There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 12 Nov 2009 14:46 On Nov 12, 10:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > There is no time dilation. > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. Clocks ticking at different rates has nothing to do with the present.
From: BURT on 12 Nov 2009 15:13 On Nov 12, 11:46 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 10:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > There is no time dilation. > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > Clocks ticking at different rates has nothing to do with the present. Clocks are tiking away right now everywhere else. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 12 Nov 2009 15:17 On Nov 12, 1:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 10:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > There is no time dilation. > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > Clocks ticking at different rates has nothing to do with the present. And the clock that is ticking presently has nothing to do with the present. :>)
From: mpc755 on 12 Nov 2009 15:28 On Nov 12, 3:13 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 11:46 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 12, 10:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > There is no time dilation. > > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > Clocks ticking at different rates has nothing to do with the present. > > Clocks are tiking away right now everywhere else. > > Mitch Raemsch Yes, in the present. What I meant to say was: Clocks ticking at different rates has nothing to do with time. Clocks all tick in the present.
From: Igor on 12 Nov 2009 15:33
On Nov 12, 10:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > There is no time dilation. > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time > content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a > universal interval of time in different frames. > > There is no physical length contraction. > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > frames. > 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick > is the physical length of his meter stick and then he uses this > assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a > moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma. > > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes the above concept for > time and length. A description of IRT is available in the following > link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto Maybe you need to take a fine chamois and clean off your record. The needle keeps getting stuck in the same groove. |