Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 28 Dec 2009 00:47 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0ee9d1e6-4eeb-40ff-907a-722c351315e7(a)r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On 28 Dec, 03:27, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:483e2fe2-a490-4f59-846e-1a7abf63fa86(a)26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 27 Dec, 11:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:82a2de5c-1a2e-48e4-a7e4-76287acb88c2(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 26 Dec, 23:32, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> >> > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> c6d4ea67-9711-4b79-b35f-7bc54e086...(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com >> >> >> >> > On 26 Dec, 00:30, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can >> >> >> >> pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it, >> >> >> >> so if you go from London to New York you can do it >> >> >> >> twice without ever going from New York to London. >> >> >> >> >> He says >> >> >> >> quote/ >> >> >> >> "We use 3 inertial reference frames. >> >> >> >> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin. >> >> >> >> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip". >> >> >> >> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip". >> >> >> >>http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html >> >> >> >> >> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will >> >> >> >> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have >> >> >> >> aged >> >> >> >> 6 years. >> >> >> >> /unquote >> >> >> >> > I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion. >> >> >> > I >> >> >> >> You see how I arrived at it by looking at >> >> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html >> >> >> If there is anything unclear about it, let me know - perhaps I >> >> >> can explain. >> >> >> Or if there's a mistake, I can correct it. >> >> >> > There is indeed a mistake. >> >> >> Nope >> >> >> > You disproved relativity; because >> >> > relativity says that no matter what the frame of reference, the >> >> > effects will be the same. >> >> >> That's right .. in every frame, one twin is younger than the other >> >> > And isn't that a contradiction? >> >> No. > > Dear me. Dear me what? Every frame will agree that one of the twins is younger than the other .. ie that less time has elapsed for the 'travelling' twin as opposed to that of the 'stay-at-home' twin. There is nothing contradictory about that
From: Inertial on 28 Dec 2009 00:50 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e57e1e6c-68b1-4b7a-8ad3-db7b3c982582(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On 28 Dec, 03:26, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a35de26f-5383-4b5f-86b5-0c0c3b43bbe5(a)26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 27 Dec, 11:19, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> 82a2de5c-1a2e-48e4-a7e4-76287acb8...(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com >> >> >> > On 26 Dec, 23:32, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> >> > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> c6d4ea67-9711-4b79-b35f-7bc54e086...(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com >> >> >> >>> On 26 Dec, 00:30, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can >> >> >>>> pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it, >> >> >>>> so if you go from London to New York you can do it >> >> >>>> twice without ever going from New York to London. >> >> >> >>>> He says >> >> >>>> quote/ >> >> >>>> "We use 3 inertial reference frames. >> >> >>>> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin. >> >> >>>> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip". >> >> >>>> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip". >> >> >>>>http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html >> >> >> >>>> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will >> >> >>>> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have >> >> >>>> aged >> >> >>>> 6 years. >> >> >>>> /unquote >> >> >> >>> I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion. I >> >> >> >> You see how I arrived at it by looking at >> >> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html >> >> >> If there is anything unclear about it, let me know - perhaps I >> >> >> can explain. >> >> >> Or if there's a mistake, I can correct it. >> >> >> > There is indeed a mistake. >> >> >> I assume you understood everything about it, so, in which >> >> line do you find the first mistake? >> >> > The mistake is with this "changing frame of reference" business. >> >> So .. you don't understand. >> >> > It's >> > not the frame of reference that changes, >> >> No .. it IS the change in inertial frame of reference. >> >> > the time-lag is on account of >> > the fact that the astronaut accelerates more than the Earth, within a >> > reference frame that encompasses the Earth, the astronaut, and the >> > whole journey. >> >> You really don't understand what a frame of reference is (let alone an >> inertial one), nor what changing inertial frames means I suggest you >> learn >> and become familiar with the basic terms of physics before posting >> further > > There is a difference between being unfamiliar with physics, and > disagreeing with it. It appears you are both > I've told you plain as day, this nonsense about > changing reference frames is just that: nonsense. Then you don't understand the physics Your comments clearly show you do not understand the notion of an inertial frame of reference. > It's an utter contrivance to explain a simpler mechanism: Nope > the homebody on Earth did > not accelerate as much as the astronaut (no matter what the frame of > reference). That's what I just finished telling you !!!!! So that means it is all change of inertial frame of reference. Note, one can get the same effect without any accelerations (the triplet version) .. which shows actual acceleration of the object itself is not the issue. > That fact could be proven with two simple accelerometers - > unless you're going to tell me that SR dictates that both > accelerometers must read the same. No .. though that does sound like something you were arguing before when you says SR says the the at home observer does the same acceleration. Please try to at least be consistent.
From: Androcles on 28 Dec 2009 00:53 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:55e687f7-b47e-4325-aedc-9584f0234270(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On 28 Dec, 03:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message > > >> People are so bitter here! > > > It's not a question of emotion, it's a question of teaching arrogant > > lunatics like you the basics. You forgot to adjust the speed of lunacy. > > Androcles described himself nicely .. an arrogant lunatic. Though he > forgot > to add "blatant liar" to his self-description Indeed. Why is this place so feral? =========================== Inertial describes himself nicely, he's totally inert. He forgot to add "dead brain" to his self-description.
From: Inertial on 28 Dec 2009 00:59 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:55e687f7-b47e-4325-aedc-9584f0234270(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On 28 Dec, 03:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message >> >> >> People are so bitter here! >> >> > It's not a question of emotion, it's a question of teaching arrogant >> > lunatics like you the basics. You forgot to adjust the speed of lunacy. >> >> Androcles described himself nicely .. an arrogant lunatic. Though he >> forgot >> to add "blatant liar" to his self-description > > Indeed. Why is this place so feral? Crackpots who have enormous egos, usually accompanied by a hatred for Einstein. Usually they are fail physics students who, rather than accept that they failed physics, think physics must be wrong, and become convinced of that fact. Others think they are intelligent and yet they have not achieved the fame the Einstein has (usually for good reason) and so therefore Einstein must be some sort of con artist or charlatan .. and so therefore SR (as it was something einstein was involved in) must (by association) be wrong. Of course, all physicists must be part of a cult or conspiracy to keep this 'truth' hidden. Anyone who disagrees with them if obviously one of the runts of the Einsteinian religion. In order to maintain these delusions, they deny the existence of all the experiments that support SR, except those that also happen to not refute their particular pet theory. They will make ridiculous claims about what they mistakenly think SR says in order to 'prove' it wrong (and instead show why it is they failed physics) and go on a character assassination vendetta against Einstein. Of course, this means each of them thinks they are the lone voice of reason in a world that is out to get them and silence their voice. Also those who DO understand physics (SR in particular) will point out the mistaken ideas of the crackpots, and that truth makes the resent just about everyone. PD, Eric, Tom (and myself) are amongst the few who understand SR well. Its rather sad.
From: Sue... on 28 Dec 2009 01:08
On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > earth? Know thy enemy. =====================================================\ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Later_activity_and_Current_Status ======================================================/ << Einstein's relativity principle states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space ;-) Sue... |