Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #579460 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-21 14:36 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-26 14:15 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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 kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:31 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:30 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-24 14:35 +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> - 2016-05-24 06:35 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:56 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:52 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:02 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:11 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:40 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 13:56 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:18 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:01 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:26 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:32 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:31 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-24 10:54 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 10:21 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-24 14:16 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 14:15 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 06:23 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:29 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 08:46 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-24 13:37 -0400
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 08:01 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 07:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:00 -0500
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 kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:30 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-24 14:32 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:34 -0500
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
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 06:30 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 06:51 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:42 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:08 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:12 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:42 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:47 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:41 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 09:18 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 11:25 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 07:37 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:07 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 11:50 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:23 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-25 16:50 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 13:58 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-25 21:39 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 17:11 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 02:53 +0000
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 09:42 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 11:51 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 09:32 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:02 -0500
Re: Questions for Eisteinians "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:33 -0700
Re: Questions for Eisteinians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 14:15 -0400
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 08:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <usWdnTxwj7BBLNzKnZ2dnUU7-TUAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #579522 |
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]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 06:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14ca9643-852c-421c-b093-fbd17ebfe52c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579524 |
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]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 11:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <usWdnT5wj7CUQ9zKnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #579528 |
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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 11:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhvb4j$cl6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579528 |
On 5/22/2016 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 9:19:27 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 5/22/16 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is your point???? >> >> >> No Seto, γ ≥ 1 >> >> γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) >> >> If you understood algebra you would see why γ ≥ 1 > > Idiot I said 1/gamma<1. gee you are stupid. > > Seto, you said this: "Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1" Then you said this: "Idiot I said 1/gamma<1." Who's being stupid here, Seto? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 22:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhtdkt$d9i$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #579522 |
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]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 07:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88ab14bb-c821-4899-b829-02cca9ffae96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579611 |
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]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhvfri$95r$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #579779 |
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]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72ec89f1-629a-49a7-8e00-261fd085b32a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579841 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 1:50:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > 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. That's why SRT math is incomplete. > This is because if A sees B moving at a velocity v, B will see A as moving > at a velocity of -v. No.....A uses his clock to determine B is moving wrt him at Vab and B uses his clock to determine A is moving at speed Vba. > 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. You calculations is based on the following bogus assumptions: 1. A and B clock second contain the same amount of time. IOW , A clock second is a universal interval of time.....it is not. 2.You assumed that each predicts the other clock runs slow by a factor of 1/gamma. This is wrong. Each must include the possibility that the other clock is running fast by a factor of gamma. > > That is why IRT is a failed theory, it predicts things not in the math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 15:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QKydnSTz5PrG-t7KnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #579876 |
On 5/23/16 3:20 PM, kenseto wrote:
> No.....A uses his clock to determine B is moving wrt him at Vab and B uses his clock to determine A is moving at speed Vba.
