Prev: DM Candidate?
Next: Question about gravity (the myths about superstring theory)
From: kenseto on 24 May 2010 07:57
On May 23, 9:58 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/10 8:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 1:03 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 5/22/10 8:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> Hey idiot....SR says that an observed clock runs slow....that means
> >>> that it accumulate clock seconds at a different rate than the
> >>> observer's clock..
>
> >>     Whether a clock runs slow or not is strictly observer dependent.
>
> > Hey idiot....the PoR of SR allows every SR observer to assume that an
> > observed clock runs slow compared to the observer's clock.
>
>    The degree of time dilation is observer dependent. Suppose you and I
>    have different velocities with respect to Clock A. Of course we each
>    measure time dilation
>
>      ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A
>
>    where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity
>    between A and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) .
>
>    But, having different relative velocities to clock A, we measure
>    different values for ∆t_A'.  PD come along with yet another relative
>    velocity to clock A and get yet another value for ∆t_A' .

That's right but your interpretation is wrong....every clock in
relative motion runs at its own constant rate....including the
observer's clock. This constant rate of a clock is not observer
dependent.....that means that A's rate of accumulating clock second is
not observer dependent. However, the difference between A's rate of
accumulating clock second and the observer clock's rate of
accumulating clock second is observer dependent.
At no time A's clock is running slow compared to all the observer
moving wrt it. Some observer's clock will run fast compare dto A's
clock and some will run fast compare to A's rate.

Ken Seto


>
>    Time dilation is certainly observer dependent. For non zero v,
>
>      ∆t_A' > ∆t_A

From: PD on 24 May 2010 09:37
On May 22, 8:23 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:

>
> > Ken, you do not know what experiments show and do not show until you
> > look at the papers.
> > If you make an assertion about what experiments show and you haven't
> > even looked the papers, then you are just bullshitting. Everyone knows
> > you're bullshitting.
>
> ROTFLOL....you don't have an arguement so you keep on telling me to
> read papers. is that what you tell your students when they ask you a
> taugh question that you don't have a valid ANSWER???

I *DO* tell my students to read the papers, yes. That is ABSOLUTELY
required of them, yes. And that is rightfully so.

And keep in mind they are PAYING me to go over those papers with them
to help them make sense.

You want just an answer without having to pay for it, and without
having to read anything.

You are a lazy, shiftless, worthless fraud, and you aren't capable of
being a student.

>
> Ken Seto
>


From: Sam Wormley on 24 May 2010 09:46
On 5/24/10 6:46 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On May 23, 9:49 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/23/10 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On May 22, 1:02 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/10 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>>> No you learn what SR says. Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock
>>>>> seconds at different rates and that's confirmed experimentally.
>>
>>>> That depends on the observer.
>>
>>> Hey idiot....every SR observer claims that an observed clock runs slow.
>>
>> For any given observer, the time dilation due relative radial velocity
>> is given by
>>
>> ∆t' = γ ∆t
>>
>> where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity
>> between A and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) .
>
> So from the t' clock point of view the t clock is running fast and
> thus refute the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.
>
> Ken Seto

Boy are you confused, Ken. Let A be the observer and B be a clock
in relative motion, then from the perspective
of A.

Now choosing the perspective of B, Let B be the observer and A be a
clock in relative motion, then ∆t' of A = γ ∆t of A.

You can have ONLY ONE PERSPECTIVE SIMULTANEOUSLY... sorry, my caps key
stuck on momentarily. You can only have one perspective, either that
of A where ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B ,
or B where ∆t_A' = γ ∆t-A .

Seto, you have failed, and I do mean FAILED, to understand this simple
concept of relativity for many years. There is no contradiction, as
one can only have ONE perspective.







From: Sam Wormley on 24 May 2010 09:54
On 5/24/10 6:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
> That's right but your interpretation is wrong....every clock in
> relative motion runs at its own constant rate....including the
> observer's clock. This constant rate of a clock is not observer
> dependent.....that means that A's rate of accumulating clock second is
> not observer dependent. However, the difference between A's rate of
> accumulating clock second and the observer clock's rate of
> accumulating clock second is observer dependent.
> At no time A's clock is running slow compared to all the observer
> moving wrt it. Some observer's clock will run fast compare dto A's
> clock and some will run fast compare to A's rate.
>
> Ken Seto

One can have ONLY ONE PERSPECTIVE SIMULTANEOUSLY... sorry, my caps key
stuck on momentarily. You can only have one perspective, either that

of A, where ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B ,
or B, where ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A .

Seto, you have failed, and I do mean FAILED, to understand this simple
concept of relativity for many years. There is no contradiction, as
one can only have ONE perspective.

∆t is the proper time interval between ticks of the clock made in
the clocks inertial reference frame.

∆t' is the measured time interval between ticks of the clock, made by
the guy in relative motion to the clock.





From: kenseto on 24 May 2010 15:02
On May 24, 9:46 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/24/10 6:46 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 9:49 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 5/23/10 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>> On May 22, 1:02 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 5/22/10 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>>>> No you learn what SR says. Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock
> >>>>> seconds at different rates and that's confirmed experimentally.
>
> >>>>      That depends on the observer.
>
> >>> Hey idiot....every SR observer claims that an observed clock runs slow.
>
> >>     For any given observer, the time dilation due relative radial velocity
> >>     is given by
>
> >>        ∆t' = γ ∆t
>
> >>     where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity
> >>     between A and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) .
>
> > So from the t' clock point of view the t clock is running fast and
> > thus refute the bogus concept of mutual time dilation.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
>    Boy are you confused, Ken. Let A be the observer and B be a clock
>    in relative motion, then from the perspective
>    of A.
>
>    Now choosing the perspective of B, Let B be the observer and A be a
>    clock in relative motion, then ∆t' of A = γ ∆t of A.

Hey idiot....I corrected you many times. How can B predicts that an
interval of A's clock Delta(t'_A) on the A clock be equal to
gamma*delta(t_A) on the same A clock????


Ken Seto

>
>    You can have ONLY ONE PERSPECTIVE SIMULTANEOUSLY... sorry, my caps key
>    stuck on momentarily. You can only have one perspective, either that
>    of A where ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B ,
>    or B where ∆t_A' = γ ∆t-A .
>
>    Seto, you have failed, and I do mean FAILED, to understand this simple
>    concept of relativity for many years. There is no contradiction, as
>    one can only have ONE perspective.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Prev: DM Candidate?
Next: Question about gravity (the myths about superstring theory)