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

Groups > sci.physics > #579460 > unrolled thread

Questions for Eisteinians

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-21 14:36 -0700
    Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 16:45 -0500
      Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-21 15:53 -0700
        Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 18:54 -0500
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 17:22 -0700
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 05:51 -0700
            Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:06 -0500
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-22 13:42 -0700
            Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 17:55 -0500
        Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:18 -0500
    Re: Questions for Eisteinians "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 16:01 -0700
      Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-21 16:16 -0700
      Re: Questions for Eisteinians Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:25 +0200
        Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 06:45 -0700
      Re: Questions for Eisteinians Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 04:56 -0700
        Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 05:22 -0700
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:15 -0500
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 15:39 -0700
            Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 07:34 -0700
              Re: Questions for Eisteinians Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:51 -0700
                Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 12:55 -0700
                  Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 14:56 -0500
                  Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:05 -0500
                    Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:33 -0700
                      Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 22:24 +0000
                      Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 18:14 -0500
                        Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 20:33 -0700
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:23 -0500
            Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:09 -0700
              Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:24 -0500
              Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:38 -0500
    Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-22 01:30 +0000
      Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 06:11 -0700
        Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:19 -0500
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-22 06:49 -0700
            Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 11:27 -0500
            Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:29 -0500
        Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-22 22:59 +0000
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 07:41 -0700
            Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 17:49 +0000
              Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:20 -0700
                Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:26 -0500
                Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-23 22:22 +0000
        Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:27 -0500
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:10 -0700
            Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:40 -0500
    Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:15 -0500
      Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 13:03 -0700
        Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:27 -0500
        Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:38 -0500
          Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 14:51 -0700

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

#579864

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:51:57 AM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> How are you defining 'ether'?

Please read the following link for a description of my ether called the E-Matrix:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

> The term was originally used to represent an unseen medium through which things moved. An actual substance, composed of some material. In Einsteinian theory, there is no such medium. Instead, 'spacetime' describes a direct relationship between objects in space, with no need for any special medium. Of course, if you prefer, you could say that this 'ether' is the 'fabric of spacetime composed of all those objects in space, and nothing else. 

Calling the ether as spacetime does not mean that there is no ether.

>It would be correct because you are decribing the same phenomena, but with different terminology. However, this could easily be confused with older notions that have been disproven (they are inconsistent with actual >observations).

The concept of ether never been dis[roved.

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

#579865

On 5/23/16 2:55 PM, kenseto wrote:
> The concept of ether never been dis[roved.


   The concept of ether is not needed for anything in relativity.



-- 

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]

#579872

On 5/23/2016 2:55 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:51:57 AM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
>> How are you defining 'ether'?
>
> Please read the following link for a description of my ether called the E-Matrix:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
>
>> The term was originally used to represent an unseen medium through which things moved.
>> An actual substance, composed of some material. In Einsteinian theory, there is no such
>> medium. Instead, 'spacetime' describes a direct relationship between objects in space,
>> with no need for any special medium. Of course, if you prefer, you could say that this
>> 'ether' is the 'fabric of spacetime composed of all those objects in space, and nothing else.
>
> Calling the ether as spacetime does not mean that there is no ether.

As he just said, if you want to call spacetime ether instead, you can, 
but you gain nothing by relabeling the same concept.

>
>> It would be correct because you are decribing the same phenomena, but with different
>> terminology. However, this could easily be confused with older notions that have been
>> disproven (they are inconsistent with actual >observations).
>
> The concept of ether never been dis[roved.
>

Several different concepts of ether have been disproven by experiment. 
For example, the kind of ether that is stationary, and in which the 
speed of light is only c in that stationary frame, and through which the 
earth moves, has been disproven by experiment.

A material ether which is materially stiff enough to support transverse 
waves (like light) has been disproven by experiment.




