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

#480079

On 12/17/18 1:53 PM, JanPB wrote:
> AFAIK all modern accelerators are of the
> collider type (Tom will know this better than I).

Today, all research accelerators intended to probe the highest energies 
(i.e. the "energy frontier") are colliders. This is because for a given 
budget a collider can achieve an enormously higher energy than can a 
fixed-target facility.

But the energy frontier is only one of three current frontiers in high 
energy physics. The intensity frontier uses fixed-target accelerators 
extensively, because they can achieve enormously higher intensities than 
any collider. The cosmic frontier does not use accelerators at all 
(well, not any built by humans).

Moreover, there are zillions more accelerators in industry than are used 
for research, and they are all fixed-target systems.

Tom Roberts

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

#480096

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:55:27 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/17/18 1:53 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > AFAIK all modern accelerators are of the
> > collider type (Tom will know this better than I).
> 
> Today, all research accelerators intended to probe the highest energies 
> (i.e. the "energy frontier") are colliders. This is because for a given 
> budget a collider can achieve an enormously higher energy than can a 
> fixed-target facility.

Which is a non-Newtonian effect (Newton predicts the same energy
for both the fixed-target and the collider, given the same budget).

> But the energy frontier is only one of three current frontiers in high 
> energy physics. The intensity frontier uses fixed-target accelerators 
> extensively, because they can achieve enormously higher intensities than 
> any collider. The cosmic frontier does not use accelerators at all 
> (well, not any built by humans).
> 
> Moreover, there are zillions more accelerators in industry than are used 
> for research, and they are all fixed-target systems.

Interesting, thanks.

--
Jan

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

#480115

On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 00:41:34 UTC+1, JanPB  wrote:
 
> Which is a non-Newtonian effect (Newton predicts the same energy
> for both the fixed-target and the collider, given the same budget).

Jan, poor idiot. Newton didn't even know
the concept of energy.

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

#480102

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 12:55:27 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/17/18 1:53 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > AFAIK all modern accelerators are of the
> > collider type (Tom will know this better than I).
> 
> Today, all research accelerators intended to probe the highest energies 
> (i.e. the "energy frontier") are colliders. This is because for a given 
> budget a collider can achieve an enormously higher energy than can a 
> fixed-target facility.
> 
> But the energy frontier is only one of three current frontiers in high 
> energy physics. The intensity frontier uses fixed-target accelerators 
> extensively, because they can achieve enormously higher intensities than 
> any collider. The cosmic frontier does not use accelerators at all 
> (well, not any built by humans).
> 
> Moreover, there are zillions more accelerators in industry than are used 
> for research, and they are all fixed-target systems.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Gravity strength first slows time.
Then there is slow rate for freefalling 
inward acceleration.

Time slow can be doubled by gravity...

God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#480143

W dniu poniedziałek, 17 grudnia 2018 20:53:50 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> > 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

The energy relation is fully consistent with the Newton:

dE = F dx,
and for a linear acceleration: F = gamma^3 m0 v; v = dx/dt

hence you get:
E = gamma m0 c^2 - m0c^2;

which is correct,
due to the standard math alone - no relativistic math exists!

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

#480259

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:47:22 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 17 grudnia 2018 20:53:50 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> 
> > > 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
> 
> The energy relation is fully consistent with the Newton:

No, it's not.

> dE = F dx,
> and for a linear acceleration: F = gamma^3 m0 v; v = dx/dt
> 
> hence you get:
> E = gamma m0 c^2 - m0c^2;
> 
> which is correct,
> due to the standard math alone - no relativistic math exists!

As usual, you post some math gobbledygook snippets. Unless you write down
the proper mathematics describing a collision in the fixed-target
and collider cases, in both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics,
clearly describing your steps, symbols, and equations, we have
nothing to discuss. Banker's accounts and power grid daily activities
do not depend on your fantasising.

