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	12 on this page of 352 — 24 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 18 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18]

#579198

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-20 19:08 +1000
Message-ID	<dq82g9F9er8U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#579189

On 20/05/2016 5:16 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sylvia wrote...
>> Essentially, he's seeking to assume that relativity is wrong, and then use that
>> assumption to show that it's wrong. The circularity is obvious. If he wants to
>> use the non-existence of space-time as part of his argument,
>> then he has to demonstrate that non-existence somehow, not just assume it.
>
> Ill let xxein discuss that part with you. But your argument seems to
> suffer from circularity too. You seem to assume space time is
> a proven and that allows you to rule out any other possibilities.

No, I'm not assuming that, but this is about thought experiments. 
Thought experiments relating to relativity have to take space-time as 
read, or they're not thought experiments relating to relativity.

Conclusions from thought experiments set in a different theoretical 
context will not say anything about relativity.

> I think the church did that  centuries ago.
> Anyways you forgot another option. Resonance. Does relativity
> deny atoms are resonant systems? Does relativity deny that resonant
> systems are observed to change resonant frequency when subject
> to a directional force? ? Have relativists even attempted to
> to model the effects of resonance on atomic clocks?
>

Hardly relevant to this discussion.

Sylvia.

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

#579397

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-21 01:49 -0700
Message-ID	<ea6d9b72-9d42-49c5-9fff-3de87c68bc88@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579198

Sylvia wrote
>>Have relativists ever attempted to model the effects of resonance on atomic clocks? 

>Hardly relevant to this discussion.

Hmm... A discussion about scientific explanations of observed 
variations in resonant frequencies of resonants systems like
atomic clocks. Should not take into account any already 
documented effects known to cause variations in resonant 
frequencies of resonant systems like atomic clocks.

Not very scientific Sylvia. 
Good approach for a relativist though. 
Get rid of any verified effects that conflict with predictions made
by your preferred theory.

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

#579490

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-22 13:20 +1000
Message-ID	<dqcmr1F72tfU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#579397

On 21/05/2016 6:49 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sylvia wrote
>>> Have relativists ever attempted to model the effects of resonance on atomic clocks?
>
>> Hardly relevant to this discussion.
>
> Hmm... A discussion about scientific explanations of observed
> variations in resonant frequencies of resonants systems like
> atomic clocks. Should not take into account any already
> documented effects known to cause variations in resonant
> frequencies of resonant systems like atomic clocks.

There are no documented examples of such affects on atomic clocks beyond 
those expected from relativity, which makes the same predictions for all 
clocks. Consequently, there's nothing special about resonance.

Sylvia.

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

#579505

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-22 02:09 -0700
Message-ID	<48d1dd15-0d28-452e-885c-2536307da741@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579490

Sylvia Else
>> > > Hmm... A discussion about scientific explanations of observed 
>> variations in resonant frequencies of resonants systems like 
>> atomic clocks. Should not take into account any already 
>> documented effects known to cause variations in resonant
>> frequencies of resonant systems like atomic clocks.

>There are no documented examples of such affects on atomic clocks beyond those 
>expected from relativity, which makes the same predictions for all clocks. 
>Consequently, there's nothing special about resonance.

There are many documented examples of  'resonant' effects such 
as GPS, Pound Rebka, etc. Truth is, resonance, resonant systems and 
variable resonant frequencies due to external forces have been 
well understood and documented  years before Einstein et al co-opted it

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

#579648

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-23 11:18 +1000
Message-ID	<dqf42iFltkkU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#579505

On 22/05/2016 7:09 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sylvia Else
>>>>> Hmm... A discussion about scientific explanations of observed
>>> variations in resonant frequencies of resonants systems like
>>> atomic clocks. Should not take into account any already
>>> documented effects known to cause variations in resonant
>>> frequencies of resonant systems like atomic clocks.
>
>> There are no documented examples of such affects on atomic clocks beyond those
>> expected from relativity, which makes the same predictions for all clocks.
>> Consequently, there's nothing special about resonance.
>
> There are many documented examples of  'resonant' effects such
> as GPS, Pound Rebka, etc. Truth is, resonance, resonant systems and
> variable resonant frequencies due to external forces have been
> well understood and documented  years before Einstein et al co-opted it
>

Just because resonance has been used to test general relativity doesn't 
mean that the effects observed are caused by the resonance.

I don't think you even understand this stuff.

Sylvia.

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

#579709

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-22 23:48 -0700
Message-ID	<899c5a67-0431-4e51-bf0f-77a85b27743f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579648

Sylvia
> Just because resonance has been used to test general relativity doesn't mean that the effects observed are caused by the resonance.

So resonance isnt caused by resonance?
Interesting argument.

