Groups > sci.physics > #577709 > unrolled thread

Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction?

Started by	xxein1@att.net
First post	2016-05-13 12:17 -0700
Last post	2016-05-16 13:20 +0200
Articles	20 on this page of 278 — 21 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →

#578211

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-16 11:37 +1000
Message-ID	<dpsmi1FuddbU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#578118

On 16/05/2016 1:31 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:05:22 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14/05/2016 5:17 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
>>> Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD and LC?
>>> We all know the math, so skip that.  What is it about velocity that
>>> becomes a cause?  What about gravity as a cause?  How are they a
>>> cause?  Stick to principles of cause and effect or start your own
>>> thread for all else.
>>>
>>> Btw.  Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the question of how it
>>> affects.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's a mistake to think of this as cause and effect. Velocity does not
>> cause time dilation and length contraction. They are simply
>> manifestations of how different observers see the universe.
>>
>> When I move along (even slowly), I observe the world moving the other
>> way. Yet it is not sensible to suggest that my motion has had some
>> strange effect on the world. I just observe the world from a different
>> perspective.
>>
>> Similar thoughts apply to gravity.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> xxein:  So according to you, it's no big deal and why should anyone care?
>

No, that's not what I said. But you're looking for a cause when nothing 
is being caused.

Sylvia.

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

#578245

From	xxein1@att.net
Date	2016-05-15 21:45 -0700
Message-ID	<10429c21-1547-4eda-ad2b-3bc133eee9be@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578211

On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:37:11 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16/05/2016 1:31 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:05:22 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 14/05/2016 5:17 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> >>> Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD and LC?
> >>> We all know the math, so skip that.  What is it about velocity that
> >>> becomes a cause?  What about gravity as a cause?  How are they a
> >>> cause?  Stick to principles of cause and effect or start your own
> >>> thread for all else.
> >>>
> >>> Btw.  Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the question of how it
> >>> affects.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's a mistake to think of this as cause and effect. Velocity does not
> >> cause time dilation and length contraction. They are simply
> >> manifestations of how different observers see the universe.
> >>
> >> When I move along (even slowly), I observe the world moving the other
> >> way. Yet it is not sensible to suggest that my motion has had some
> >> strange effect on the world. I just observe the world from a different
> >> perspective.
> >>
> >> Similar thoughts apply to gravity.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > xxein:  So according to you, it's no big deal and why should anyone care?
> >
> 
> No, that's not what I said. But you're looking for a cause when nothing 
> is being caused.
> 
> Sylvia.

xxein:  You know the clocks those twins have?  Whenever I see them side by side, they never have the same time.  Did I lose half my perspective?

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

#578248

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-16 15:00 +1000
Message-ID	<dpt2fdF1teqU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#578245

On 16/05/2016 2:45 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:37:11 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16/05/2016 1:31 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:05:22 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 14/05/2016 5:17 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
>>>>> Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD
>>>>> and LC? We all know the math, so skip that.  What is it about
>>>>> velocity that becomes a cause?  What about gravity as a
>>>>> cause?  How are they a cause?  Stick to principles of cause
>>>>> and effect or start your own thread for all else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Btw.  Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the question
>>>>> of how it affects.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a mistake to think of this as cause and effect. Velocity
>>>> does not cause time dilation and length contraction. They are
>>>> simply manifestations of how different observers see the
>>>> universe.
>>>>
>>>> When I move along (even slowly), I observe the world moving the
>>>> other way. Yet it is not sensible to suggest that my motion has
>>>> had some strange effect on the world. I just observe the world
>>>> from a different perspective.
>>>>
>>>> Similar thoughts apply to gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> xxein:  So according to you, it's no big deal and why should
>>> anyone care?
>>>
>>
>> No, that's not what I said. But you're looking for a cause when
>> nothing is being caused.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> xxein:  You know the clocks those twins have?  Whenever I see them
> side by side, they never have the same time.  Did I lose half my
> perspective?
>

So you never look at them side by side just as they set out on their 
journeys?

The travel by different routes. There's no reason to expect their clocks 
to say the same when they get back.

Sylvia.

