Prev: zeno's paradox and the black hole
Next: Another Reason LHC may Create a BLACK HOLE
From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 10:27
On Jun 23, 7:19 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 June, 09:25, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 9:11 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:a209036c-78a9-413e-8216-0bfe54ef4884(a)q29g2000vba.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 1:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 21, 6:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> >news:88390667-78fc-43b3-a480-43b63b45f6b2(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups..com...
>
> > > >> > > On Jun 21, 5:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> > >>news:c05160c7-0799-4d35-b874-08e17bd5c74e(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > >> > On Jun 21, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >> >> On Jun 17, 5:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > >> >> > On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > On Jun 13, 8:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                                    x'=x-vt
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                                    y'=y
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                                    z'=z
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                                    t'=t
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >       Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of
> > > >> > >> >> > > > reference
> > > >> > >> >> > > > S'
> > > >> > >> >> > > > is
> > > >> > >> >> > > > slower than a clock in S which shows t.  According to
> > > >> > >> >> > > > theGalilean
> > > >> > >> >> > > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show
> > > >> > >> >> > > > t'.
> > > >> > >> >> > > > Time
> > > >> > >> >> > > > on
> > > >> > >> >> > > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other
> > > >> > >> >> > > > variable if
> > > >> > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> > >> >> > > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used.  We call
> > > >> > >> >> > > >time on
> > > >> > >> >> > > >the
> > > >> > >> >> > > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'.
> > > >> > >> >> > > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean
> > > >> > >> >> > > > transformation equations because we know that it shows
> > > >> > >> >> > > > light to
> > > >> > >> >> > > > be
> > > >> > >> >> > > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'.  Therefore, if
> > > >> > >> >> > > >  |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                         cn'=ct-vt
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                         n'=t(1-v/c)
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >          We can now calculate orbits of satellites and
> > > >> > >> >> > > > planets
> > > >> > >> >> > > > without
> > > >> > >> >> > > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their
> > > >> > >> >> > > > length
> > > >> > >> >> > > > contraction.  For instance, the speed of earth in its orbit
> > > >> > >> >> > > > around
> > > >> > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> > >> >> > > > sun is 29.8 km/sec.  While a second of time takes place on
> > > >> > >> >> > > > earth, a
> > > >> > >> >> > > > longer time is taking place on the sun.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                             n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c)
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                             1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000)
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                              t(sun)=1.0001 sec.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >        Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to
> > > >> > >> >> > > > verify
> > > >> > >> >> > > > that
> > > >> > >> >> > > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for
> > > >> > >> >> > > > gravitation,
> > > >> > >> >> > > > we
> > > >> > >> >> > > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > > n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c)
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                               n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87
> > > >> > >> >> > > > km/sec/
> > > >> > >> >> > > > 300,000km/sec)
> > > >> > >> >> > > >                               n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > >           So a second on a clock on earth is .99994 sec on
> > > >> > >> >> > > > a
> > > >> > >> >> > > > clock
> > > >> > >> >> > > > on
> > > >> > >> >> > > > Mercury.  The question now is where would this put the
> > > >> > >> >> > > > perihelion
> > > >> > >> >> > > > of
> > > >> > >> >> > > > Mercury using Newton's equations?
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > Amazing to see you back, Robert. Even more amazing to find
> > > >> > >> >> > > that
> > > >> > >> >> > > you've
> > > >> > >> >> > > done a reset and started with the very same nonsense you've
> > > >> > >> >> > > put
> > > >> > >> >> > > out
> > > >> > >> >> > > for years and years. I would have thought that you would have
> > > >> > >> >> > > learned
> > > >> > >> >> > > something.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > So you are claiming that for clocks A and B, where B is
> > > >> > >> >> > > moving
> > > >> > >> >> > > relative to A and runs slower than A, then A is measuring
> > > >> > >> >> > > time (as
> > > >> > >> >> > > denoted by the quantity t), but B is not measuring time (as
> > > >> > >> >> > > denoted
> > > >> > >> >> > > by
> > > >> > >> >> > > the quantity t').
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > The problem of course is that A is moving relative to B and
> > > >> > >> >> > > runs
> > > >> > >> >> > > slower than B. Your conclusion consistently would be that B
> > > >> > >> >> > > is
> > > >> > >> >> > > measuring time but A is not.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > Therefore, according to you, A is measuring time and not
> > > >> > >> >> > > measuring
> > > >> > >> >> > > time, and B is measuring time and not measuring time.
>
> > > >> > >> >> > > PD
>
> > > >> > >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of
> > > >> > >> >> > coordinates.  Time can be measured about any way imaginable.
> > > >> > >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t.- Hide quoted
> > > >> > >> >> > text -
>
> > > >> > >> >> A time coordinate is what is *measured* in that frame, Robert. It
> > > >> > >> >> really does help to know what the terms mean.
>
> > > >> > >> > So how did you "measure" time, PD?  With an hourglass, with the
> > > >> > >> > sun,
> > > >> > >> > with the moon, with a waterclock?  You must have done it some way.
>
> > > >> > >> We call the thing you measure time with a 'clock'.  It is implied
> > > >> > >> (in
> > > >> > >> physics) when we talk about a general 'clock' that it is a correctly
> > > >> > >> working
> > > >> > >> 'clock' .. ie that it correctly measures (or marks) the time at its
> > > >> > >> own
> > > >> > >> location in its own rest frame.  so if a duration dt of time at a
> > > >> > >> location
> > > >> > >> has elapsed, then a clock at that location will show a duration of
> > > >> > >> exactly
> > > >> > >> dt as well.
>
> > > >> > >> This is very very simple and basic stuff.
>
> > > >> > > Uh huh.  So what about the marks on S and S'?  They are not a clock
> > > >> > > any more?  That did not last long.
>
> > > >> > I said nothing about those marks.  You havea great deal of trouble
> > > >> > reading
> > > >> > and understanding .. that explains a lot.
>
> > > >> > However .. on the subject of such marks .. marks alone are not a clock
> > > >> > (they
> > > >> > are a ruler) .. you would also need something moving past those marks
> > > >> > at a
> > > >> > known rate, from that you can calculate the time.  If you have
> > > >> > correctly
> > > >> > measured distances between the marks (ie measured from a
> > > >> > mutually-at-rest
> > > >> > observer .. ie the marks are not moving wrt the observer) and have
> > > >> > correctly
> > > >> > measured the speed of the moving object, then clock will work and be
> > > >> > correct.
>
> > > >> > This does NOT change the fact thegalileantransforms are proven
> > > >> > incorrect
> > > >> > by experiments that show correctly working clocks do NOT show the same
> > > >> > time
> > > >> > when those clocks are in relative motion.
>
> > > >> Well, I was just measuring time with the marks.  The marks are ten
> > > >> meters apart on both S and S'.
>
> > > > No, they're not. That is a claim that is inconsistent with real
> > > > *measurement*, Robert.
>
> > > No .. he's ok on that one, as he is referring to two DIFFERENT sets of
> > > marks.
>
> > > The marks at rest in S are 10m apart in S
>
> > > The marks at rest in S' are 10m apart in S'
>
> > > If that is what he is saying, that's fine
>
> > No he's not fine. Because he then says the marks will line up as they
> > pass each other. And they will not.
>
> > > If he says the BOTH sets of marks are 10m apart in BOTH frames, then he is
> > > wrong
>
> > > >>  Now scientists claim to have two
> > > >> separate realities with respect to the marks on S and S'.  An observer
> > > >> in S sees the marks on S' closer together than the marks on S.  An
> > > >> observer in S' sees the marks on S closer together than the marks on
> > > >> S'.  An observer in reality sees the marks on S and S' the same
> > > >> distance apart.
>
> > > > No, Robert. Reality is set by what is *measured*. And *measurement*
> > > > says that the marks in S and S' are not the same distance apart.
>
> > > >>  So we have a difference between reality and science.
> > > >> Continuing on with reality, t'=t.  Hey, what do you know?
> > > >> That is the equation for time coordinates in theGalilean
> > > >> transformation equations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> So, PD, prove what you say.

Proof in physics comes by way of looking at measurements, Robert, not
by arguing about things on a newsgroup. You won't be convinced of
anything unless you take a good look at actual measurements where the
problems with the Galilean transformation are obvious. Now, if you're
suspicious of those measurements whenever you look at them, then I
guess you're screwed.

And, Robert, you'll recall that time is measured with clocks, not by
using marks on the ground.

>  But this frame of reference clock is
> handy even in the false mathematics used by scientists.  If an
> observer in S measures time by the marks the same way an observer in
> S' measures time by the marks, they both get the same answer even with
> the length contraction.  t'=t.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 10:29
On Jun 23, 7:15 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 June, 07:11, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:a209036c-78a9-413e-8216-0bfe54ef4884(a)q29g2000vba.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > On Jun 22, 1:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 21, 6:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> >news:88390667-78fc-43b3-a480-43b63b45f6b2(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > > On Jun 21, 5:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > >> > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> > >>news:c05160c7-0799-4d35-b874-08e17bd5c74e(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > >> > On Jun 21, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >> >> On Jun 17, 5:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > >> >> > On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > >> >> > > On Jun 13, 8:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > >> >> > > >                                    x'=x-vt
> > >> > >> >> > > >                                    y'=y
> > >> > >> >> > > >                                    z'=z
> > >> > >> >> > > >                                    t'=t
>
> > >> > >> >> > > >       Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of
> > >> > >> >> > > > reference
> > >> > >> >> > > > S'
> > >> > >> >> > > > is
> > >> > >> >> > > > slower than a clock in S which shows t.  According to
> > >> > >> >> > > > theGalilean
> > >> > >> >> > > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show
> > >> > >> >> > > > t'.
> > >> > >> >> > > > Time
> > >> > >> >> > > > on
> > >> > >> >> > > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other
> > >> > >> >> > > > variable if
> > >> > >> >> > > > the
> > >> > >> >> > > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used.  We call
> > >> > >> >> > > >time on
> > >> > >> >> > > >the
> > >> > >> >> > > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'.
> > >> > >> >> > > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean
> > >> > >> >> > > > transformation equations because we know that it shows
> > >> > >> >> > > > light to
> > >> > >> >> > > > be
> > >> > >> >> > > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'.  Therefore, if
> > >> > >> >> > > >  |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then
>
> > >> > >> >> > > >                         cn'=ct-vt
> > >> > >> >> > > >                         n'=t(1-v/c)
>
> > >> > >> >> > > >          We can now calculate orbits of satellites and
> > >> > >> >> > > > planets
> > >> > >> >> > > > without
> > >> > >> >> > > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their
> > >> > >> >> > > > length
> > >> > >> >> > > > contraction.  For instance, the speed of earth in its orbit
> > >> > >> >> > > > around
> > >> > >> >> > > > the
> > >> > >> >> > > > sun is 29.8 km/sec.  While a second of time takes place on
> > >> > >> >> > > > earth, a
> > >> > >> >> > > > longer time is taking place on the sun.
>
> > >> > >> >> > > >                             n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c)
> > >> > >> >> > > >                             1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000)
> > >> > >> >> > > >                              t(sun)=1.0001 sec.
>
> > >> > >> >> > > >        Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to
> > >> > >> >> > > > verify
> > >> > >> >> > > > that
> > >> > >> >> > > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for
> > >> > >> >> > > > gravitation,
> > >> > >> >> > > > we
> > >> > >> >> > > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury.
>
> > >> > >> >> > > > n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c)
> > >> > >> >> > > >                               n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87
> > >> > >> >> > > > km/sec/
> > >> > >> >> > > > 300,000km/sec)
> > >> > >> >> > > >                               n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec
>
> > >> > >> >> > > >           So a second on a clock on earth is .99994 sec on
> > >> > >> >> > > > a
> > >> > >> >> > > > clock
> > >> > >> >> > > > on
> > >> > >> >> > > > Mercury.  The question now is where would this put the
> > >> > >> >> > > > perihelion
> > >> > >> >> > > > of
> > >> > >> >> > > > Mercury using Newton's equations?
>
> > >> > >> >> > > Amazing to see you back, Robert. Even more amazing to find
> > >> > >> >> > > that
> > >> > >> >> > > you've
> > >> > >> >> > > done a reset and started with the very same nonsense you've
> > >> > >> >> > > put
> > >> > >> >> > > out
> > >> > >> >> > > for years and years. I would have thought that you would have
> > >> > >> >> > > learned
> > >> > >> >> > > something.
>
> > >> > >> >> > > So you are claiming that for clocks A and B, where B is
> > >> > >> >> > > moving
> > >> > >> >> > > relative to A and runs slower than A, then A is measuring
> > >> > >> >> > > time (as
> > >> > >> >> > > denoted by the quantity t), but B is not measuring time (as
> > >> > >> >> > > denoted
> > >> > >> >> > > by
> > >> > >> >> > > the quantity t').
>
> > >> > >> >> > > The problem of course is that A is moving relative to B and
> > >> > >> >> > > runs
> > >> > >> >> > > slower than B. Your conclusion consistently would be that B
> > >> > >> >> > > is
> > >> > >> >> > > measuring time but A is not.
>
> > >> > >> >> > > Therefore, according to you, A is measuring time and not
> > >> > >> >> > > measuring
> > >> > >> >> > > time, and B is measuring time and not measuring time.
>
> > >> > >> >> > > PD
>
> > >> > >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of
> > >> > >> >> > coordinates.  Time can be measured about any way imaginable.
> > >> > >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t.- Hide quoted
> > >> > >> >> > text -
>
> > >> > >> >> A time coordinate is what is *measured* in that frame, Robert. It
> > >> > >> >> really does help to know what the terms mean.
>
> > >> > >> > So how did you "measure" time, PD?  With an hourglass, with the
> > >> > >> > sun,
> > >> > >> > with the moon, with a waterclock?  You must have done it some way.
>
> > >> > >> We call the thing you measure time with a 'clock'.  It is implied
> > >> > >> (in
> > >> > >> physics) when we talk about a general 'clock' that it is a correctly
> > >> > >> working
> > >> > >> 'clock' .. ie that it correctly measures (or marks) the time at its
> > >> > >> own
> > >> > >> location in its own rest frame.  so if a duration dt of time at a
> > >> > >> location
> > >> > >> has elapsed, then a clock at that location will show a duration of
> > >> > >> exactly
> > >> > >> dt as well.
>
> > >> > >> This is very very simple and basic stuff.
>
> > >> > > Uh huh.  So what about the marks on S and S'?  They are not a clock
> > >> > > any more?  That did not last long.