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

#579812

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-23 11:36 -0500
Message-ID	<nhvbht$cl6$7@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#579709

On 5/23/2016 1:48 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> So resonance isnt caused by resonance?
> Interesting argument.

LOL, Jay you are a hoot. What a marooon.

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

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

#578948

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 08:51 -0500
Message-ID	<urCdnXj2juNUWaDKnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#578927

On 5/19/16 6:25 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Not what I read into his post. He seems only to be asking
> you to explain an apparent contradiction in YOUR spacetime
> theory.

   Please articulate what you mean by contradiction. What possible
   contradiction are you referring to?

-- 

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]

#578999

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 12:34 -0700
Message-ID	<47b16784-0faa-41c0-8581-0d7b558eb210@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578948

Sam...
>Please articulate what you mean by contradiction. What possible contradiction are you referring to?

Cant answer his question either? Xxein asked Sylvia for 
an answer.  She couldnt reply so she, like yourself or Odd does 
when faced with difficult questions ,.. changed the subject.

Anyways how about answering my question Ive asked repeatedly.
Where is the reference/ evidence for the same muon
being measured twice in atmospheric tests? Cant answer?
Thats because contrary to your erroneous claims, they never
were measured twice. And your imaginary " measured"
speed proving relativistic effects is exposed 
as a sham, as usual. My advice for you Sam is, change
the subject. That way you dont have to admit that relativity
is a massive failure.

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

#578141

From	"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-15 11:06 -0700
Message-ID	<ae7c35da-44a0-40fa-9de0-cd5d8396c27e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#577709

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-7, xxe...@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.

Gravity controls the flow of time.Gravity creates inertia,and acceleration thus effects time. By stopping motion in the quantum realm so time is stopped.BH is in effect 100% gravity and at its strongest level. At 186,282 MPS time is also stopped.When the universe expansion gets to c its will have no spacetime.It will have become a black hole and nothing will get out.It will thus relate to nothing.Or maybe its gravity will reach out to its twin universe and their mutual gravity will nnkeep them in orbit and their orbit will keep getting smaller till they merge into the final black hole,and it is in reality the white hole the ultimate beginning of spacetime. Treb helped me with this far out thinking.  TreBert

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

#578147

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-15 13:21 -0500
Message-ID	<teidnZm0AqKDI6XKnZ2dnUU7-b8AAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to	#578141

On 5/15/16 1:06 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Gravity controls the flow of time

   For some observers. Time is not absolute.


-- 

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]

#578273

From	c r <info.ronse@skynet.be>
Date	2016-05-16 13:20 +0200
Message-ID	<nhca6f$1vd$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#577709

On 05/13/16 21:17, 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.
>

You ask about an interpretation or understanding, no mathematics?

Mine is a sain and simple high school level thinking: haven't
we all learned then that breaching of light rays has everything to do
with the refractive index, which itself depends upon the speed of light?
Light speed is not constant. Heavy bodies (eg the sun) slow it down.
Very similar to sound waves: sound speed depends upon the
elasticity/specific mass ratio. Hooke's law is not strictly linear,
but elasticity decreases as the load increases ... even up to a point
where a test slab breaks down. So sound speed will depend upon
the load (which can be the sound wave itself).
Extremely loud sound will travel slower because of the lower
elasticity at the high load imposed by the sound.
Why should electromagnetism be different?
Gravity is nothing else but the slowing down of light speed on high
load = mass. We all know that mass equals energy. It is nothing else
than standing wave light. Or eigenfunctions if you like the language
of QM. And light/masswaves is bent towards higher refractive
indices = gravity.

To continue, in this view aether does exist.
Light is an aether wave. Matter is aether wave.
Everything is.
And for sure, there must be non-linear effects.
In a linear world, if you want to calculate the behaviour of
two waves wave A + B, then you might just as well calculate the
behaviour of wave A without the presence of wave B. Then calculate
the behaviour of wave B with A present and add up both results.
In other words, wave A does not feel the presence of B.
Wave A cannot maesure B. Unless something is not linear.
So one should not be surprised that in QM the probality is the square
of the magnitude wave function. A wave can only be measured/seen by the
presence of it's "foam head" if you would like to make the comparison
to sea waves.

And aether wind might be real. But MMX does not measure it.
MMX uses a split light beam that travels in two perpendicular directions
and is made to interfere when it returns = standing wave.
Why should this standing light wave behave any different than the
mass/matter standing wave of the supporting arms some cm away?
It does not. As experiment clearly shows.

What is more: the above is not in conflict with mainstream physics.
It only seems so. It is merely an interpretation and does not add
much either. But for yet another view angle and way of thinking...

Charles

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 18 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18]

csiph-web

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

Contents

#579198

#579397

#579490

#579505

#579648

#579709

#579812

#578948

#578999

#578141

#578147

#578273