SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 26 Apr 2010 09:33 On Apr 26, 8:12 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 25, 5:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 25, 8:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 8:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 2:25 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 11:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 10:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 8:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:03 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:46 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:41 am, PD <thedraperfam....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 8:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 12:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens....(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 11:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 1:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 10:05 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 5:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do I need to rebut what SR says? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You keep saying there is an absolute frame. SR states there is no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute frame. If you're going to stick to your claim, you're going to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to rebut SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh....SR doesn't say that. SR says that it doen't need the absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > frame after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop making things up, Ken. SR says no such thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny that the laws of physics in any inerial frame are the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as the laws of phyiscs in an absolute frame? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I deny that. The laws of physics in the absolute frame are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DIFFERENT than they are in inertial reference frames. That's what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguishes the absolute rest frame. That's what it means. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then why can't you describe the differences in the laws of physics > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between an inertial frame and an absolute frame? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already, Ken, in this thread.. I characterized how, in inertial > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference frames, the Newtonian laws of mechanics and the laws of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > electrodynamics hold. I also described how the laws of physics would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be different in an absolute reference frame. The properties that YOU > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think are ascribed to an absolute reference frame are incorrect. Those > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are not the properties of an absolute reference frame. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No....every inertial frame adopts the special properties of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute frame > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken, what you say are the properties of the absolute frame are NOT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the properties of the absolute frame, as that word is used in physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, you're just mistaken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it is you who is mistaken. In the absolute frame the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is isotropicc; a clock in the absolute frame is the fastest running > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clock in the universe and a meter stick in the absolute frame is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > longest meter stick in th euniverse. Thes exclusive preferred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properties are what make the absolute frame unique. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No sir. The term "absolute reference frame" is already taken in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > physics, and it means something completely different than what you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have made up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No sir, the preferred properties of an absolute frame are exactly as I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described above. Current physics cannot give the absolute frame a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different meaning then what its preferred properties describe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those "preferred properties" are what you made up in your own head, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong a clock is a preferred clock if it is the fastest running clock > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the universe. That's what the definition of "preferred" means. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that's what YOUR definition of "preferred" is. It is not the > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning of the term as used in physics. Good heavens! Here is ANOTHER > > > > > > > > > > > > word that you just made up the meaning of. > > > > > > > > > > > > ROTFLOL....so now you are rejecting the valid definition of the word > > > > > > > > > > > "preferred". > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter whether YOU think it is a valid definition or not, > > > > > > > > > > Ken. What matters is what the definition of the term is AS USED IN > > > > > > > > > > PHYSICS. > > > > > > > > > > So current physics denys that the fastest running clock in the > > > > > > > > > universe is not a prefeered clock? > > > > > > > > > Exactly! Because this is true for EVERY clock. Anything that is true > > > > > > > > for EVERY clock cannot be for a PREFERRED clock only. If it were true > > > > > > > > only for a preferred clock, then it would be true