>
> > >> > I said nothing about those marks.  You havea great deal of trouble
> > >> > reading
> > >> > and understanding .. that explains a lot.
>
> > >> > However .. on the subject of such marks .. marks alone are not a clock
> > >> > (they
> > >> > are a ruler) .. you would also need something moving past those marks
> > >> > at a
> > >> > known rate, from that you can calculate the time.  If you have
> > >> > correctly
> > >> > measured distances between the marks (ie measured from a
> > >> > mutually-at-rest
> > >> > observer .. ie the marks are not moving wrt the observer) and have
> > >> > correctly
> > >> > measured the speed of the moving object, then clock will work and be
> > >> > correct.
>
> > >> > This does NOT change the fact thegalileantransforms are proven
> > >> > incorrect
> > >> > by experiments that show correctly working clocks do NOT show the same
> > >> > time
> > >> > when those clocks are in relative motion.
>
> > >> Well, I was just measuring time with the marks.  The marks are ten
> > >> meters apart on both S and S'.
>
> > > No, they're not. That is a claim that is inconsistent with real
> > > *measurement*, Robert.
>
> > No .. he's ok on that one, as he is referring to two DIFFERENT sets of
> > marks.
>
> > The marks at rest in S are 10m apart in S
>
> > The marks at rest in S' are 10m apart in S'
>
> > If that is what he is saying, that's fine
>
> > If he says the BOTH sets of marks are 10m apart in BOTH frames, then he is
> > wrong
>
> > >>  Now scientists claim to have two
> > >> separate realities with respect to the marks on S and S'.  An observer
> > >> in S sees the marks on S' closer together than the marks on S.  An
> > >> observer in S' sees the marks on S closer together than the marks on
> > >> S'.  An observer in reality sees the marks on S and S' the same
> > >> distance apart.
>
> > > No, Robert. Reality is set by what is *measured*. And *measurement*
> > > says that the marks in S and S' are not the same distance apart.
>
> > >>  So we have a difference between reality and science.
> > >> Continuing on with reality, t'=t.  Hey, what do you know?
> > >> That is the equation for time coordinates in theGalilean
> > >> transformation equations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> I say they remain the same distance apart whether S' is moving at 1 m/
> yr relative to S or it is moving at .99999c.

That is perhaps because you don't believe what measurements say, and
instead to believe what your head tells you. This is a recipe for
foolishness, twice-baked.
From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 10:32
On Jun 23, 7:14 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 June, 06:49, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 1:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 21, 6:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:88390667-78fc-43b3-a480-43b63b45f6b2(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > On Jun 21, 5:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >>news:c05160c7-0799-4d35-b874-08e17bd5c74e(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups..com...
>
> > > > >> > On Jun 21, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Jun 17, 5:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> > On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> > > On Jun 13, 8:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> > > >                                    x'=x-vt
> > > > >> >> > > >                                    y'=y
> > > > >> >> > > >                                    z'=z
> > > > >> >> > > >                                    t'=t
>
> > > > >> >> > > >       Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference
> > > > >> >> > > > S'
> > > > >> >> > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > slower than a clock in S which shows t.  According to
> > > > >> >> > > > theGalilean
> > > > >> >> > > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'.
> > > > >> >> > > > Time
> > > > >> >> > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if
> > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used.  We call time on
> > > > >> >> > > >the
> > > > >> >> > > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'.
> > > > >> >> > > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean
> > > > >> >> > > > transformation equations because we know that it shows light to
> > > > >> >> > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'.  Therefore, if
> > > > >> >> > > >  |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then
>
> > > > >> >> > > >                         cn'=ct-vt
> > > > >> >> > > >                         n'=t(1-v/c)
>
> > > > >> >> > > >          We can now calculate orbits of satellites and planets
> > > > >> >> > > > without
> > > > >> >> > > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their length
> > > > >> >> > > > contraction.  For instance, the speed of earth in its orbit
> > > > >> >> > > > around
> > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > sun is 29.8 km/sec.  While a second of time takes place on
> > > > >> >> > > > earth, a
> > > > >> >> > > > longer time is taking place on the sun.
>
> > > > >> >> > > >                             n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c)
> > > > >> >> > > >                             1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000)
> > > > >> >> > > >                              t(sun)=1.0001 sec.
>
> > > > >> >> > > >        Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to verify
> > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for gravitation,
> > > > >> >> > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury.
>
> > > > >> >> > > >                               n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c)
> > > > >> >> > > >                               n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87
> > > > >> >> > > > km/sec/
> > > > >> >> > > > 300,000km/sec)
> > > > >> >> > > >                               n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec
>
> > > > >> >> > > >           So a second on a clock on earth is ..99994 sec on a
> > > > >> >> > > > clock
> > > > >> >> > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > Mercury.  The question now is where would this put the
> > > > >> >> > > > perihelion
> > > > >> >> > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > Mercury using Newton's equations?
