How does mutual time dilation work with one twin aging faster?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Applying Torque to rotating objects in 3d space
Next: atomic characteristics appearing as cosmic characteristics; does the cosmos have two poles, and thus a spin?? chapt18; Galaxy evidence #264 Atom Totality
From: kenseto on 10 Aug 2010 11:50 On Aug 10, 10:41 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/10/10 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Aug 10, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8/10/10 7:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> There is no such thing as absolute time dilation. From the cosmic muon > >>> point of view the lab muon has a life time of 2.2us/gamma. > > >> Wrong--From the perspective of any muon, its mean lifetime is 2.2 µs. > >> Seto FAILS to understand relativity. > > > No idiot....the cosmic muon clock second has longer duration the the > > lab clock second. Therefore SR and IRT predicts that from the cosmic > > muon point of view the lab muon has a lifetime of 2.2us(cosmic muon > > time)/gamma. > > > Ken Seto > > Cosmic muons FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GROUND OBSERVER do > exhibit time dilation predicted by special relativity. However, > from the PERSPECTIVE OF THE MUON, there is no time dilation and > the muon has a mean lifetime is 2.2 µs. No idiot...the cosmic muon predicts that the lab muon decays at 2.2us/ gamma....this means that the lab muon has a shorter life time than the cosmic muon and that's why the lab muon can only travel a very short distance before decaying. Ken Seto > > Seto, you FAIL to understand relativity!
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Aug 2010 12:12 On 8/10/10 10:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Aug 10, 10:41 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/10/10 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> On Aug 10, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/10/10 7:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>> There is no such thing as absolute time dilation. From the cosmic muon >>>>> point of view the lab muon has a life time of 2.2us/gamma. >> >>>> Wrong--From the perspective of any muon, its mean lifetime is 2.2 �s. >>>> Seto FAILS to understand relativity. >> >>> No idiot....the cosmic muon clock second has longer duration the the >>> lab clock second. Therefore SR and IRT predicts that from the cosmic >>> muon point of view the lab muon has a lifetime of 2.2us(cosmic muon >>> time)/gamma. >> >>> Ken Seto >> >> Cosmic muons FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GROUND OBSERVER do >> exhibit time dilation predicted by special relativity. However, >> from the PERSPECTIVE OF THE MUON, there is no time dilation and >> the muon has a mean lifetime is 2.2 �s. > > No idiot...the cosmic muon predicts that the lab muon decays at 2.2us/ > gamma....this means that the lab muon has a shorter life time than the > cosmic muon and that's why the lab muon can only travel a very short > distance before decaying. No Seto, you FAIL to understand relativity. Hopelessly lost in the abyss of ignorance. > > Ken Seto > >> >> Seto, you FAIL to understand relativity! >
From: Daryl McCullough on 10 Aug 2010 12:15 Gc says... > >On 10 elo, 15:17, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >> There is a subtle distinction between curvature and topology. >> If you take a sheet of paper, and connect one edge to the opposite >> edge, you get a cylinder. An ant traveling on the surface of the >> sheet won't notice any curvature, but it will notice that going >> far enough in one direction will return it to where it started. > >I promised not to post for a while, but I don`t get what you are >saying. Of course, the ant could notice curvature, isn`t that the >point when we say that a curvature is an instrinsic property. Yes, curvature in the sense of the curvature tensor is intrinsic, and for a cylinder, this curvature is *zero*. The cylinder is not curved, intrinsically. It is curved in the sense of topology (the technical term is that a cylinder is not "simply connected"). Contrast the case of a cylinder with the case of a sphere. The surface of a sphere *is* curved, and this manifests itself in geometry: If you draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere, and measure the angles, they will add up to greater than 180 degrees. For a flat 2D surface, the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. By this criterion, a cylinder is *not* curved. Triangles drawn on the surface of a cylinder will have angles that add up to exactly 180. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 10 Aug 2010 12:18 Gc says... >What if the ant draws a really big triangle on the paper (with respect >to ant`s size) and measures the sum of it`s angles? Its always 180 for a cylinder. The distinction between a cylinder and the surface of a sphere is this: You can cut a cylinder into a finite number of pieces, and each piece can be laid flat. In contrast, if you cut a sphere into pieces, the pieces will not be flat. You can't press them onto a flat surface without stretching or compressing. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Gc on 10 Aug 2010 12:57
On 10 elo, 19:15, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Gc says... > > > > >On 10 elo, 15:17, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > >> There is a subtle distinction between curvature and topology. > >> If you take a sheet of paper, and connect one edge to the opposite > >> edge, you get a cylinder. An ant traveling on the surface of the > >> sheet won't notice any curvature, but it will notice that going > >> far enough in one direction will return it to where it started. > > >I promised not to post for a while, but I don`t get what you are > >saying. Of course, the ant could notice curvature, isn`t that the > >point when we say that a curvature is an instrinsic property. > > Yes, curvature in the sense of the curvature tensor is intrinsic, > and for a cylinder, this curvature is *zero*. The cylinder is not > curved, intrinsically. It is curved in the sense of topology > (the technical term is that a cylinder is not "simply connected"). > > Contrast the case of a cylinder with the case of a sphere. > The surface of a sphere *is* curved, and this manifests itself > in geometry: If you draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere, > and measure the angles, they will add up to greater than 180 > degrees. For a flat 2D surface, the angles of a triangle add up > to 180 degrees. > > By this criterion, a cylinder is *not* curved. Triangles drawn > on the surface of a cylinder will have angles that add up to > exactly 180. OK. Intresting. |