for one and only one > > > > > > > > clock. But this isn't so. It is true for EVERY clock. > > > > > > > > > Take three clocks in the universe: A, B, and C. They are all moving > > > > > > > > relative to each other. > > > > > > > > In the frame where A is at rest, A is running faster than B and C. If > > > > > > > > A is the preferred clock, then this will not be true for B and C. > > > > > > > > First of all no object in the universe is in the absolute frame...in > > > > > > > case you are too stupid to understand that means that A is not a > > > > > > > preferred observer. If A is truly running faster than B and C then > > > > > > > from B's or C's point of view A is running faster then B and C. > > > > > > > > > But it IS true for B and C. > > > > > > > > No its not true...B and C will predict that A is running fast by a > > > > > > > factor of gamma. > > > > > > > No, Ken, this is wrong. It is not only predicted that A will run > > > > > > SLOWER than B in B's frame, but it is MEASURED that A does in fact run > > > > > > slower than B in B's frame. > > > > > > No such measurement ever been performed.....in SR and from B's point > > > > > of view he predicts that A run slow. However such prediction is > > > > > wrong. > > > > > That's a lie, Ken. There are several experiments that have shown this. > > > > It would help if you would actually read and comprehend an > > > > experimental paper or five. > > > > Then why don't you give us an experiment that compares two clocks A > > > and B....where A is accumulating more clock seconds than B and at the > > > same time where B is accumulating more clock seconds than A. > > > I've given you this experiment before, and I just mentioned it again. > > The lifetimes of decaying subatomic particles have been compared in > > just this fashion, and that is just one example. > > Yes this is from the lab point of view that the life time of a > decaying particle is longer compared to the life time of a same > particle in the lab frame. However, from the moving particle point of > view the lab particle is not decaying slow as SR predicted....it is > decaying faster than the traveling particle. That is not correct, Ken. From the moving particle's point of view the lab particle ALSO decays slower than the traveling particle. This is precisely what the experimental data shows, and why I pointed it out to you. These references have been given to you many times in years past. It would be good for you to get out of your chair and go to a library not far from you and look them up. > > Ken Seto > > > > > Ken, it would help if you would READ the references that have been > > given to you, which may mean taking yourself to a library. That is > > where you will find the experimental documentation. I don't know why > > you expect a full explanation of them here, just because you can't > > motivate yourself to get out of your chair. Are you helpless? > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > In the frame where B is at rest, B is running faster than A and C. > > > > > > > > No....B is never run faster than A. This assertion is based on the > > > > > > > bogus SR assertion that B is adopting the laws of physics of the > > > > > > > absolute frame. > > > > > > > No, it is not an empty assertion. It is an experimentally demonstrated > > > > > > FACT. > > > > > > No such experimental fact available. > > > > > That's a lie, Ken. SR is backed by experimental facts, including this > > > > one. > > > > > > There is such SR > > ... > > read more »
From: Michael Moroney on 26 Apr 2010 13:24 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 25, 11:58 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Apr 23, 10:04 am, "Peter Webb" >> ><webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >> Well, perhaps you would like to provide a quote from any book on Special >> >> Relativity which says every inertial reference frame takes on the property >> >> of the absolute frame which doesn't exist. >> >Hey idiot can't you think for yourself? When an inertial observer >> >claims the properties of the absolute frame he is using the absolute >> >frame to do physics. >> >> Why not answer the guy's question rather than insult him? Show a quote >> from any book on SR which says every inertial reference frame takes on the >> property of the absolute frame. >ROTFLOL....so the guy is you eh? No, the guy is Peter Webb. At least that's the name he posts under. My name is Michael Moroney. > The anwers are in every text book as >follows: [no snipping of any list of books that state every inertial reference frame takes on the property of some absolute frame] >What this mean is that every SR observer calims the preferred >properties of an absolute frame. You didn't answer the question. You didn't list one single book that states every inertial reference frame takes on the property of an absolute frame. All you did was repeat your incorrect assertation. >> Heck, just show a quote from any book on SR that simply states an absolute >> frame does exist. You didn't answer this one, either.
From: Michael Moroney on 26 Apr 2010 13:38 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Apr 22, 1:20 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >> No, Ken, what YOU think are the properties of an absolute reference >> >> frame, are NOT the properties of the absolute reference frame. >> >assertion is not a valid arguement. >> >> So why do you keep asserting that inertial frames take on the property of >> some absolute frame which exists only in your mind, and which SR disavows? >Motion without an absolute rest has no meaning. OK, it is here that you simply don't understand SR at all. > All observed relative >motions are born from individual motions as follows: >Relative motion betwen two objects A and B are the vector difference >of their absolute motion along the line joining A and B. I can pick any other inertial frame C so that the relative motion betwen two objects A and B are the vector difference of A's motion relative to C and B's motion relative to C. Nothing special whatsoever about C, as long as it's an inertial frame. I can even pick C to be the same as either A or B without changing anything, other than adding a simplification such as A's motion relative to C is identically zero if C=A.