>
> > > > >> >> > > Amazing to see you back, Robert. Even more amazing to find that
> > > > >> >> > > you've
> > > > >> >> > > done a reset and started with the very same nonsense you've put
> > > > >> >> > > out
> > > > >> >> > > for years and years. I would have thought that you would have
> > > > >> >> > > learned
> > > > >> >> > > something.
>
> > > > >> >> > > So you are claiming that for clocks A and B, where B is moving
> > > > >> >> > > relative to A and runs slower than A, then A is measuring time (as
> > > > >> >> > > denoted by the quantity t), but B is not measuring time (as
> > > > >> >> > > denoted
> > > > >> >> > > by
> > > > >> >> > > the quantity t').
>
> > > > >> >> > > The problem of course is that A is moving relative to B and runs
> > > > >> >> > > slower than B. Your conclusion consistently would be that B is
> > > > >> >> > > measuring time but A is not.
>
> > > > >> >> > > Therefore, according to you, A is measuring time and not measuring
> > > > >> >> > > time, and B is measuring time and not measuring time.
>
> > > > >> >> > > PD
>
> > > > >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of
> > > > >> >> > coordinates.  Time can be measured about any way imaginable.
> > > > >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t.- Hide quoted
> > > > >> >> > text -
>
> > > > >> >> A time coordinate is what is *measured* in that frame, Robert.. It
> > > > >> >> really does help to know what the terms mean.
>
> > > > >> > So how did you "measure" time, PD?  With an hourglass, with the sun,
> > > > >> > with the moon, with a waterclock?  You must have done it some way.
>
> > > > >> We call the thing you measure time with a 'clock'.  It is implied (in
> > > > >> physics) when we talk about a general 'clock' that it is a correctly
> > > > >> working
> > > > >> 'clock' .. ie that it correctly measures (or marks) the time at its own
> > > > >> location in its own rest frame.  so if a duration dt of time at a
> > > > >> location
> > > > >> has elapsed, then a clock at that location will show a duration of
> > > > >> exactly
> > > > >> dt as well.
>
> > > > >> This is very very simple and basic stuff.
>
> > > > > Uh huh.  So what about the marks on S and S'?  They are not a clock
> > > > > any more?  That did not last long.
>
> > > > I said nothing about those marks.  You havea great deal of trouble reading
> > > > and understanding .. that explains a lot.
>
> > > > However .. on the subject of such marks .. marks alone are not a clock (they
> > > > are a ruler) .. you would also need something moving past those marks at a
> > > > known rate, from that you can calculate the time.  If you have correctly
> > > > measured distances between the marks (ie measured from a mutually-at-rest
> > > > observer .. ie the marks are not moving wrt the observer) and have correctly
> > > > measured the speed of the moving object, then clock will work and be
> > > > correct.
>
> > > > This does NOT change the fact thegalileantransforms are proven incorrect
> > > > by experiments that show correctly working clocks do NOT show the same time
> > > > when those clocks are in relative motion.
>
> > > Well, I was just measuring time with the marks.  The marks are ten
> > > meters apart on both S and S'.
>
> > No, they're not. That is a claim that is inconsistent with real
> > *measurement*, Robert.
>
> > >  Now scientists claim to have two
> > > separate realities with respect to the marks on S and S'.  An observer
> > > in S sees the marks on S' closer together than the marks on S.  An
> > > observer in S' sees the marks on S closer together than the marks on
> > > S'.  An observer in reality sees the marks on S and S' the same
> > > distance apart.
>
> > No, Robert. Reality is set by what is *measured*. And *measurement*
> > says that the marks in S and S' are not the same distance apart.
>
> > >  So we have a difference between reality and science.
> > > Continuing on with reality, t'=t.  Hey, what do you know?
> > > That is the equation for time coordinates in theGalilean
> > > transformation equations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, you have made an assertion.  Go ahead and prove what you said.

Proof does not come in the form of an argument on newsgroups, Robert.
Not in science.
In science, the proof is in documented experiments, which are
published and available to you if you will stick out your thumb by the
side of the road and hitch a ride to a library.

You've requested that this information be served up on a silver
platter directly to you at your convenience. I'm sorry, Robert, but
you're not entitled to that. You have to seek it out like everyone
else does.

PD
From: rbwinn on 24 Jun 2010 23:35
On 24 June, 07:32, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:14 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 June, 06:49, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 1:59 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 21, 6:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:88390667-78fc-43b3-a480-43b63b45f6b2(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > On Jun 21, 5:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >>news:c05160c7-0799-4d35-b874-08e17bd5c74e(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > >> > On Jun 21, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> On Jun 17, 5:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> > On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> > > On Jun 13, 8:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >                                    x'=x-vt
> > > > > >> >> > > >                                    y'=y
> > > > > >> >> > > >                                    z'=z
> > > > > >> >> > > >                                    t'=t
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >       Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of reference
> > > > > >> >> > > > S'
> > > > > >> >> > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > slower than a clock in S which shows t.  According to
> > > > > >> >> > > > theGalilean
> > > > > >> >> > > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show t'.
