08:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fgje1e5pghj4pitqvfhlf9fdu5vbn4mn7c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #479904 |
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 15:22:24 -0800 (PST), kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. The passage of Absolute Time is insensitive to gravity or motion. >.......... HOW DO YOU KNOW? Using the little word "is" as irrevocable truth by Ordre de Mufti? w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 06:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ce0e1bb-56e6-4c05-a00d-4465a7597a34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480024 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 2:21:50 AM UTC-5, Helmut Wabnig wrote: > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 15:22:24 -0800 (PST), kenseto <setoken@att.net> > 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. The passage of Absolute Time is insensitive to gravity or motion. > >.......... > > HOW DO YOU KNOW? Proper time is absolute time: the LT says that a clock second of proper time on a moving clock is worth gamma seconds of proper time on the observer’s clock. This means that a clock second does not contain the same amount of proper time (absolute time) in different frames. > > Using the little word "is" as irrevocable truth by Ordre de Mufti? > > > w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 18:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pv8r38$od4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #480039 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 2:21:50 AM UTC-5, Helmut Wabnig wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 15:22:24 -0800 (PST), kenseto <setoken@att.net> >> 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. The passage of Absolute Time is insensitive to gravity or motion. >> >.......... >> HOW DO YOU KNOW? >Proper time is absolute time: No, Stupid Ken. Quit making up your own definitions. Proper time is the time on a clock co-moving with the observer. It is not Absolute Time because there is no such thing, despite your unsupported assertions. > the LT says that a clock second of proper time on a moving clock is >worth gamma seconds of proper time on the observer's clock. No, Stupid Ken. There can only be one proper time here, and it is that of the observer's clock (by definition). The LT says the observer will see the moving clock as running slow by a factor of gamma. It also says that an observer moving with the moving clock will see the first clock as running slow, by a factor of gamma. > This means >that a clock second does not contain the same >amount of proper time (absolute time) No, Ken. As long as you keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over, you'll continue to be wrong, again and again. > in different frames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web