--
Jan

--
Jan

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

#480261

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 2:04:43 PM UTC-8, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:47:22 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 17 grudnia 2018 20:53:50 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > 
> > > > 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
> > 
> > The energy relation is fully consistent with the Newton:
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> > dE = F dx,
> > and for a linear acceleration: F = gamma^3 m0 v; v = dx/dt
> > 
> > hence you get:
> > E = gamma m0 c^2 - m0c^2;
> > 
> > which is correct,
> > due to the standard math alone - no relativistic math exists!
> 
> As usual, you post some math gobbledygook snippets. Unless you write down
> the proper mathematics describing a collision in the fixed-target
> and collider cases, in both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics,
> clearly describing your steps, symbols, and equations, we have
> nothing to discuss. Banker's accounts and power grid daily activities
> do not depend on your fantasising.
> 
> --
> Jan
> 
> --
> Jan

Slow time is mathematical.
The quantity strength of gravity programs Gamma for slow time.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#480340

W dniu środa, 19 grudnia 2018 23:04:43 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> > The energy relation is fully consistent with the Newton:
> 
> No, it's not.

You are talking these fallacies permanently -
quite the same like the church in the Middle Ages.
 
> > dE = F dx,
> > and for a linear acceleration: F = gamma^3 m0 v; v = dx/dt
> > 
> > hence you get:
> > E = gamma m0 c^2 - m0c^2;
> > 
> > which is correct,
> > due to the standard math alone - no relativistic math exists!
> 
> As usual, you post some math gobbledygook snippets. Unless you write down
> the proper mathematics describing a collision in the fixed-target
> and collider cases, in both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics,
> clearly describing your steps, symbols, and equations, we have
> nothing to discuss. Banker's accounts and power grid daily activities
> do not depend on your fantasising.

The collision energy is the same for relativity and Newton,
unfortunately to your idiotic claims.

E_collision = E_total = E1 + E2, always!

In the case of the protons symmetric collision, with a speed:
v = 0.9999999999c, the collision energy is just:

Ec = E1 + E2 = 2mc^2 x (gamma(v)-1);

and exactly that energies are there observed, despite of your idiotic insinuations.
 

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

#480356

Gravity slows time in two ways.

The quantity of gravity strength and
the freefalling speed it causes... Both
slow time. Gravity Strength and the motion
it causes.


Mitchell Raemsch

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

#480360

mitchrae3323 wrote:

> Gravity slows time in two ways.
> The quantity of gravity strength and the freefalling speed it causes...
> Both slow time. Gravity Strength and the motion it causes.

You are talking about dynamic continuous non-linear partial differential 
equations all the time. But I see no mathematical symbols allocated to the 
model.

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

#480362

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 3:46:20 PM UTC-8, Scott Richman wrote:
> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> 
> > Gravity slows time in two ways.
> > The quantity of gravity strength and the freefalling speed it causes...
> > Both slow time. Gravity Strength and the motion it causes.
> 
> You are talking about dynamic continuous non-linear partial differential 
> equations all the time. But I see no mathematical symbols allocated to the 
> model.

You don't do math scott…
God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#480370

mitchrae3323 wrote:

> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 3:46:20 PM UTC-8, Scott Richman wrote:
>> mitchrae3323 wrote:
>> 
>> > Gravity slows time in two ways.
>> > The quantity of gravity strength and the freefalling speed it
>> > causes...
>> > Both slow time. Gravity Strength and the motion it causes.
>> 
>> You are talking about dynamic continuous non-linear partial
>> differential equations all the time. But I see no mathematical symbols
>> allocated to the model.
> 
> You don't do math scott God creates gravity.

At least I am capable to put an equal sign. Please do-

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

#480046

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. 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

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

#480061

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. 

> 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

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

#480087

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.

> 
> > 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

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

#480105

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. 

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

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

#480132

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)


> 
> 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

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

#480212

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. 

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]

#480216

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.

> 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.

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

#480217

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:

>> > 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.

What is (-6)/(-2), Stupid Ken?


>> 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.

What is (-6)/(-2)?  Remember, I asked you first. About 6 years ago.

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

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

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

csiph-web