> > > > > >> >> > > > Time
> > > > > >> >> > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other variable if
> > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used.  We call time on
> > > > > >> >> > > >the
> > > > > >> >> > > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'.
> > > > > >> >> > > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean
> > > > > >> >> > > > transformation equations because we know that it shows light to
> > > > > >> >> > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'.  Therefore, if
> > > > > >> >> > > >  |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >                         cn'=ct-vt
> > > > > >> >> > > >                         n'=t(1-v/c)
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >          We can now calculate orbits of satellites and planets
> > > > > >> >> > > > without
> > > > > >> >> > > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their length
> > > > > >> >> > > > contraction.  For instance, the speed of earth in its orbit
> > > > > >> >> > > > around
> > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > sun is 29.8 km/sec.  While a second of time takes place on
> > > > > >> >> > > > earth, a
> > > > > >> >> > > > longer time is taking place on the sun.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >                             n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c)
> > > > > >> >> > > >                             1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000)
> > > > > >> >> > > >                              t(sun)=1.0001 sec.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >        Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to verify
> > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for gravitation,
> > > > > >> >> > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >                               n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c)
> > > > > >> >> > > >                               n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87
> > > > > >> >> > > > km/sec/
> > > > > >> >> > > > 300,000km/sec)
> > > > > >> >> > > >                               n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec
>
> > > > > >> >> > > >           So a second on a clock on earth is .99994 sec on a
> > > > > >> >> > > > clock
> > > > > >> >> > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > Mercury.  The question now is where would this put the
> > > > > >> >> > > > perihelion
> > > > > >> >> > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > Mercury using Newton's equations?
>
> > > > > >> >> > > Amazing to see you back, Robert. Even more amazing to find that
> > > > > >> >> > > you've
> > > > > >> >> > > done a reset and started with the very same nonsense you've put
> > > > > >> >> > > out
> > > > > >> >> > > for years and years. I would have thought that you would have
> > > > > >> >> > > learned
> > > > > >> >> > > something.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > So you are claiming that for clocks A and B, where B is moving
> > > > > >> >> > > relative to A and runs slower than A, then A is measuring time (as
> > > > > >> >> > > denoted by the quantity t), but B is not measuring time (as
> > > > > >> >> > > denoted
> > > > > >> >> > > by
> > > > > >> >> > > the quantity t').
>
> > > > > >> >> > > The problem of course is that A is moving relative to B and runs
> > > > > >> >> > > slower than B. Your conclusion consistently would be that B is
> > > > > >> >> > > measuring time but A is not.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > Therefore, according to you, A is measuring time and not measuring
> > > > > >> >> > > time, and B is measuring time and not measuring time.
>
> > > > > >> >> > > PD
>
> > > > > >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of
> > > > > >> >> > coordinates.  Time can be measured about any way imaginable.
> > > > > >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t.- Hide quoted
> > > > > >> >> > text -
>
> > > > > >> >> A time coordinate is what is *measured* in that frame, Robert. It
> > > > > >> >> really does help to know what the terms mean.
>
> > > > > >> > So how did you "measure" time, PD?  With an hourglass, with the sun,
> > > > > >> > with the moon, with a waterclock?  You must have done it some way.
>
> > > > > >> We call the thing you measure time with a 'clock'.  It is implied (in
> > > > > >> physics) when we talk about a general 'clock' that it is a correctly
> > > > > >> working
> > > > > >> 'clock' .. ie that it correctly measures (or marks) the time at its own
> > > > > >> location in its own rest frame.  so if a duration dt of time at a
> > > > > >> location
> > > > > >> has elapsed, then a clock at that location will show a duration of
> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > >> dt as well.
>
> > > > > >> This is very very simple and basic stuff.
>
> > > > > > Uh huh.  So what about the marks on S and S'?  They are not a clock
> > > > > > any more?  That did not last long.
>
> > > > > I said nothing about those marks.  You havea great deal of trouble reading
> > > > > and understanding .. that explains a lot.
>
> > > > > However .. on the subject of such marks .. marks alone are not a clock (they
> > > > > are a ruler) .. you would also need something moving past those marks at a
> > > > > known rate, from that you can calculate the time.  If you have correctly
> > > > > measured distances between the marks (ie measured from a mutually-at-rest
> > > > > observer .. ie the marks are not moving wrt the observer) and have correctly
> > > > > measured the speed of the moving object, then clock will work and be
> > > > > correct.
>
> > > > > This does NOT change the fact thegalileantransforms are proven incorrect
> > > > > by experiments that show correctly working clocks do NOT show the same time
> > > > > when those clocks are in relative motion.
>
> > > > Well, I was just measuring time with the marks.  The marks are ten
> > > > meters apart on both S and S'.
>
> > > No, they're not. That is a claim that is inconsistent with real
> > > *measurement*, Robert.
>
> > > >  Now scientists claim to have two
> > > > separate realities with respect to the marks on S and S'.  An observer
> > > > in S sees the marks on S' closer together than the marks on S.  An
> > > > observer in S' sees the marks on S closer together than the marks on
> > > > S'.  An observer in reality sees the marks on S and S' the same
> > > > distance apart.