-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#579880

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:05:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/23/2016 2:55 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:51:57 AM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:
> >> How are you defining 'ether'?
> >
> > Please read the following link for a description of my ether called the E-Matrix:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> >
> >> The term was originally used to represent an unseen medium through which things moved.
> >> An actual substance, composed of some material. In Einsteinian theory, there is no such
> >> medium. Instead, 'spacetime' describes a direct relationship between objects in space,
> >> with no need for any special medium. Of course, if you prefer, you could say that this
> >> 'ether' is the 'fabric of spacetime composed of all those objects in space, and nothing else.
> >
> > Calling the ether as spacetime does not mean that there is no ether.
> 
> As he just said, if you want to call spacetime ether instead, you can, 
> but you gain nothing by relabeling the same concept.

The ether means a material medium. My ether is the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix is a structured and elastic stationary medium.....different speeds of a clock moving in the E-Matrix will effect the rate of accumulating of clock seconds.  
> 
> >
> >> It would be correct because you are decribing the same phenomena, but with different
> >> terminology. However, this could easily be confused with older notions that have been
> >> disproven (they are inconsistent with actual >observations).
> >
> > The concept of ether never been dis[roved.
> >
> 
> Several different concepts of ether have been disproven by experiment. 

No not disproven the E-Matrix.


> For example, the kind of ether that is stationary, and in which the 
> speed of light is only c in that stationary frame, and through which the 
> earth moves, has been disproven by experiment.

The E-Matrix agrees with all past experiments.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf


> 
> A material ether which is materially stiff enough to support transverse 
> waves (like light) has been disproven by experiment.

The E-Matrix supports transverse waves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#579921

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:05:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> Several different concepts of ether have been disproven by experiment. 

>> 
>> A material ether which is materially stiff enough to support transverse 
>> waves (like light) has been disproven by experiment.

>The E-Matrix supports transverse waves.

So the E-Matrix has been disproven by experiment.

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

#579934

The Elastodynamics of the Spacetime Continuum as a Framework for 
Strained Spacetime
> http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2013/PP-32-08.PDF


>
> We derive the elastodynamics of the spacetime continuum by applying
> continuum mechanical results to strained spacetime. Based on this
> model, a stress-strain relation is derived for the spacetime
> continuum. From the kinematic relations and the equilibrium dynamic
> equation of the spacetime continuum, we derive a series of wave
> equations: the displacement, dilatational, rotational and strain wave
> equations. Hence energy propa- gates in the spacetime continuum as
> wave-like deformations which can be decomposed into dilatations and
> distortions. Dilatations involve an invariant change in volume of the
> spacetime continuum which is the source of the associated rest-mass
> energy density of the deformation, while distortions correspond to a
> change of shape of the space-time continuum without a change in
> volume and are thus massless. The deformations propagate in the
> continuum by longitudinal and transverse wave displacements. This is
> somewhat reminiscent of wave-particle duality, with the transverse
> mode corresponding to the wave aspects and the longitudinal mode
> corresponding to the particle aspects. A continuity equation for
> deformations of the spacetime continuum is derived, where the
> gradient of the massive volume dilatation acts as a source term. The
> nature of the spacetime continuum volume force and the inhomogeneous
> wave equations need further investigation.


-- 

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]

#579992

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> The Elastodynamics of the Spacetime Continuum as a Framework for 
> Strained Spacetime
> > http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2013/PP-32-08.PDF

You can't strain spacetime if it is not a material medium as you Srians claimed.
> 
> 
> >
> > We derive the elastodynamics of the spacetime continuum by applying
> > continuum mechanical results to strained spacetime. Based on this
> > model, a stress-strain relation is derived for the spacetime
> > continuum. From the kinematic relations and the equilibrium dynamic
> > equation of the spacetime continuum, we derive a series of wave
> > equations: the displacement, dilatational, rotational and strain wave
> > equations. Hence energy propa- gates in the spacetime continuum as
> > wave-like deformations which can be decomposed into dilatations and
> > distortions. Dilatations involve an invariant change in volume of the
> > spacetime continuum which is the source of the associated rest-mass
> > energy density of the deformation, while distortions correspond to a
> > change of shape of the space-time continuum without a change in
> > volume and are thus massless. The deformations propagate in the
> > continuum by longitudinal and transverse wave displacements. This is
> > somewhat reminiscent of wave-particle duality, with the transverse
> > mode corresponding to the wave aspects and the longitudinal mode
> > corresponding to the particle aspects. A continuity equation for
> > deformations of the spacetime continuum is derived, where the
> > gradient of the massive volume dilatation acts as a source term. The
> > nature of the spacetime continuum volume force and the inhomogeneous
> > wave equations need further investigation.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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]

