Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 27 Dec 2009 18:59 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. It's not the frame of reference that changes, 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.
From: Ste on 27 Dec 2009 19:01 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?
From: George Hammond on 27 Dec 2009 21:32 On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:21:58 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >Ste <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d3b9(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com >> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on >> earth? > > >I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells >you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one >clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity. > >Dirk Vdm > > [Hammond] If we're talking about "objective" time then yes, it is the theory of Relativity. However, if we are talking about "subjective" time, then it is the theory of God. ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: George Hammond on 27 Dec 2009 21:38 On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:30:17 GMT, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god. > > [Hammond] Fact of the matter is that God exists, and the hard scientific proof has been published in the peer-reviewed literature, by me in 2003. http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime.... unless it is called atheism, in which case it is only a harmless misdemeanor. ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: Inertial on 27 Dec 2009 22:22
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e36f70a3-ce39-4d88-9663-b986c0df94ec(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On 27 Dec, 01:47, Evil's Toy <brani...(a)maksimovic.com> wrote: >> Ste wrote: >> > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on >> > earth? >> >> Time does not physically exist. It is mathematical concept to >> describe that something happens. Speed of happening is defined >> by machine called clock, which is based on time needed >> for Earth to make one revolution. >> So we synchronize on Earth revolution and we call that time. > > Oh how believers squirm. > > I am not refuting the measure of time. My position is that it does not > flow ever-forward - and that, for all practical purposes, time is > standing still on Earth. All of that makes no sense. > But to those who say it *does* move ever-forward, I ask, and what > *rate* does it move ever-forward? We can compare objectively how elapsed time and ticking rates compare in different locations or frames of reference > Unless you can tell me the rate, > then you have no evidential basis to say it moves ever-forward. Wrong. You don't need to know a rate .. only a direction > And let me be clear: if you're a true relativist, you will freely > accept my proposition, that time is standing still on Earth. It doesn't make sense to says it is moving, or that it is standing still. both of those refer to change (or lack of it) over time. You can't talk about how time changes over time.. its a nonsense. |