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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee1177e5-eb19-4447-8b41-cf73674a0905@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579882 |
On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:38:21 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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. No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. In fact it is impossible to make such measurement. The GPS show that mutual time dilation is false. The GPS point of view the earth clock is running 38 us/day running slow and from the ground clock point of view the GPS is running 38 us/day running fast. To correct this they modified the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This modification make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard earth second. > 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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 06:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni1e1e$13ru$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579904 |
On 5/23/2016 4:51 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:38:21 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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. > > No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. In fact it is impossible to make such measurement. No, it's quite possible to measure and it's been done. > The GPS show that mutual time dilation is false. SR says that you shouldn't expect mutual time dilation would apply in the GPS system. Instead, you measure mutual time dilation where SR tells you that it's expected to be seen. If I tell you that solid state theory predicts the conductivity of metals, would you tell me that a nonmetal proves that theory is wrong? > The GPS point of view the earth clock is running 38 us/day running slow and from the ground clock point > of view the GPS is running 38 us/day running fast. To correct this they modified the GPS second to have > 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This modification make the passage of a redefined GPS second > corresponds to the passage of a standard earth second. > > >> 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 > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 06:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb53da2a-43a6-455a-863d-b0968b5db400@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580034 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:30:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/23/2016 4:51 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:38:21 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> 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. > > > > No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. In fact it is impossible to make such measurement. > > No, it's quite possible to measure and it's been done. No it is not possible....How can you have mutual time dilation when a B second is worth gamma seconds on the A clock between meetings? > > > The GPS show that mutual time dilation is false. > > SR says that you shouldn't expect mutual time dilation would apply in > the GPS system. Instead, you measure mutual time dilation where SR tells > you that it's expected to be seen. But there is no inertial frames exist on earth....so how do you measure mtual time dilation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 09:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni1p7u$1o8j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580052 |
On 5/24/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:30:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/23/2016 4:51 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:38:21 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. In fact it is impossible to make such measurement. >> >> No, it's quite possible to measure and it's been done. > > No it is not possible....How can you have mutual time dilation when a B second is worth gamma seconds on > the A clock between meetings? But SR does not say "a B second is worth gamma seconds on the A clock between meetings." That's what YOU say. But SR does not say that. And SR says that mutual time dilation can be shown in some experiments, though it is not expected with the GPS. And in those indicate experiments, mutual time dilation is in fact observed. > >> >>> The GPS show that mutual time dilation is false. >> >> SR says that you shouldn't expect mutual time dilation would apply in >> the GPS system. Instead, you measure mutual time dilation where SR tells >> you that it's expected to be seen. > > But there is no inertial frames exist on earth. No, that's a mistake. There ARE inertial reference frames on earth. You keep making this same mistake over and over again. > ...so how do you measure mtual time dilation? > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 08:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40aa891e-ca2d-4e87-b488-111d8d05db3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580066 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:42:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/24/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:30:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/23/2016 4:51 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:38:21 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. In fact it is impossible to make such measurement. > >> > >> No, it's quite possible to measure and it's been done. > > > > No it is not possible....How can you have mutual time dilation when a B second is worth gamma seconds on > > the A clock between meetings? > > But SR does not say "a B second is worth gamma seconds on the A clock > between meetings" Yes SR says: Delta(tb)= gamma*Delta(ta) > > That's what YOU say. But SR does not say that. And SR says that mutual > time dilation can be shown in some experiments, though it is not > expected with the GPS. And in those indicate experiments, mutual time > dilation is in fact observed. No mutual time dilation never been observed.....it is assumed by the PoR. > > > > >> > >>> The GPS show that mutual time dilation is false. > >> > >> SR says that you shouldn't expect mutual time dilation would apply in > >> the GPS system. Instead, you measure mutual time dilation where SR tells > >> you that it's expected to be seen. > > > > But there is no inertial frames exist on earth. > > No, that's a mistake. There ARE inertial reference frames on earth. You > keep making this same mistake over and over again. No inertial frame exists in a gravity environment. > > > ...so how do you measure mtual time dilation? > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 10:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MpKdndelUbBRXdjKnZ2dnUU7-aOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580366 |
On 5/25/16 10:08 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No mutual time dilation never been observed.....it is assumed by the PoR.
No Seto.