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]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhvvr6$9v7$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #579876 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 1:50:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >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. >That's why SRT math is incomplete. What, you think you can add unsupported ideas wiy-nilly to a theory, and that makes it more "complete"? I just call it unsupported crap. >> This is because if A sees B moving at a velocity v, B will see A as moving >> at a velocity of -v. >No.....A uses his clock to determine B is moving wrt him at Vab and B uses >his clock to determine A is moving at speed Vba. Yes, and according to the symmetry of relativity, Vba = -Vab. I just wrote v and -v rather than Vab and Vba. >> 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. >You calculations is based on the following bogus assumptions: >1. A and B clock second contain the same amount of time. IOW , A clock >second is a universal interval of time.....it is not. The concept of proper time means that A always sees A's clock run at the normal rate. And B always sees B's clock run at its normal rate. This is part of SR, the concept of proper time. >2.You assumed that each predicts the other clock runs slow by a factor of >1/gamma. This is wrong. No, I just _showed_ that each sees the other's clock runs slow. Both A and B come up with the same gamma, and each sees the same thing in the other. You may think it's a contradiction but it's not. A and B are measuring _different things_. In one case, two readings of Clock A1 are compared first to Clock B1 and then to Clock B2. In the other case, two readings of Clock B1 are compared to Clock A1 and then to Clock A2. Two different things. > Each must include the possibility that the other >clock is running fast by a factor of gamma. Since the math never suggests that, and the two time measurements are of two different things, there simply is no reason to do so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 06:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <750fa0be-4303-49b6-964f-e3bcf08e3fc7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579920 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 6:23:09 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 1:50:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >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. > > >That's why SRT math is incomplete. > > What, you think you can add unsupported ideas wiy-nilly to a theory, and > that makes it more "complete"? I just call it unsupported crap. Idiot....it is completely supported by observations. Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. That means that there is no reciprocity. Gee you are stupid. > > >> This is because if A sees B moving at a velocity v, B will see A as moving > >> at a velocity of -v. > > >No.....A uses his clock to determine B is moving wrt him at Vab and B uses > >his clock to determine A is moving at speed Vba. > > Yes, and according to the symmetry of relativity, Vba = -Vab. I just > wrote v and -v rather than Vab and Vba. No idiot....Vab and Vba have different values. Why? Because a clock second on the A clock is worth 1/gamma second on the B clock. Gee you are stupid. > > >> 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. > > >You calculations is based on the following bogus assumptions: > >1. A and B clock second contain the same amount of time. IOW , A clock > >second is a universal interval of time.....it is not. > > The concept of proper time means that A always sees A's clock run at the > normal rate. And B always sees B's clock run at its normal rate. This > is part of SR, the concept of proper time. Idiot.....this assumes that a clock second is a universal interval of time...it is not. > > >2.You assumed that each predicts the other clock runs slow by a factor of > >1/gamma. This is wrong. > > No, I just _showed_ that each sees the other's clock runs slow. Both A and B > come up with the same gamma, and each sees the same thing in the other. No idiot.....It is confirmed experimentally that A accumulates more clock seconds than B between meetings. That means that their clock second are not equal and that means that they have different gamma. Gee you are stupid. > > You may think it's a contradiction but it's not. A and B are measuring > _different things_. In one case, two readings of Clock A1 are compared > first to Clock B1 and then to Clock B2. In the other case, two readings of > Clock B1 are compared to Clock A1 and then to Clock A2. Two different > things. There is no B2...only A1 and B1. SR math predicts that a second on the B1 clock is worth gamma second on the A1 clock. Therefore no reciprocity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni1omc$5c8$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #580047 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 6:23:09 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> But IRT is coming up with a possibility that is not suggested by the math. >> >> >That's why SRT math is incomplete. >> >> What, you think you can add unsupported ideas wiy-nilly to a theory, and >> that makes it more "complete"? I just call it unsupported crap. >Idiot....it is completely supported by observations. Clocks in relative >motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. That means that there >is no reciprocity. Gee you are stupid. No, it has NEVER been supported by observation. You cannot name even one time when a moving clock has been measured to run faster than the local clock. Meanwhile, the math shows that that will never happen. >> >> This is because if A sees B moving at a velocity v, B will see A as moving >> >> at a velocity of -v. >> >> >No.....A uses his clock to determine B is moving wrt him at Vab and B uses >> >his clock to determine A is moving at speed Vba. >> >> Yes, and