From: kenseto on 26 Apr 2010 15:09 On 26 avr, 09:33, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 26, 8:12 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 5:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 25, 8:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2:25 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 11:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 10:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 7:54 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 8:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 4:03 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:46 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:41 am, PD <thedraperfam....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 8:32 am, kenseto <kens....(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 12:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 11:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 1:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 10:05 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 5:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do I need to rebut what SR says? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You keep saying there is an absolute frame. SR states there is no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute frame. If you're going to stick to your claim, you're going to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to rebut SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh....SR doesn't say that. SR says that it doen't need the absolute > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > frame after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop making things up, Ken. SR says no such thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you deny that the laws of physics in any inerial frame are the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as the laws of phyiscs in an absolute frame? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I deny that. The laws of physics in the absolute frame are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DIFFERENT than they are in inertial reference frames. That's what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguishes the absolute rest frame. That's what it means. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then why can't you describe the differences in the laws of physics > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between an inertial frame and an absolute frame? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already, Ken, in this thread. I characterized how, in inertial > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference frames, the Newtonian laws of mechanics and the laws of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > electrodynamics hold. I also described how the laws of physics would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be different in an absolute reference frame. The properties that YOU > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think are ascribed to an absolute reference frame are incorrect. Those > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are not the properties of an absolute reference frame. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No....every inertial frame adopts the special properties of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute frame > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Ken, what you say are the properties of the absolute frame are NOT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the properties of the absolute frame, as that word is used in physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, you're just mistaken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it is you who is mistaken. In the absolute frame the speed of light > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is isotropicc; a clock in the absolute frame is the fastest running > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clock in the universe and a meter stick in the absolute frame is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > longest meter stick in th euniverse. Thes exclusive preferred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > properties are what make the absolute frame unique. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No sir. The term "absolute reference frame" is already taken in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > physics, and it means something completely different than what you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have made up in your own head. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No sir, the preferred properties of an absolute frame are exactly as I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described above. Current physics cannot give the absolute frame a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different meaning then what its preferred properties describe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those "preferred properties" are what you made up in your own head, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong a clock is a preferred clock if it is the fastest running clock > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the universe. That's what the definition of "preferred" means. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that's what YOUR definition of "preferred" is.. It is not the > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning of the term as used in physics. Good heavens! Here is ANOTHER > > > > > > > > > > > > > word that you just made up the meaning of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ROTFLOL....so now you are rejecting the valid definition of the word > > > > > > > > > > > > "preferred". > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't matter whether YOU think it is a valid definition or not, > > > > > > > > > > > Ken. What matters is what the definition of the term is AS USED IN > > > > > > > > > > > PHYSICS. > > > > > > > > > > > So current physics denys that the fastest running clock in the > > > > > > > > > > universe is not a prefeered clock? > > > > > > > > > > Exactly! Because this is true for EVERY clock. Anything that is true > > > > > > > > > for EVERY clock cannot be for a PREFERRED clock only. If it were true > > > > > > > > > only for a preferred clock, then it would be true for one and only one > > > > > > > > > clock. But this isn't so. It is true for EVERY clock. > > > > > > > > > > Take three clocks in the universe: A, B, and C. They are all moving > > > > > > > > > relative to each other. > > > > > > > > > In the frame where A is at rest, A is running faster than B and C. If > > > > > > > > > A is the preferred clock, then this will not be true for B and