>
> > > No, Robert. Reality is set by what is *measured*. And *measurement*
> > > says that the marks in S and S' are not the same distance apart.
>
> > > >  So we have a difference between reality and science.
> > > > Continuing on with reality, t'=t.  Hey, what do you know?
> > > > That is the equation for time coordinates in theGalilean
> > > > transformation equations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, you have made an assertion.  Go ahead and prove what you said.
>
> Proof does not come in the form of an argument on newsgroups, Robert.
> Not in science.
> In science, the proof is in documented experiments, which are
> published and available to you if you will stick out your thumb by the
> side of the road and hitch a ride to a library.
>
> You've requested that this information be served up on a silver
> platter directly to you at your convenience. I'm sorry, Robert, but
> you're not entitled to that. You have to seek it out like everyone
> else does.
>
> PD

Libraries are full of nonsense. If you cannot talk to people and get
some kind of reply, it is proof that they have nothing to offer.
From: rbwinn on 24 Jun 2010 23:38
On 23 June, 19:37, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2b2812e0-ce59-41c7-bd7b-c9faaecd4eab(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 June, 17:33, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:819687c3-593e-45a4-a705-0005da870e4e(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com....
>
> >> > On 21 June, 18:11, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:88390667-78fc-43b3-a480-43b63b45f6b2(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 21, 5:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:c05160c7-0799-4d35-b874-08e17bd5c74e(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups..com...
>
> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Jun 17, 5:47 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > > On Jun 13, 8:31 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > > >                                    x'=x-vt
> >> >> >> >> > > >                                    y'=y
> >> >> >> >> > > >                                    z'=z
> >> >> >> >> > > >                                    t'=t
>
> >> >> >> >> > > >       Experiment shows that a clock in moving frame of
> >> >> >> >> > > > reference
> >> >> >> >> > > > S'
> >> >> >> >> > > > is
> >> >> >> >> > > > slower than a clock in S which shows t.  According to
> >> >> >> >> > > > theGalilean
> >> >> >> >> > > > transformation equations, that slower clock does not show
> >> >> >> >> > > > t'.
> >> >> >> >> > > > Time
> >> >> >> >> > > > on
> >> >> >> >> > > > the slower clock has to be represented by some other
> >> >> >> >> > > > variable
> >> >> >> >> > > > if
> >> >> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> >> >> > > >Galileantransformation equations are to be used.  We call
> >> >> >> >> > > >time
> >> >> >> >> > > >on
> >> >> >> >> > > >the
> >> >> >> >> > > > slow clock in S' by the variable n'.
> >> >> >> >> > > > We can calculate time on the slow clock from theGalilean
> >> >> >> >> > > > transformation equations because we know that it shows
> >> >> >> >> > > > light
> >> >> >> >> > > > to
> >> >> >> >> > > > be
> >> >> >> >> > > > traveling at 300,000 km per second in S'.  Therefore, if
> >> >> >> >> > > >  |x'|=300,000 km/sec(n') and |x| =300,000km/sec(t), then
>
> >> >> >> >> > > >                         cn'=ct-vt
> >> >> >> >> > > >                         n'=t(1-v/c)
>
> >> >> >> >> > > >          We can now calculate orbits of satellites and
> >> >> >> >> > > > planets
> >> >> >> >> > > > without
> >> >> >> >> > > > the problems imposed by the Lorentz equations and their
> >> >> >> >> > > > length
> >> >> >> >> > > > contraction.  For instance, the speed of earth in its
> >> >> >> >> > > > orbit
> >> >> >> >> > > > around
> >> >> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> >> >> > > > sun is 29.8 km/sec.  While a second of time takes place on
> >> >> >> >> > > > earth, a
> >> >> >> >> > > > longer time is taking place on the sun.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > >                             n'(earth)=t(sun)(1-v/c)
> >> >> >> >> > > >                             1 sec.=t(sun)(1-29.8/300,000)
> >> >> >> >> > > >                              t(sun)=1.0001 sec.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > >        Since the orbit of Mercury was the proof used to
> >> >> >> >> > > > verify
> >> >> >> >> > > > that
> >> >> >> >> > > > Einstein's equations were better than Newton's for
> >> >> >> >> > > > gravitation,
> >> >> >> >> > > > we
> >> >> >> >> > > > calculate how time on earth compares with time on Mercury.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > n'Mercury=t(sun)(1-v(Mercury)/c)
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > n'(mercury)=1.0001sec(1-47.87
> >> >> >> >> > > > km/sec/
> >> >> >> >> > > > 300,000km/sec)
> >> >> >> >> > > >                               n'(Mercury)=.99994 sec
>
> >> >> >> >> > > >           So a second on a clock on earth is ..99994 sec on
> >> >> >> >> > > > a
> >> >> >> >> > > > clock
> >> >> >> >> > > > on
> >> >> >> >> > > > Mercury.  The question now is where would this put the
> >> >> >> >> > > > perihelion
> >> >> >> >> > > > of
> >> >> >> >> > > > Mercury using Newton's equations?