## #
## #
#########################################
#########################################
## ######
## ##########
############
##############
#############
#############
##############
#############
##############
#############
##############
############# #
############# #
#########################################
#########################################
#
########
###############
##################
#####################
#### ####
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ###
## ##
#### ####
#####################
##################
###############
########
--
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 | 2016-05-25 10:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni4h5m$1kqp$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580366 |
On 5/25/2016 10:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:42:11 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/24/2016 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 7:30:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/23/2016 4:51 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 4:38:21 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. In fact it is impossible to make such measurement. >>>> >>>> No, it's quite possible to measure and it's been done. >>> >>> No it is not possible....How can you have mutual time dilation when a B second is worth gamma seconds on >>> the A clock between meetings? >> >> But SR does not say "a B second is worth gamma seconds on the A clock >> between meetings" > > Yes SR says: > Delta(tb)= gamma*Delta(ta) That equation doesn't apply to two clocks that meet twice. Read your relativity stuff again. If you don't know what equations mean, then why do you quote them? > >> >> That's what YOU say. But SR does not say that. And SR says that mutual >> time dilation can be shown in some experiments, though it is not >> expected with the GPS. And in those indicate experiments, mutual time >> dilation is in fact observed. > > No mutual time dilation never been observed.....it is assumed by the PoR. Factual error, Ken. It HAS been observed, whether you're aware of it or not. Denying facts on historical record is never a smart thing to do. Want to deny that World War II ever happened? >> >>> >>>> >>>>> The GPS show that mutual time dilation is false. >>>> >>>> SR says that you shouldn't expect mutual time dilation would apply in >>>> the GPS system. Instead, you measure mutual time dilation where SR tells >>>> you that it's expected to be seen. >>> >>> But there is no inertial frames exist on earth. >> >> No, that's a mistake. There ARE inertial reference frames on earth. You >> keep making this same mistake over and over again. > > No inertial frame exists in a gravity environment. That's completely wrong. Where did you get that idea? > >> >>> ...so how do you measure mtual time dilation? >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 09:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2uWdncchTrP19NnKnZ2dnUU7-IudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580052 |
On 5/24/16 8:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > But there is no inertial frames exist on earth....so how do you measure mtual time dilation? You need a primer on time dilation and reference frames, Seto. http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section12.html http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/TimeDilation.gif -- 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 | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 09:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2uWdncQhTrO-9dnKnZ2dnUU7-IudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #579904 |
On 5/23/16 4:51 PM, kenseto wrote: > No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. An illustration of mutual time dilation > https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.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]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98f13018-9d5a-4ee0-b7fb-b9397e8dde11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580065 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 10:41:42 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 5/23/16 4:51 PM, kenseto wrote: > > No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. > v > An illustration of mutual time dilation > > https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf He assumed that A and B will measure the same v between them....they do not. > > > -- > > 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 | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 11:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2uWdnf8hTrMTHdnKnZ2dnUU7-IudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580101 |
On 5/24/16 11:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > He assumed that A and B will measure the same v between them....they do not. A, not B needs to measure the velocity between them, Seto. If they did measure their relative velocity, they would both get the same absolute velocity. And you thought we were stooopid. :-o -- 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 | 2016-05-25 07:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbae95cd-6da2-4189-812f-6037012d693d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580104 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 12:25:54 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 5/24/16 11:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > > He assumed that A and B will measure the same v between them....they do not. > > > A, not B needs to measure the velocity between them, Seto. If they did > measure their relative velocity, they would both get the same absolute > velocity. Hey idiot....both A and B must use their clock seconds to measure the relative velocity between them. Since an A second has different time value than a B second....( the SR math says that one second on the B clock is worth gamma seconds on the A clock).... then they will come up with different values for v between them: Vab from A's point of view and Vba from B's point of view and Vab =/= Vba.= > > And you thought we were stooopid. :-o That's because you were stooopid....so what is your point?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 10:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MpKdndWlUbAoItjKnZ2dnUU7-aOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580355 |
On 5/25/16 9:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot....both A and B must use their clock seconds to measure the relative velocity between them. Nope, nope, no, no, no, Seto. Relative velocity is directly proportional to Doppler shift of spectral lines. No clocks required. -- 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 | Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <966753b4-d2fd-4039-9608-90029aad7b19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579904 |