according to the symmetry of relativity, Vba = -Vab. I just >> wrote v and -v rather than Vab and Vba. >No idiot....Vab and Vba have different values. Why? Because a clock second >on the A clock is worth 1/gamma second on the B clock. Gee you are stupid. That violates the first postulate of SR, that the laws of physics are the same for every reference frame, so that cannot be part of SR. Additionally, if you claim IRT makes that claim, then that proves that SR cannot possibly be a subset of IRT. >> The concept of proper time means that A always sees A's clock run at the >> normal rate. And B always sees B's clock run at its normal rate. This >> is part of SR, the concept of proper time. >Idiot.....this assumes that a clock second is a universal interval of >time...it is not. All observers always see their own (co-moving) clock run at the normal rate. No assumptions necessary. This is the _definition_ of proper time. >> >2.You assumed that each predicts the other clock runs slow by a factor of >> >1/gamma. This is wrong. >> >> No, I just _showed_ that each sees the other's clock runs slow. Both A and B >> come up with the same gamma, and each sees the same thing in the other. >No idiot.....It is confirmed experimentally that A accumulates more clock >seconds than B between meetings. No, it has not. It has *NEVER* been shown that if A sees B's clock run slow, then B sees A's clock run fast. Never. (And again, remember A and B are measuring different things when they observe B and A respectively) > That means that their clock second are not >equal and that means that they have different gamma. Gee you are stupid. Since v^2 = (-v)^2, the gammas MUST be equal. >> You may think it's a contradiction but it's not. A and B are measuring >> _different things_. In one case, two readings of Clock A1 are compared >> first to Clock B1 and then to Clock B2. In the other case, two readings of >> Clock B1 are compared to Clock A1 and then to Clock A2. Two different >> things. >There is no B2...only A1 and B1. SR math predicts that a second on the B1 >clock is worth gamma second on the A1 clock. Therefore no reciprocity. You don't understand SR. What happens when A measures B's time dilation, B first synchronizes two clocks, B1 and B2 at the ends of a rod. The rod moves past A's clock A1 at velocity v. When B1 meets A1, the times on both clocks A1 and B1 are noted. When B2 meets A1, the times on clocks A1 and B2 are noted. The time difference on A1 (the two A1 times) are compared to the times read from B1 and B2 and compared, and found to differ by a factor of gamma. If you bothered to learn about SR, you'd know this. Now, A also had a second clock A2 that A previously synched with A1. At the same time B was flying past A, B was also making observations. When B1 flew past A1, B also noted the times on A1 and B1. As the rod continued to move, B1 flew past A2. B noted the times on B1 and A2. Doing the same math as A, B noted that A's clock ran slow by a factor of gamma. Note what the second measurements are: A compared A1 to B2, while B compared B1 to A2. THEY DID NOT MEASURE THE SAME THING! You really should learn SR some day, Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 09:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2uWdncUhTrP6-9nKnZ2dnUU7-IudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580047 |
On 5/24/16 8:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No idiot....Vab and Vba have different values. Why? Because a clock second on the A clock is worth 1/gamma second on the B clock. Gee you are stupid.
No Ken, symmetry rules!
Time Dilation for A and B in relative motion
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 ∆t_A' be a proper time interval on A's clock
Let ∆t_B' be a proper time interval on B's clock
From B's perspective:
B will measure A's clock interval ∆t_A = γ ∆t_A'
From A's perspective:
A will measure B's clock interval ∆t_B = γ ∆t_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 ∆t_A = 1.96 ∆t_A'
From A's perspective:
A will measure B's clock interval ∆t_B = 1.96 ∆t_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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 11:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhvb1i$cl6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579522 |
On 5/22/2016 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is your point???? So it means that gamma's never less than one. (By the way, you made a mistake. Gamma is never less than one, which means that 1/gamma is never greater than one. You said it means that 1/gamma is ALWAYS greater than one.) This means gamma has a MINIMUM value and for any value of v that's not zero, gamma will be larger than that minimum. But you have this imaginary law that says that if there is length contraction, there should be an opposite effect, length expansion. Which is like saying for every effect there should be an opposite effect. So if there is a gamma that is greater than 1, there should also be a gamma less than 1. But there is no such law of opposites. No such law is in force in the universe. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f22d312d-1bfc-4cc7-8486-6acb3c13ed35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579804 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 12:27:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/22/2016 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is your point???? I should say that 1/gamma is always less than 1. > > So it means that gamma's never less than one. (By the way, you made a > mistake. Gamma is never less than one, which means that 1/gamma is never > greater than one. You said it means that 1/gamma is ALWAYS greater than > one.) > > This means gamma has a MINIMUM value and for any value of v that's not > zero, gamma will be larger than that minimum. > > But you have this imaginary law that says that if there is length > contraction, there should be an opposite effect, length expansion. Which > is like saying for every effect there should be an opposite effect. So > if there is a gamma that is greater than 1, there should also be a gamma > less than 1. But there is no such law of opposites. No such law is in > force in the universe. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 15:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhvprv$14cb$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579874 |