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

#578424

From	xxein1@att.net
Date	2016-05-16 12:47 -0700
Message-ID	<1e18e60c-8828-470d-b3db-1bca6d34e91b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578248

On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 1:00:33 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16/05/2016 2:45 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:37:11 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 16/05/2016 1:31 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:05:22 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 14/05/2016 5:17 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> >>>>> Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD
> >>>>> and LC? We all know the math, so skip that.  What is it about
> >>>>> velocity that becomes a cause?  What about gravity as a
> >>>>> cause?  How are they a cause?  Stick to principles of cause
> >>>>> and effect or start your own thread for all else.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Btw.  Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the question
> >>>>> of how it affects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's a mistake to think of this as cause and effect. Velocity
> >>>> does not cause time dilation and length contraction. They are
> >>>> simply manifestations of how different observers see the
> >>>> universe.
> >>>>
> >>>> When I move along (even slowly), I observe the world moving the
> >>>> other way. Yet it is not sensible to suggest that my motion has
> >>>> had some strange effect on the world. I just observe the world
> >>>> from a different perspective.
> >>>>
> >>>> Similar thoughts apply to gravity.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> xxein:  So according to you, it's no big deal and why should
> >>> anyone care?
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, that's not what I said. But you're looking for a cause when
> >> nothing is being caused.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > xxein:  You know the clocks those twins have?  Whenever I see them
> > side by side, they never have the same time.  Did I lose half my
> > perspective?
> >
> 
> So you never look at them side by side just as they set out on their 
> journeys?
> 
> The travel by different routes. There's no reason to expect their clocks 
> to say the same when they get back.
> 
> Sylvia.

xxein:  So I have a reason to expect them to be different?  (Let's skip gravity for a moment.)  I set their clocks before they left.  One twin came back an hour slow and the other was two hours slow.  They each went directly to the same place and stayed a day before returning - although one came back before the other.  Why were their clocks different from one another?  Did they forget to oil their clocks?  What caused their clocks to have different times - both slower than mine?

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

#578459

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-16 15:37 -0700
Message-ID	<ae8d88e6-24ee-43ee-815c-6a5ae2649cdb@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578424

xxe...@att.net
- show quoted text -
xxein:  So I have a reason to expect them to be different?  (Let's skip gravity for a moment.)  I set their clocks before they left.  One twin came back an hour slow and the other was two hours slow.  They each went directly to the same place and stayed a day before returning - although one came back before the other.  Why were their clocks different from one another?  Did they forget to oil their clocks?  What caused their clocks to have different times - both slower than mine? 
---------------

Da fuck is this? A riddle?

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

#578501

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-17 12:53 +1000
Message-ID	<dpvfclFh8n4U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#578424

On 17/05/2016 5:47 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 1:00:33 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16/05/2016 2:45 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:37:11 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 16/05/2016 1:31 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 9:05:22 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/05/2016 5:17 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
>>>>>>> Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of
>>>>>>> TD and LC? We all know the math, so skip that.  What is
>>>>>>> it about velocity that becomes a cause?  What about
>>>>>>> gravity as a cause?  How are they a cause?  Stick to
>>>>>>> principles of cause and effect or start your own thread
>>>>>>> for all else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Btw.  Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the
>>>>>>> question of how it affects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a mistake to think of this as cause and effect.
>>>>>> Velocity does not cause time dilation and length
>>>>>> contraction. They are simply manifestations of how
>>>>>> different observers see the universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I move along (even slowly), I observe the world moving
>>>>>> the other way. Yet it is not sensible to suggest that my
>>>>>> motion has had some strange effect on the world. I just
>>>>>> observe the world from a different perspective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similar thoughts apply to gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> xxein:  So according to you, it's no big deal and why should
>>>>> anyone care?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, that's not what I said. But you're looking for a cause
>>>> when nothing is being caused.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> xxein:  You know the clocks those twins have?  Whenever I see
>>> them side by side, they never have the same time.  Did I lose
>>> half my perspective?
>>>
>>
>> So you never look at them side by side just as they set out on
>> their journeys?
>>
>> The travel by different routes. There's no reason to expect their
>> clocks to say the same when they get back.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> xxein:  So I have a reason to expect them to be different?  (Let's
> skip gravity for a moment.)  I set their clocks before they left.
> One twin came back an hour slow and the other was two hours slow.
> They each went directly to the same place and stayed a day before
> returning - although one came back before the other.  Why were their
> clocks different from one another?  Did they forget to oil their
> clocks?  What caused their clocks to have different times - both
> slower than mine?
>

In the scenario you describe, they've taken different paths through 
space time, consequently there's no reason to expect their clocks to 
show the same when they get back.

This is not fundamentally different from having them drive cars on a 
round trip, but via different routes, and observing different numbers on 
the trip meters that show distance travelled when they get back.

A journey through space-time is more difficult to visualise, but that's 
the only essential difference.

Sylvia.