#579802

On 5/22/2016 7:22 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Exactly....if there is length contraction there must be length expansion

Ken, no. There is no law that says, "If there is an effect in one 
direction, then there must be an effect in the opposite direction."
Why do you think such a law must hold?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#579873

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 12:23:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/22/2016 7:22 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Exactly....if there is length contraction there must be length expansion
> 
> Ken, no. There is no law that says, "If there is an effect in one 
> direction, then there must be an effect in the opposite direction."
> Why do you think such a law must hold?

If A accumulates more clock seconds than B between meeting then B must agree with A and predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate.

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

#579877

On 5/23/16 3:09 PM, kenseto wrote:
> If A accumulates more clock seconds than B between meeting then B must agree with A and predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate.


   No Seto --

   Let A and B be in relative motion with each other. Who is moving and
   who is not moving doesn't matter.

   Let A and B have a relative velocity of v/c
   then  γ = 1/√(1-(v/c)^2)

   Let  ∆A' be a proper time interval on A's clock
   Let  ∆B' be a proper time interval on B's clock

   From B's perspective:
   B will measure A's clock interval  ∆A = γ ∆A'

   From A's perspective:
   A will measure B's clock interval  ∆B = γ ∆B'

      with some numbers (ignoring Doppler effects)

   Let A and B have a relative velocity of v/c = 0.86
   then γ = 1.96

   From B's perspective:
   B will measure A's clock interval  ∆A = 1.96 ∆A'

   From A's perspective:
   A will measure B's clock interval  ∆B = 1.96 ∆B'




-- 

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]

#579883

On 5/23/2016 3:09 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 12:23:29 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/22/2016 7:22 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> Exactly....if there is length contraction there must be length expansion
>>
>> Ken, no. There is no law that says, "If there is an effect in one
>> direction, then there must be an effect in the opposite direction."
>> Why do you think such a law must hold?
>
> If A accumulates more clock seconds than B between meeting then B must agree
> with A and predicts that A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate.

But A doesn't say that. This isn't what time dilation means.

>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#579489

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>Subject: Re: Questions for Eisteinians

WTF is an "Eisteinians"?

>Why is the SRT math only have time dilation and length contraction equations?

>Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations?

Read the source: 
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

You'll see that gamma is defined as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Given that v is a real number whose absolute value is less than c, you'll
see that gamma can only be a real number greater than or equal to 1 as the
denominator is always less than or equal to 1.

As the time dilation of a moving object is proportional to gamma, which
can only be greater than or equal to one, there is no possibility of
time contraction, what you miscall as "time expansion".  Similarly, the
measured length of a moving object is inversely proportional to gamma,
there can only be length contraction and no length expansion.

>Does that mean that SRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer 
>assumes that he is in a preferred frame.....the aether frame and that's 
>why SRT and LET have the same math?

Of course not, since SRT explicitly has no preferred frame and no aether.

>Does that mean that the inertial frame in SRT is just another name for 
>the aether frame?

Of course not, since SRT explicitly disavows any need for any aether.

>Thank you for your answers.

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

#579522

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 9:31:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >Subject: Re: Questions for Eisteinians
> 
> WTF is an "Eisteinians"?
> 
> >Why is the SRT math only have time dilation and length contraction equations?
> 
> >Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations?
> 
> Read the source: 
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> 
> You'll see that gamma is defined as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> Given that v is a real number whose absolute value is less than c, you'll
> see that gamma can only be a real number greater than or equal to 1 as the
> denominator is always less than or equal to 1.

Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is your point????

> 
> As the time dilation of a moving object is proportional to gamma, which
> can only be greater than or equal to one, there is no possibility of
> time contraction, what you miscall as "time expansion". 

