Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Bruce Richmond on 9 Mar 2010 21:58
On Mar 9, 9:03 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:58 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That is not what we were discussing.  I agree that the clock continues
> > to tick at a rate of one second per proper second in the rest frame of
> > the clock.  The question was whether the slowed tick rate measured in
> > the frame of the stay at home twin is real, or an illusion due to the
> > clock sync proceedure, as length contraction is.
>
> There is no "slowed tick rate in the frame of the stay at home twin".
> There is less elapsed time for the travelling twi, period.

I'm not into word games. If that's all you have to offer goodby.

> This is the
> result of the invariance of ds^2=(cdt)^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2).
> The twin with the larger (dx^2+dy^2+dz^2) experience less elapsed
> time. The proof is obvious.

From: BURT on 9 Mar 2010 22:00
On Mar 8, 10:52 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> -
>
> You are going to give yourself a head cold with all that arm waving.
> You are saying the tick rate doesn't change, yet SR says that the
> returning twin's clock will show less elapsed time.  You don't see any
> conflict there?
>
> ___________________________________
>
> You are playing word games here, and you know it. His meaning is clear to me
> and I believe to you as well.
>
> Just because English lacks words which refer specifically to relativistic
> time dilation and the transformations which occur when you change reference
> frames doesn't mean these aren't real; they can be easily, tersely and
> unambiguously described mathematically as Einstein did in 1905.
>
> Any "conflict" is due to the imprecision of English, not a logical conflict
> in expected outcomes.

Light flow is a constant in empty space.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Webb on 9 Mar 2010 22:03

I know I still have a long way to go but my goal here is to truely
understand SR, not to just parrot explainations. LET helped me see
that the math of SR is correct, but I also realize it has become a
hiderence in understanding SR.

________________________________
Good. There is one key insight which makes the jump from LET to SR a little
easier (in my opinion).

For all the talk of relative motion against the ether in LET, the equations
work out exactly the same whatever you choose as the rest frame of the
ether. So the actual rest frame of the ether cannot be detected within LET.
Its only a small hop, skip and jump from saying that "it cannot be detected"
to "it doesn't exist".

From: mpc755 on 9 Mar 2010 22:06
On Mar 9, 10:03 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> I know I still have a long way to go but my goal here is to truely
> understand SR, not to just parrot explainations.  LET helped me see
> that the math of SR is correct, but I also realize it has become a
> hiderence in understanding SR.
>
> ________________________________
> Good. There is one key insight which makes the jump from LET to SR a little
> easier (in my opinion).
>
> For all the talk of relative motion against the ether in LET, the equations
> work out exactly the same whatever you choose as the rest frame of the
> ether. So the actual rest frame of the ether cannot be detected within LET.
> Its only a small hop, skip and jump from saying that "it cannot be detected"
> to "it doesn't exist".

It is a huge difference. Without aether there is no propagation of
light. Without aether there is no gravity. The pressure associated
with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 22:08
On Mar 9, 6:58 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:03 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 5:58 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > That is not what we were discussing. I agree that the clock continues
> > > to tick at a rate of one second per proper second in the rest frame of
> > > the clock. The question was whether the slowed tick rate measured in
> > > the frame of the stay at home twin is real, or an illusion due to the
> > > clock sync proceedure, as length contraction is.
>
> > There is no "slowed tick rate in the frame of the stay at home twin".
> > There is less elapsed time for the travelling twi, period.
>
> I'm not into word games. If that's all you have to offer goodby.
>


No, imbecile, all clocks run exactly at the same rate. The difference
in elapsed time is due to the difference in space travelled. The twin
with the largest dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 experiences the least elapsed time.
This is basic relativity.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights