FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Wherefore Art Thou, Little Higgsy?
Next: solutions book
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 03:30 On Jul 28, 2:32 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? Your argument seems to be We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc) Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of causality (so isn't right) You then take the illogical step of concluding this means the SR is wrong, and even more ridiculous that FTL is right. You need to reexamine your (lack of) logic.
From: Hayek on 28 Jul 2010 03:42 whoever wrote: >> "Hayek" wrote in message [..] >> There is another, much more simple explanation : they are still both >> in the same now > > Except we KNOW from experiment that there is no such thing as the same > 'now'. Time is NOT the same everywhere. this is experimentally proven Only, you have not defined time, and you have not defined what a clock is. The only thing you know is that you read time on a clock. And that a clock is a device you read time on. And because you believe in MTD, you assume there must be a time dimension, and that there cannot be ftl, because in that case it would violate causality. Is the time in your kitchen the same as in your fridge ? How come your food stays fresh much longer in the fridge ? Exactly, molecules move slower at lower temperatures... What if "time" dilation was based on the same principle, molecules moving slower ? > > So everything yhou say from here on is just fantasy in some imaginary > world other than our own. > > [snip fanasty] >> What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time dilation, > > FTL. it is not observerd to happen Aspect's experiments could be interpreted as such. > .. that makes it fiction MTD is neither proved. Actually, there is less evidence for MTD than for ftl. It is exactly the statement that "nothing can go faster than light" that protects MTD from being tested. > Whereas mutual time dilation does .. which makes it fact Where has it been proven ? Observing, does not prove it, it might be apparent. > >> the latter giving rise to time travel > > No , it doesn't Let me correct this : giving rise to a time dimension, with a theoretical possibility of time travel. The past still exists, as Einstein mentioned in a condoleance letter to the family of his friend and collegue Besso. > >> and causality breaches ? > > No .. FTL does that. You just showed that. Only if there is MTD and a time dimension. > >> Ftl does not breach causality, > > Yes .. it does > >> MTD (mutual time dilation) does. > > No .. it doesn't > > You really are poor at physcis. You are poor at reasoning. That is much worse. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 03:49 Hayek wrote: > eric gisse wrote: >> Hayek wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> Why do you persist in discussing a subject you clearly don't grasp? > > There is a difference between "not grasping" and > "interpreting differently". You simply don't know what you are talking about. That you do not recognize this is just another example of the prideful stupidity that seems to be attracted to this newsgroup. > > But you cannot grasp that anything your textbook says > could be wrong. While you, for having never read any textbooks, can say whatever you want because you aren't burdened with education? > > Besides the shouting, do you ever use arguments, or is > that you simply do not grasp what arguments are ? Most certainly. But they tend to be ignored, so I skip the middleman and move straight to the part where I call the odious crank what it is and move on. > > Uwe Hayek. >
From: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 03:50 Hayek wrote: [...] > What if "time" dilation was based on the same principle, > molecules moving slower ? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367 [...]
From: harald on 28 Jul 2010 04:33
On Jul 27, 6:32 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? > > Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ? If you have time dilation and length contraction, then with the appropriate sync convention you get "mutual time dilation". That has been explained over and over, by several people incl. myself and recently by Daryl. Thus, what causes your above question? Don't you understand the math? Harald [..] |