Le lundi 23 mai 2016 23:51:24 UTC+2, kenseto a écrit : > > Reminder that mutual > > time dilation has been measured. > > No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. In fact it is impossible to make such measurement. The GPS show that mutual time dilation is false. The GPS point of view the earth clock is running 38 us/day running slow and from the ground clock point of view the GPS is running 38 us/day running fast. To correct this they modified the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This modification make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard earth second. Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation due to gravity. The difference in gravitational field force is confirmed by both observers, and the direction of that field is also confirmed by both observers. This is NOT an issue of relative velocity induced time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a626523-9737-40f8-bff2-9007d07ee04c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580152 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > Le lundi 23 mai 2016 23:51:24 UTC+2, kenseto a écrit : > > > > Reminder that mutual > > > time dilation has been measured. > > > > No idiot....mutual time dilation never been measured. In fact it is impossible to make such measurement. The GPS show that mutual time dilation is false. The GPS point of view the earth clock is running 38 us/day running slow and from the ground clock point of view the GPS is running 38 us/day runnng fast. To correct this they modified the GPS second to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This modification make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard earth second. > > Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation due to gravity. The difference in gravitational field force is confirmed by both observers, and the direction of that field is also confirmed by both observers. This is NOT an issue of relative velocity induced time dilation. GPS runs fast due to gravity: 45 us/day running fast GPS runs slow due to velocity (the SR effect): 7 us/day running slow. The end result: GPS runs fast 38us/day running fast. The SR effect is not mutual time dilation. From the ground clock point of view: the GPS runs slow by a factor of 7 us/day and from the GPS point of view: the ground clock runs fast by a factor of 7us/day running fast.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 16:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni4l3o$b4l$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #580369 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: >> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation >> due to gravity. The difference in gravitational field force is confirmed >> by both observers, and the direction of that field is also confirmed by >> both observers. This is NOT an issue of relative velocity induced time >> dilation. >GPS runs fast due to gravity: 45 us/day running fast >GPS runs slow due to velocity (the SR effect): 7 us/day running slow. >The end result: GPS runs fast 38us/day running fast. >The SR effect is not mutual time dilation. From the ground clock point of >view: the GPS runs slow by a factor of 7 us/day and from the GPS point of >view: the ground clock runs fast by a factor of 7us/day running fast. Did you miss this sentence that Mikkel wrote, Ken? >> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation >> due to gravity. The GPS is a GR problem, you cannot use SR to solve it! You really need to learn SR someday. One of the things you need to learn is when SR can, and can't, be applied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 13:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67bb7191-62cf-4666-affe-03fd74dfed8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580399 |
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 12:50:39 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-4, Mikkel Haaheim wrote: > >> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation > >> due to gravity. The difference in gravitational field force is confirmed > >> by both observers, and the direction of that field is also confirmed by > >> both observers. This is NOT an issue of relative velocity induced time > >> dilation. > > >GPS runs fast due to gravity: 45 us/day running fast > >GPS runs slow due to velocity (the SR effect): 7 us/day running slow. > >The end result: GPS runs fast 38us/day running fast. > > >The SR effect is not mutual time dilation. From the ground clock point of > >view: the GPS runs slow by a factor of 7 us/day and from the GPS point of > >view: the ground clock runs fast by a factor of 7us/day running fast. > > Did you miss this sentence that Mikkel wrote, Ken? > > >> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation > >> due to gravity. > > The GPS is a GR problem, you cannot use SR to solve it! Idiot I didn't use SR to solve anything. I pointed out that the SR effect in the GR equation rejects the idea of mutual time dilation. > > You really need to learn SR someday. One of the things you need to learn is > when SR can, and can't, be applied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 21:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni561n$9a6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #580484 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 12:50:39 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >GPS runs fast due to gravity: 45 us/day running fast >> >GPS runs slow due to velocity (the SR effect): 7 us/day running slow. >> >The end result: GPS runs fast 38us/day running fast. >> >> >The SR effect is not mutual time dilation. From the ground clock point of >> >view: the GPS runs slow by a factor of 7 us/day and from the GPS point of >> >view: the ground clock runs fast by a factor of 7us/day running fast. >> >> Did you miss this sentence that Mikkel wrote, Ken? >> >> >> Except that the GPS clock observations are measurements of time dilation >> >> due to gravity. >> >> The GPS is a GR problem, you cannot use SR to solve it! >Idiot I didn't use SR to solve anything. I pointed out that the SR effect >in the GR equation rejects the idea of mutual time dilation. People have pointed out many times you can't really split a GR problem into a GR+SR problem. But regardless of that, since the satellite doesn't make a single straight line flyby of earth, rather it leaves, turns around and comes back, it's really closer to being a travelling twin problem than a simple mutual time dilation problem. >> You really need to learn SR someday. One of the things you need to learn is >> when SR can, and can't, be applied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 17:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni57tg$t0q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580497 |
On 5/25/2016 4:39 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > But regardless of that, since the satellite doesn't make a single straight > line flyby of earth, rather it leaves, turns around and comes back, it's > really closer to being a travelling twin problem than a simple mutual time > dilation problem. Seto repeatedly uses cases where clocks meet twice or go around a closed path to say mutual time dilation is disproven. What he doesn't seem to get is that mutual time dilation is NEVER a prediction of SR when clocks make a round trip. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 02:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni5og1$djk$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #580500 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 5/25/2016 4:39 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> But regardless of that, since the satellite doesn't make a single straight >> line flyby of earth, rather it leaves, turns around and comes back, it's >> really closer to being a travelling twin problem than a simple mutual time >> dilation problem. >Seto repeatedly uses cases where clocks meet twice or go around a closed >path to say mutual time dilation is disproven. What he doesn't seem to >get is that mutual time dilation is NEVER a prediction of SR when clocks >make a round trip. You're right. Seto always has a canned response to mutual time dilation problems that read like: "No it is not possible....How can you have mutual time dilation when a B second is worth gamma seconds on the A clock BETWEEN MEETINGS?" [emphasis mine]. If he thinks there are more than one meeting in mutual time dilation situations, he simply doesn't understand mutual time dilation, or confuses it with the travelling twin gedanken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web