C. > > > > > > > > > First of all no object in the universe is in the absolute frame...in > > > > > > > > case you are too stupid to understand that means that A is not a > > > > > > > > preferred observer. If A is truly running faster than B and C then > > > > > > > > from B's or C's point of view A is running faster then B and C. > > > > > > > > > > But it IS true for B and C. > > > > > > > > > No its not true...B and C will predict that A is running fast by a > > > > > > > > factor of gamma. > > > > > > > > No, Ken, this is wrong. It is not only predicted that A will run > > > > > > > SLOWER than B in B's frame, but it is MEASURED that A does in fact run > > > > > > > slower than B in B's frame. > > > > > > > No such measurement ever been performed.....in SR and from B's point > > > > > > of view he predicts that A run slow. However such prediction is > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > That's a lie, Ken. There are several experiments that have shown this. > > > > > It would help if you would actually read and comprehend an > > > > > experimental paper or five. > > > > > Then why don't you give us an experiment that compares two clocks A > > > > and B....where A is accumulating more clock seconds than B and at the > > > > same time where B is accumulating more clock seconds than A. > > > > I've given you this experiment before, and I just mentioned it again. > > > The lifetimes of decaying subatomic particles have been compared in > > > just this fashion, and that is just one example. > > > Yes this is from the lab point of view that the life time of a > > decaying particle is longer compared to the life time of a same > > particle in the lab frame. However, from the moving particle point of > > view the lab particle is not decaying slow as SR predicted....it is > > decaying faster than the traveling particle. > > That is not correct, Ken. From the moving particle's point of view the > lab particle ALSO decays slower than the traveling particle. This is > precisely what the experimental data shows, and why I pointed it out > to you. These references have been given to you many times in years > past. It would be good for you to get out of your chair and go to a > library not far from you and look them up. No, NO....There is no actual experiment from the moving particle point of view. The lab particle is predicted to be decaying faster BY A FACTOR OF GAMMA. Why? Because the moving particle clock accumulates less clock seconds than the lab clock. Ken Seto Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > Ken, it would help if you would READ the references that have been > > > given to you, which may mean taking yourself to a library. That is > > > where you will find the experimental documentation. I don't know why > > > you- Masquer le texte des messages précédents - > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents - > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -... > > plus de détails »
From: PD on 26 Apr 2010 15:38
On Apr 26, 2:09 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > First of all no object in the universe is in the absolute frame...in > > > > > > > > > case you are too stupid to understand that means that A is not a > > > > > > > > > preferred observer. If A is truly running faster than B and C then > > > > > > > > > from B's or C's point of view A is running faster then B and C. > > > > > > > > > > > But it IS true for B and C. > > > > > > > > > > No its not true...B and C will predict that A is running fast by a > > > > > > > > > factor of gamma. > > > > > > > > > No, Ken, this is wrong. It is not only predicted that A will run > > > > > > > > SLOWER than B in B's frame, but it is MEASURED that A does in fact run > > > > > > > > slower than B in B's frame. > > > > > > > > No such measurement ever been performed.....in SR and from B's point > > > > > > > of view he predicts that A run slow. However such prediction is > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > That's a lie, Ken. There are several experiments that have shown this. > > > > > > It would help if you would actually read and comprehend an > > > > > > experimental paper or five. > > > > > > Then why don't you give us an experiment that compares two clocks A > > > > > and B....where A is accumulating more clock seconds than B and at the > > > > > same time where B is accumulating more clock seconds than A. > > > > > I've given you this experiment before, and I just mentioned it again. > > > > The lifetimes of decaying subatomic particles have been compared in > > > > just this fashion, and that is just one example. > > > > Yes this is from the lab point of view that the life time of a > > > decaying particle is longer compared to the life time of a same > > > particle in the lab frame. However, from the moving particle point of > > > view the lab particle is not decaying slow as SR predicted....it is > > > decaying faster than the traveling particle. > > > That is not correct, Ken. From the moving particle's point of view the > > lab particle ALSO decays slower than the traveling particle. This is > > precisely what the experimental data shows, and why I pointed it out > > to you. These references have been given to you many times in years > > past. It would be good for you to get out of your chair and go to a > > library not far from you and look them up. > > No, NO....There is no actual experiment from the moving particle point > of view. > The lab particle is predicted to be decaying faster BY A FACTOR OF > GAMMA. Why? Because the moving particle clock accumulates less clock > seconds than the lab clock. > That is incorrect, Ken. There IS actual experimental data that shows this. One of the things you are missing in this connection, Ken, due to your tiny contact with the experimental literature, is that collider experiments and fixed target experiments map lots and lots of reference frames. Suppose you have two particles with relative velocity v. Very roughly, you can imagine one particle having velocity xv and the other particle having velocity (1-x)v, where x is a variable between 0 and 1. In many fixed target experiments, the value of x is 1 (so that one particle moves at v and the other at 0). In some collider experiments, the value of x is 1/2. (So that, again roughly, both move at v/2.) But if the colliding particles are hadrons, then the quarks have a momentum distribution inside them, so that you can map all values of x between 0 and 1. This is more than enough to verify mutual time dilation. It is your limited touch on the experimental data that leads you to believe that we only have data for x=1. But we have a lot more data than you think. It's up to you to get to the library and start doing some research, rather than just denying that the data exists. |