FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Romano Amodeo lessons on youtube
Next: strip-geometry-building as reversal of Calculus #4.28 & #243 Correcting Math & Atom Totality
From: BURT on 28 Jul 2010 18:42 On Jul 28, 1:29 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...(a)volcanomail.com> wrote in message > > news:10ec0e46-620b-406e-9707-a62596dc4f43(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > | When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > | The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > | time dilation. > | > | Paul Cardinale > | > When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > the Easter Bunny. If time dilation is mutual then no one can age faster. That means both clocks are going equally slow which is of course nonsense. Mitch Raemsch
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 19:15 On Jul 29, 8:42 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 1:29 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...(a)volcanomail.com> wrote in message > > >news:10ec0e46-620b-406e-9707-a62596dc4f43(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > | When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > > | The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > > | time dilation. > > | > > | Paul Cardinale > > | > > When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > > The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > > the Easter Bunny. > > If time dilation is mutual then no one can age faster. That means both > clocks are going equally slow Quite correct .. both age at the same rate in their own frame. It is only when one tries to measure the age of the other that is moving in their frame that they get a lower value. Of course, if there is a change in the rest frame of reference for one of them, then that changes simultaneity (ie causes a 'jump' in time) .. then its a different situation > which is of course nonsense. Mitch again shows he's never really studied physics, but still feels the need to make his ignorance public. Go figure.
From: BURT on 28 Jul 2010 21:50 On Jul 28, 4:15 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 29, 8:42 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 28, 1:29 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...(a)volcanomail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:10ec0e46-620b-406e-9707-a62596dc4f43(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > | When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > > > | The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > > > | time dilation. > > > | > > > | Paul Cardinale > > > | > > > When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > > > The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > > > the Easter Bunny. > > > If time dilation is mutual then no one can age faster. That means both > > clocks are going equally slow > > Quite correct . Wrong. > both age at the same rate in their own frame. It is > only when one tries to measure the age of the other that is moving in > their frame that they get a lower value. You can't measure another's clock but you can observe it. And if it is going slower at all possible observations how can that clock age more? Mitch Raemsch > > Of course, if there is a change in the rest frame of reference for one > of them, then that changes simultaneity (ie causes a 'jump' in > time) .. then its a different situation > > > which is of course nonsense. > > Mitch again shows he's never really studied physics, but still feels > the need to make his ignorance public. Go figure.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 23:22 On Jul 29, 11:50 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 4:15 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 29, 8:42 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 28, 1:29 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...(a)volcanomail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:10ec0e46-620b-406e-9707-a62596dc4f43(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > | When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > > > > | The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > > > > | time dilation. > > > > | > > > > | Paul Cardinale > > > > | > > > > When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > > > > The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > > > > the Easter Bunny. > > > > If time dilation is mutual then no one can age faster. That means both > > > clocks are going equally slow > > > Quite correct . > > Wrong. Nope .. I'm right. Study SR and understand it (even if you don't believe it) and see. > > both age at the same rate in their own frame. It is > > only when one tries to measure the age of the other that is moving in > > their frame that they get a lower value. > > You can't measure another's clock Wrong > but you can observe it. Which is part of the process of measuring its rate. > And if it is > going slower It isn't 'going slower'. A relatively moving observer does nothing to a clock. But it is measured as slower by the moving observer. > at all possible observations how can that clock age more? Read what I wrote. Mitch again shows he's never really studied physics, but still feels the need to make his ignorance public. Go figure
From: dlzc on 29 Jul 2010 11:34
Dear artful: On Jul 28, 8:22 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 29, 11:50 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: .... > > at all possible observations how can > > that clock age more? > > Read what I wrote. > > Mitch again shows he's never really studied > physics, but still feels the need to make > his ignorance public. Go figure I found Mitch's picture the other day... http://www.randomimage.us/32897.html David A. Smith |