1/gamma is equal to your "time contraction" and my "time expansion" and it means that a moving clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the observer's clock.

> Similarly, the
> measured length of a moving object is inversely proportional to gamma,
> there can only be length contraction and no length expansion.

Similarly 1/gamma is light-path length expansion. It means that a moving meter stick will have a shorter light-path length than the light-path length of the observer's meter stick and the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its material length.


> 
> >Does that mean that SRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer 
> >assumes that he is in a preferred frame.....the aether frame and that's 
> >why SRT and LET have the same math?
> 
> Of course not, since SRT explicitly has no preferred frame and no aether.

Assertion is not a valid argument.


> >Does that mean that the inertial frame in SRT is just another name for 
> >the aether frame?
> 
> Of course not, since SRT explicitly disavows any need for any aether.

Disavow all you want....an inertial frame is just another name for a location in the aether. That's why SRT and LET derived the same math.

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

#579524

On 5/22/16 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is your point????


   No Seto, γ ≥ 1

   γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)

   If you understood algebra you would see why γ ≥ 1


-- 

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]

#579528

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 9:19:27 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/22/16 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is your point????
> 
> 
>    No Seto, γ ≥ 1
> 
>    γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)
> 
>    If you understood algebra you would see why γ ≥ 1

Idiot I said 1/gamma<1. gee you are stupid.

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

#579565

On 5/22/16 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 9:19:27 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/22/16 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is your point????
>>
>>
>>    No Seto, γ ≥ 1
>>
>>    γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)
>>
>>    If you understood algebra you would see why γ ≥ 1
>
> Idiot I said 1/gamma<1. gee you are stupid.
>
>

   The point, Seto, is that because γ ≥ 1 that time dilation is always
   the slowing of time. A measure time interval ∆t' ≥ ∆t , and
   ∆t' (measured time) = γ ∆t (proper time)

   where  γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)



-- 

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]

#579806

On 5/22/2016 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 9:19:27 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/22/16 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is your point????
>>
>>
>>    No Seto, γ ≥ 1
>>
>>    γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)
>>
>>    If you understood algebra you would see why γ ≥ 1
>
> Idiot I said 1/gamma<1. gee you are stupid.
>
>

Seto, you said this:
"Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1"
Then you said this:
"Idiot I said 1/gamma<1."

Who's being stupid here, Seto?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#579611

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 9:31:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> >Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations?

>> Read the source:
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

>> You'll see that gamma is defined as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
>> Given that v is a real number whose absolute value is less than c, you'll
>> see that gamma can only be a real number greater than or equal to 1 as the
>> denominator is always less than or equal to 1.

>Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is 
>your point????

Ken, 1/gamma is NEVER greater than 1.  Simple algebra shows that if 
gamma>=1, 1/gamma must be between 0 and 1 inclusive.

>> As the time dilation of a moving object is proportional to gamma, which
>> can only be greater than or equal to one, there is no possibility of
>> time contraction, what you miscall as "time expansion".

>1/gamma is equal to your "time contraction" and my "time expansion" and it 
>means that a moving clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate 
>than the observer's clock.

This is not part of SR.  There is no part of Einstein's math that has a 
term like that.  See:
    ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
    By A. EINSTEIN
    June 30, 1905
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

>> Similarly, the
>> measured length of a moving object is inversely proportional to gamma,
>> there can only be length contraction and no length expansion.

>Similarly 1/gamma is light-path length expansion.

Once again, there is nothing in SR that predicts that.  See:
    ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
    By A. EINSTEIN
    June 30, 1905
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

>> >Does that mean that SRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer
>> >assumes that he is in a preferred frame.....the aether frame and that's
>> >why SRT and LET have the same math?

>> Of course not, since SRT explicitly has no preferred frame and no aether.

>Assertion is not a valid argument.

So why do you always make (invalid) assertions about SR?

But it's not my assertion.  It's Einstein's, with proof:
    ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
    By A. EINSTEIN
    June 30, 1905
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

>> >Does that mean that the inertial frame in SRT is just another name for
>> >the aether frame?