>
> >> >> >> >> > > Amazing to see you back, Robert. Even more amazing to find
> >> >> >> >> > > that
> >> >> >> >> > > you've
> >> >> >> >> > > done a reset and started with the very same nonsense you've
> >> >> >> >> > > put
> >> >> >> >> > > out
> >> >> >> >> > > for years and years. I would have thought that you would
> >> >> >> >> > > have
> >> >> >> >> > > learned
> >> >> >> >> > > something.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > So you are claiming that for clocks A and B, where B is
> >> >> >> >> > > moving
> >> >> >> >> > > relative to A and runs slower than A, then A is measuring
> >> >> >> >> > > time
> >> >> >> >> > > (as
> >> >> >> >> > > denoted by the quantity t), but B is not measuring time (as
> >> >> >> >> > > denoted
> >> >> >> >> > > by
> >> >> >> >> > > the quantity t').
>
> >> >> >> >> > > The problem of course is that A is moving relative to B and
> >> >> >> >> > > runs
> >> >> >> >> > > slower than B. Your conclusion consistently would be that B
> >> >> >> >> > > is
> >> >> >> >> > > measuring time but A is not.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > Therefore, according to you, A is measuring time and not
> >> >> >> >> > > measuring
> >> >> >> >> > > time, and B is measuring time and not measuring time.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > PD
>
> >> >> >> >> > You are confusing measurement of time with transformation of
> >> >> >> >> > coordinates.  Time can be measured about any way imaginable.
> >> >> >> >> > Coordinates can be transformed only with t' and t.- Hide
> >> >> >> >> > quoted
> >> >> >> >> > text -
>
> >> >> >> >> A time coordinate is what is *measured* in that frame, Robert..
> >> >> >> >> It
> >> >> >> >> really does help to know what the terms mean.
>
> >> >> >> > So how did you "measure" time, PD?  With an hourglass, with the
> >> >> >> > sun,
> >> >> >> > with the moon, with a waterclock?  You must have done it some
> >> >> >> > way.
>
> >> >> >> We call the thing you measure time with a 'clock'.  It is implied
> >> >> >> (in
> >> >> >> physics) when we talk about a general 'clock' that it is a
> >> >> >> correctly
> >> >> >> working
> >> >> >> 'clock' .. ie that it correctly measures (or marks) the time at its
> >> >> >> own
> >> >> >> location in its own rest frame.  so if a duration dt of time at a
> >> >> >> location
> >> >> >> has elapsed, then a clock at that location will show a duration of
> >> >> >> exactly
> >> >> >> dt as well.
>
> >> >> >> This is very very simple and basic stuff.
>
> >> >> > Uh huh.  So what about the marks on S and S'?  They are not a clock
> >> >> > any more?  That did not last long.
>
> >> >> I said nothing about those marks.  You havea great deal of trouble
> >> >> reading
> >> >> and understanding .. that explains a lot.
>
> >> >> However .. on the subject of such marks .. marks alone are not a clock
> >> >> (they
> >> >> are a ruler) .. you would also need something moving past those marks
> >> >> at
> >> >> a
> >> >> known rate, from that you can calculate the time.  If you have
> >> >> correctly
> >> >> measured distances between the marks (ie measured from a
> >> >> mutually-at-rest
> >> >> observer .. ie the marks are not moving wrt the observer) and have
> >> >> correctly
> >> >> measured the speed of the moving object, then clock will work and be
> >> >> correct.
>
> >> >> This does NOT change the fact thegalileantransforms are proven
> >> >> incorrect
> >> >> by experiments that show correctly working clocks do NOT show the same
> >> >> time
> >> >> when those clocks are in relative motion.
>
> >> > Well, theGalileantransformation equations I use are not proven
> >> > incorrect.
>
> >> Yes .. they are.
>
> >> >  They account for the difference in rate of time between a
> >> > clock in S and A clock in S'.
>
> >> No .. they don't.  If they DO then they are NOTGalileantransforms.  How
> >> about a bit of honesty from you here .. and admit you are using a
> >> different
> >> transform togalilean.
>
> > Well, show the difference between these equations and theGalilean
> > transformation equations.
>
> >                  x'=x-vt
> >                  y'=y
> >                  z'=z
> >                  t'=t
>
> They are not the ones you use.  You post them .. but you don't use them..
> You use your own equaition instead and then try to cheat by using a
> different letter for time (n instead of t).

It is called algebra. At one time it was a very respected form of
mathematics. Back in the day when algebra was in use, a mathematician
who did not believe an algebraic term could use mathematics to
disprove the offending term by using algebra. Today using algebra to
disprove algebra is called circular reasoning.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Prev: zeno's paradox and the black hole
Next: Another Reason LHC may Create a BLACK HOLE