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 | 5 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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 12:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ec50301d-4731-4764-9db4-8084a4f73b48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480068 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:49:14 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto writes: > >Proper time is absolute time: > > Proper time is the time on a clock co-moving with the observer. Let’s see what the mathematics of SR says about this issue. We have an event taking place in (flat) spacetime that is observed by #1, #2, and #3. Three sets of the Lorentz transform can be written down comparing how #1 and #2, #1 and #3, and #2 and #3 observe the same event. Interestingly, all these sets of the transformations can be written down into a single precise equation below. ** dt₁² – ds₁²/c² = dt₂² – ds₂²/c² = dt₃² – ds₃²/c² Where ** dt₁ = Local clock tick rate at #1 ** dt₂ = Local clock tick rate at #2 ** dt₃ = Local clock tick rate at #3 ** ds₁² = dx₁² + dy₁² + dz₁² = observed length by #1 ** ds₂² = dx₂² + dy₂² + dz₂² = observed length by #2 ** ds₃² = dx₃² + dy₃² + dz₃² = observed length by #3 It should not be too difficult to figure out the following from the above. ** dt₁² (1–β₁²) = dt₂² (1–β₂²) = dt₃² (1–β₃²) Where ** β₁² = (ds₁²/dt₁²)/c², speed of the event as observed by #1 ** β₂² = (ds₂²/dt₂²)/c², speed of the event as observed by #2 ** β₃² = (ds₃²/dt₃²)/c², speed of the event as observed by #3 Furthermore, it should not be too difficult to extrapolate the above into the following. ** dτ² = dt₁² (1–β₁²) = dt₂² (1–β₂²) = dt₃² (1–β₃²) Where ** dτ = Local clock tick rate at the event being observed by #1, #2, and #3 Let’s say the absolute frame of reference does exist. In this case, the following can easily be constructed. ** dτ² = dt₀² (1–β₀²) = dt₁² (1–β₁²) = dt₂² (1–β₂²) = dt₃² (1–β₃²) Where ** dt₀ = Local clock tick rate of the absolute frame of reference ** √(β₀²) c = Absolute speed of the event Notice there is no such thing as the proper time. The closest what the religion of SR and GR refers to the proper time is the local clock tick rate of the event being observed by all observers. For more details, please refer to the following treatise. http://107.184.176.53/Aether01.pdf Ahjohng
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 15:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab357ca8-df6f-4984-a469-243f184c8f8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480068 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > 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. Moron, a proper second on any clock is a clock second at its location. A proper second on any clock represents a specific amount of absolute time and this amount of absolute time is related via the LT. For example: a proper second on my clock is worth 1/gamma second of proper time on your clock. IOW you clock is accumulating proper clock second at a slower rate compare to my clock by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > 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. You need to get rid of this “SEE” business. No observer sees the clock rate of any moving clock. He predicts the rate of a moving clock.by the SR Also you need to get rid of the faulty reciprocal clock rates as assumed by SR. In real life clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > > 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. You are a moron, there is no hope for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 04:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pv9spf$50d$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #480091 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >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. >Moron, a proper second on any clock is a clock second at its location. A >proper second on any clock represents a specific amount of absolute time Your assertion is not a valid argument. "Proper second" is meaningless gobbledygook, since here is only one kind of second. >and this amount of absolute time is related via the LT. Your assertion is not a valid argument. Plus there is no such thing as absolute time in the Lorentz Transform. >For example: a proper second on my clock is worth 1/gamma second of >proper time on your clock. Once again, you aren't using the term 'proper time' correctly. "Proper second" is gobbledygook. There is only one kind of second. >> > 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. >You need to get rid of this "SEE" business. No observer sees the clock >rate of any moving clock. They can, depending on the type of clock (doesn't have to be something that resembles Big Ben) and the type of communication. But regardless, replace "see" with "observe", "measure" etc. if "see" bothers you that much. > He predicts the rate of a moving clock.by the SR Prediction is meaningless. I predict nice men in clean white suits with a giant butterfly net will come tomorrow to take you back to the asylum. >Also you need to get rid of the faulty reciprocal clock rates as assumed >by SR. Not "assumed", this is a measured result. > In real life clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at >different rates. Your assertions are not a valid argument. >> > 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. >You are a moron, there is no hope for you. You shouldn't address yourself in the second person like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 23:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <657214ba-6ef7-46e9-b20f-08f431bd1b7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480108 |
On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 05:24:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > Once again, you aren't using the term 'proper time' correctly. "Proper > second" is gobbledygook. There is only one kind of second. Poor fanatic idiot is enchanting the reality. As expected from a poor fanatic idiot. > But regardless, replace "see" with "observe", "measure" etc. if "see" > bothers you that much. Mike, poor idiot. Your delusions of what is observed didn't match real observations even in Galileo's time. Now they are not even worthy laughing at.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 06:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ae3ae0c9-a843-44d8-b302-e5ccacb56d9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480108 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 11:24:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >> >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. > > >Moron, a proper second on any clock is a clock second at its location. A > >proper second on any clock represents a specific amount of absolute time > > Your assertion is not a valid argument. "Proper second" is meaningless > gobbledygook, since here is only one kind of second. Moron, a proper second is a clock second at the rest frame of the clock. A proper second of the observer’s clock represents a specific amount of absolute time. On buses the LT to transform this amount of absolute time to a moving clock and the result is: 1/gamma second on a moving clock. > > >and this amount of absolute time is related via the LT. > > Your assertion is not a valid argument. Plus there is no such thing as > absolute time in the Lorentz Transform. > > >For example: a proper second on my clock is worth 1/gamma second of > >proper time on your clock. > > Once again, you aren't using the term 'proper time' correctly. "Proper > second" is gobbledygook. There is only one kind of second. > > >> > 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. > > >You need to get rid of this "SEE" business. No observer sees the clock > >rate of any moving clock. > > They can, depending on the type of clock (doesn't have to be something > that resembles Big Ben) and the type of communication. > > But regardless, replace "see" with "observe", "measure" etc. if "see" > bothers you that much. > > > He predicts the rate of a moving clock.by the SR > > Prediction is meaningless. Moron, production is the whole purpose of the LT. > I predict nice men in clean white suits with a > giant butterfly net will come tomorrow to take you back to the asylum. > > >Also you need to get rid of the faulty reciprocal clock rates as assumed > >by SR. > > Not "assumed", this is a measured result. > > > In real life clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at > >different rates. > > Your assertions are not a valid argument. > > >> > 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. > > >You are a moron, there is no hope for you. > > You shouldn't address yourself in the second person like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web