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

#578835

From	xxein1@att.net
Date	2016-05-18 12:44 -0700
Message-ID	<5e612980-ccfe-478d-8293-b42d7bf2b617@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578501

> >
> > xxein:  So I have a reason to expect them to be different?  (Let's
> > skip gravity for a moment.)  I set their clocks before they left.
> > One twin came back an hour slow and the other was two hours slow.
> > They each went directly to the same place and stayed a day before
> > returning - although one came back before the other.  Why were their
> > clocks different from one another?  Did they forget to oil their
> > clocks?  What caused their clocks to have different times - both
> > slower than mine?
> >
> 
> In the scenario you describe, they've taken different paths through 
> space time, consequently there's no reason to expect their clocks to 
> show the same when they get back.
> 
> This is not fundamentally different from having them drive cars on a 
> round trip, but via different routes, and observing different numbers on 
> the trip meters that show distance travelled when they get back.
> 
> A journey through space-time is more difficult to visualise, but that's 
> the only essential difference.
> 
> Sylvia.

xxein:  In the scenario I gave, the only difference was velocity (still sans gravity - flat space).  The twins followed the same path in space.  Don't try to quibble about space-time diagrams, world lines or light cones.  You can skip all about proper time too.  Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates?

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

#578877

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-18 18:09 -0700
Message-ID	<c7ed3a00-57d0-458d-8bb0-3b184d52c83f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578835

xxein:  In the scenario I gave, the only difference was velocity (still sans gravity - flat space).  The twins followed the same path in space.  Don't try to quibble about space-time diagrams, world lines or light cones.  You can skip all about proper time too.  Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates? 
--------------

They don't beat at different rates.  The difference is observer dependent

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

#578880

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-19 11:34 +1000
Message-ID	<dq4jhgFit6hU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#578835

On 19/05/2016 5:44 AM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
>>>
>>> xxein:  So I have a reason to expect them to be different?
>>> (Let's skip gravity for a moment.)  I set their clocks before
>>> they left. One twin came back an hour slow and the other was two
>>> hours slow. They each went directly to the same place and stayed
>>> a day before returning - although one came back before the other.
>>> Why were their clocks different from one another?  Did they
>>> forget to oil their clocks?  What caused their clocks to have
>>> different times - both slower than mine?
>>>
>>
>> In the scenario you describe, they've taken different paths
>> through space time, consequently there's no reason to expect their
>> clocks to show the same when they get back.
>>
>> This is not fundamentally different from having them drive cars on
>> a round trip, but via different routes, and observing different
>> numbers on the trip meters that show distance travelled when they
>> get back.
>>
>> A journey through space-time is more difficult to visualise, but
>> that's the only essential difference.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> xxein:  In the scenario I gave, the only difference was velocity
> (still sans gravity - flat space).  The twins followed the same path
> in space.  Don't try to quibble about space-time diagrams, world
> lines or light cones.  You can skip all about proper time too.  Why
> did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates?
>

You're denying the existence of space-time, and then demanding an 
explanation of a scenario that takes place in space-time. It's like 
denying the existence of gravity, and then demanding an explanation of 
why an apple falls from a tree.

Not going to happen.

Sylvia.

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

#578927

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 04:25 -0700
Message-ID	<23f01c3b-e1f5-4426-813d-a86a14c3750f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578880

Sylvie wrote...
> You're denying the existence of space-time, and then demanding an explanation of a scenario that takes place in space-time. It's like denying the existence of gravity, and then demanding an explanation of why an apple falls from a tree.

Not what I read into his post. He seems only to be asking
you to explain an apparent contradiction in YOUR spacetime
theory. 
What are trying to say? No one can question relativity
unless they are  a true believer? ( In which case, conveniently,
they wont question it)

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

#578929

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-19 21:55 +1000
Message-ID	<dq5ntlFpm3sU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#578927

On 19/05/2016 9:25 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sylvie wrote...
>> You're denying the existence of space-time, and then demanding an
>> explanation of a scenario that takes place in space-time. It's like
>> denying the existence of gravity, and then demanding an explanation
>> of why an apple falls from a tree.
>
> Not what I read into his post. He seems only to be asking you to
> explain an apparent contradiction in YOUR spacetime theory. What are
> trying to say? No one can question relativity unless they are  a true
> believer? ( In which case, conveniently, they wont question it)
>

What apparent contradiction?

Sylvia.

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

#578930

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 05:11 -0700
Message-ID	<2101d557-21b0-4bee-bc6d-eed3457adecd@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578929

Sylvia..
>What apparent contradictions?

Why dont you answer his questions instead of asking more
irrelevent questions.
Heres one of his...

>> Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates?

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

#578949

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 08:53 -0500
Message-ID	<urCdnXv2juPxWKDKnZ2dnUU7-TUAAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to	#578930

On 5/19/16 7:11 AM, jay moseley quoted:
> Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates?

   You should read this paper, then you would know why moving clocks
   appear to tick more slowly:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#579001

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 12:42 -0700
Message-ID	<1f441c64-f940-437c-a4dd-38b043c97d56@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578949

Sam
> On 5/19/16 7:11 AM, jay moseley quoted: 
>> Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates?