On 5/23/2016 3:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 12:27:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/22/2016 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Sigh.....that means that 1/gamma is always greater than 1.....so what is your point???? > > I should say that 1/gamma is always less than 1. Yes, you should say that. Well, sorta. You should say it's never greater than 1. It can certainly be equal to 1 (when v=0) and that's not always less than 1. And next time, when you make a mistake and contradict yourself, please take care not to call others an idiot when you do that. > >> >> So it means that gamma's never less than one. (By the way, you made a >> mistake. Gamma is never less than one, which means that 1/gamma is never >> greater than one. You said it means that 1/gamma is ALWAYS greater than >> one.) >> >> This means gamma has a MINIMUM value and for any value of v that's not >> zero, gamma will be larger than that minimum. >> >> But you have this imaginary law that says that if there is length >> contraction, there should be an opposite effect, length expansion. Which >> is like saying for every effect there should be an opposite effect. So >> if there is a gamma that is greater than 1, there should also be a gamma >> less than 1. But there is no such law of opposites. No such law is in >> force in the universe. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 11:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhvab6$b32$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579460 |
On 5/21/2016 4:36 PM, kenseto wrote: > Why is the SRT math only have time dilation and length contraction equations? > > Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations? Why should it? > > Does that mean that SRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer assumes that > he is in a preferred frame. No, it doesn't mean that. What led you from time dilation and length contraction to preferred frame? >....the aether frame and that's why SRT and LET have the same math? > > Does that mean that the inertial frame in SRT is just another name for the aether frame? > > Thank you for your answers. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7947c6d6-5656-4d12-a17b-35232cd1df73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579798 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 12:15:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/21/2016 4:36 PM, kenseto wrote: > > Why is the SRT math only have time dilation and length contraction equations? > > > > Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations? > > Why should it? Because if A accumulate more clock seconds than B between meetings then B must agree with A and predicts that A's clock rate (rate of accumulating clock seconds) is faster than his own clock. > > > > > Does that mean that SRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer assumes that > > he is in a preferred frame. > > No, it doesn't mean that. What led you from time dilation and length > contraction to preferred frame? Only every location in the preferred ether frame can satisfy what every SR inertial frame claims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 15:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QKydnSfz5Po1-t7KnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #579869 |
On 5/23/16 3:03 PM, kenseto wrote:
> Because if A accumulate more clock seconds than B between meetings then B must agree with A and predicts that A's clock rate (rate of accumulating clock seconds) is faster than his own clock.
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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 15:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhvpnm$14cb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579869 |
On 5/23/2016 3:03 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 12:15:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/21/2016 4:36 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> Why is the SRT math only have time dilation and length contraction equations? >>> >>> Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations? >> >> Why should it? > > Because if A accumulate more clock seconds than B between meetings then B must agree with A > and predicts that A's clock rate (rate of accumulating clock seconds) is faster than his own clock. Why would he do that if that's not what's measured? Reminder that mutual time dilation has been measured. I believe you are trying to insist that nature must behave the way that makes sense to you, and mutual time dilation makes no sense to you, and therefore it is impossible that measurements could show mutual time dilation. But I think you should allow yourself to be surprised by nature. What you'll find out is that your confusion is really that what you've read about time dilation is just NOT CORRECT. Time dilation does not mean that a moving clock accumulates fewer seconds than a stationary clock. You may have read that somewhere a long time ago, but you don't remember it correctly. What SR says time dilation is, is actually a bit more subtle than that. > >> >>> >>> Does that mean that SRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer assumes that >>> he is in a preferred frame. >> >> No, it doesn't mean that. What led you from time dilation and length >> contraction to preferred frame? > > Only every location in the preferred ether frame can satisfy what every SR inertial frame claims. I disagree. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web