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: Paul Cardinale on 29 Jul 2010 14:54 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 .. 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It's easy to figure out. Stupidity exacerbates arrogance. This allows raemsch to convince himself that he's a genius and everyone else is an idiot. Note also that this is not a correctable condition; raemsch is ineducable, unable even to learn that he is ignorant. As he ages, lack of recognition will cause him to become more and more bitter; like androcrap.
From: BURT on 29 Jul 2010 15:11 On Jul 28, 8:22 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 No. At least one clock is going slower and there is no mutual dilation. Mitch Raemsch > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: eric gisse on 30 Jul 2010 00:20
artful wrote: [...] > > [snip more mitch bullshit] It used to be the case he was just a white noise generator of idiocy. Guess he finally grew up to the the crank we all knew he would become. |