>You should read this paper, then you would know why moving 
>clocks appear to tick more slowly: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

You have no proof, nor do the clerics at fourmilab, that clocks
tick more slowly due to relativistic effects. It is such a ridiculous claim. 
Any oscillating atom in an atomic clock is responding to different
amounts of external force by resonating at a different frequency.
This is a classical effect observed and understood before any atomic 
clock was ever built or before Albert dreamt up his wacko theory.

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

#579011

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 15:05 -0500
Message-ID	<mtWdnS4Ty4vxgaPKnZ2dnUU7-X0AAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to	#579001

On 5/19/16 2:42 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> You have no proof, nor do the clerics at fourmilab, that clocks
> tick more slowly due to relativistic effects. It is such a ridiculous claim.
> Any oscillating atom in an atomic clock is responding to different
> amounts of external force by resonating at a different frequency.
> This is a classical effect observed and understood before any atomic
> clock was ever built or before Albert dreamt up his wacko theory.

   There are copious observations of time dilation. Particle decays in
   observed in distant supernovae events, particle accelerators, GNSS,
   etc.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#579029

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 14:12 -0700
Message-ID	<3083fc88-d015-4fe9-a597-408c67adca33@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579011

Sam wrote.
>> > You have no proof, nor do the clerics at fourmilab, that clocks > tick more slowly due to relativistic effects. It is such a ridiculous claim. > Any oscillating atom in an atomic clock is responding to different > amounts of external force by resonating at a different frequency. > This is a classical effect >>observed and understood before any atomic > clock was ever built or before Albert dreamt up his wacko theory.

>There are copious observations of time dilation. Particle decays in observed in distant supernovae events, particle accelerators, GNSS,

No time dilation in supernova is observed.
This link shows how in fact supernovae lightcurves fit better
to a non expanding universe. Any fraudulent claim of time dilation
is an assumption made on a falsification of data.
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html?m=1

Regarding time delays in acellerators. You and Odd have claimed this
based on a false assumption that individual protons energies are
measured. This is not true. Only total beam energies consisting
of millions of protons energies are measured. And the amount of
protons in the beam are made up to allow the calculations to
falsely indicate that time dilation has occured. It is worth noting
here that your claim that individual proton energies are measured
has yet to be backed up and/or cited with any verification from any
official source. Despite my repeated requests to you and that pathological
liar Oddball.
And regarding gps. You ignore a classical effect called resonance
in atoms that can explain ALL imaginary so called relativistic time dilation
effects. What is incredible is how you and your peers pretend to
be physicists yet in your narrow minded crusade to validate a religious
dogma called relativity, you ignore centuries of empirical observations
of resonance and resonating systems.

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

#579031

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 16:15 -0500
Message-ID	<DqydnZdh9I1zsaPKnZ2dnUU7-YUAAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to	#579029

On 5/19/16 4:12 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> No time dilation in supernova is observed.


   Time dilation of decaying isotopes roaring out of supernovae is
   definitely observed (and measured).

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#579006

From	"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 12:47 -0700
Message-ID	<ba080f5e-b4d7-4d93-a3e0-c7ec14cafc69@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578930

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:11:58 AM UTC-7, jay moseley wrote:
> Sylvia..
> >What apparent contradictions?
> 
> Why dont you answer his questions instead of asking more
> irrelevent questions.
> Heres one of his...
> 
> >> Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates?
Sun having 99% of the mass of the solar system makes it easy to say it has the slowest time. Jupiter time could be much slower at the equator due to its very fast spin. Its gravitational core makes time very slow there.TreBert

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

#579012

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 15:09 -0500
Message-ID	<mtWdnSkTy4vAgKPKnZ2dnUU7-X2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#579006

On 5/19/16 2:47 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Sun having 99% of the mass of the solar system makes it easy to say it has the slowest time. Jupiter time could be much slower at the equator due to its very fast spin. Its gravitational core makes time very slow there.TreBert


   Slowed time (time dilation, is observer dependent, reber. Your watch
   would tick the same on your wrist (from your perspective) is you were
   on Jupiter, Europa or Earth's moon. It's called proper time, reber.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#579061

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 15:31 -0700
Message-ID	<dd4ad57a-163f-4709-a189-7afd4039e671@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579006

reber g=emc^2
- show quoted text -
Sun having 99% of the mass of the solar system makes it easy to say it has the slowest time. Jupiter time could be much slower at the equator due to its very fast spin. Its gravitational core makes time very slow there.TreBert 
----------

Bert your statement above indicates a less than nominal understanding of relativity

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

Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →

csiph-web

Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction?

Contents

#578211

#578245

#578248

#578424

#578459

#578501

#578835

#578877

#578880

#578927

#578929

#578930

#578949

#579001

#579011

#579029

#579031

#579006

#579012

#579061