>> Of course not, since SRT explicitly disavows any need for any aether.

>Disavow all you want....

I didn't disavow it, Einstein did.  See:
    ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
    By A. EINSTEIN
    June 30, 1905
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

>an inertial frame is just another name for a location in the aether. 
>That's why SRT and LET derived the same math.

You keep saying "Assertion is not a valid argument."  So why do you keep
asserting that falsehood?  Especially when Einstein explicitly disavows
use of the aether in his paper?

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

#579779

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 9:31:11 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >> >Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations?
> 
> >> Read the source:
> >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> 
> >> You'll see that gamma is defined as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> >> Given that v is a real number whose absolute value is less than c, you'll
> >> see that gamma can only be a real number greater than or equal to 1 as the
> >> denominator is always less than or equal to 1.
> 
> >Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is 
> >your point????
> 
> Ken, 1/gamma is NEVER greater than 1.  Simple algebra shows that if 
> gamma>=1, 1/gamma must be between 0 and 1 inclusive.

I mis-spoke.....1/gamma is always less than one. The point is that using 1/gamma to predict the rate of the other clock means that the other clock is running faster. 
> 
> >> As the time dilation of a moving object is proportional to gamma, which
> >> can only be greater than or equal to one, there is no possibility of
> >> time contraction, what you miscall as "time expansion".
> 
> >1/gamma is equal to your "time contraction" and my "time expansion" and it 
> >means that a moving clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate 
> >than the observer's clock.
> 
> This is not part of SR.  There is no part of Einstein's math that has a 
> term like that. 

The point is that that's why SR is an incomplete theory. That's why I invented IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

 See:
>     ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
>     By A. EINSTEIN
>     June 30, 1905
>     http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> 
> >> Similarly, the
> >> measured length of a moving object is inversely proportional to gamma,
> >> there can only be length contraction and no length expansion.
> 
> >Similarly 1/gamma is light-path length expansion.
> 
> Once again, there is nothing in SR that predicts that.  See:
>     ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
>     By A. EINSTEIN
>     June 30, 1905
>     http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> 
> >> >Does that mean that SRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer
> >> >assumes that he is in a preferred frame.....the aether frame and that's
> >> >why SRT and LET have the same math?
> 
> >> Of course not, since SRT explicitly has no preferred frame and no aether.
> 
> >Assertion is not a valid argument.
> 
> So why do you always make (invalid) assertions about SR?
> 
> But it's not my assertion.  It's Einstein's, with proof:
>     ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
>     By A. EINSTEIN
>     June 30, 1905
>     http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> 
> >> >Does that mean that the inertial frame in SRT is just another name for
> >> >the aether frame?
> 
> >> Of course not, since SRT explicitly disavows any need for any aether.
> 
> >Disavow all you want....
> 
> I didn't disavow it, Einstein did.  See:
>     ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
>     By A. EINSTEIN
>     June 30, 1905
>     http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> 
> >an inertial frame is just another name for a location in the aether. 
> >That's why SRT and LET derived the same math.
> 
> You keep saying "Assertion is not a valid argument."  So why do you keep
> asserting that falsehood?  Especially when Einstein explicitly disavows
> use of the aether in his paper?

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

#579841

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> >1/gamma is equal to your "time contraction" and my "time expansion" and it 
>> >means that a moving clock accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate 
>> >than the observer's clock.
>> 
>> This is not part of SR.  There is no part of Einstein's math that has a 
>> term like that. 

>The point is that that's why SR is an incomplete theory. That's why I 
>invented IRT.

But IRT is coming up with a possibility that is not suggested by the math.
This is because if A sees B moving at a velocity v, B will see A as moving
at a velocity of -v.  However, the computation of gamma depends on the 
square of the velocity, and (-v)^2 is equal to v^2, so both get the exact
same value for gamma.  Therefore each sees the other's clock as running 
gamma times slower, never faster.

That is why IRT is a failed theory, it predicts things not in the math.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web