There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 13 Nov 2009 16:46 On Nov 13, 4:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "john" <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote in message > > news:215ee09d-ba07-4cf2-834a-8e2946de4c91(a)b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Nov 13, 9:13 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> john wrote: > >> > On Nov 13, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >> >> Hey wormy that's not time dilation....that's GPS second containing > >> >> 4.15 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS second contains > >> >> the same amount of absolute time as the ground second. > > >> >> Ken Seto > > >> > Sam, I gotta agree with Ken. > > >> > Time *has* to be the same everywhere.* > >> > The faster or slower aging of one system > >> > over another just has to do with how fast they are > >> > going relative to each other. > >> > *They* have faster or slower pulses relative > >> > to Time, which was already said in the > >> > first part of the sentence when I said 'faster'. > > >> > Because Time *is* our monitor. > > >> > john > > >> Well, John, I'm a bit disappointed in you, for Seto is logically and > >> empirically wrong. Do you know what "empirically wrong" means?- Hide > >> quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Do you know what 'monitor' > > means? Background? Matrix? > > > Time is our reference. Everything has this reference. > > It cannot be different for any part or you no > > longer have a control. > > Time is the reason you can compare the rate of > > one clock against another. > > And you will find the a moving one ticks slower. Yes, it takes longer to tick. Nothing to do with time.
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Nov 2009 16:51 mpc755 wrote: > > Yes, it takes longer [time] to tick. Nothing to do with time. <laughing>
From: mpc755 on 13 Nov 2009 17:03 On Nov 13, 4:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > > Yes, it takes longer [time] to tick. Nothing to do with time. > > <laughing> Yes, it takes more time to tick since the previous tick. That doesn't mean time has changed. It just means the clock is running slower. If you have a battery operated clock in your house and it starts to tick slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries?
From: BURT on 13 Nov 2009 20:00 On Nov 13, 2:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 4:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > Yes, it takes longer [time] to tick. Nothing to do with time. > > > <laughing> > > Yes, it takes more time to tick since the previous tick. That doesn't > mean time has changed. It just means the clock is running slower. If > you have a battery operated clock in your house and it starts to tick > slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries? Time is in the instant. We are talking about now everywhere. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 13 Nov 2009 23:46
On Nov 13, 8:00 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 2:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 13, 4:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > > Yes, it takes longer [time] to tick. Nothing to do with time. > > > > <laughing> > > > Yes, it takes more time to tick since the previous tick. That doesn't > > mean time has changed. It just means the clock is running slower. If > > you have a battery operated clock in your house and it starts to tick > > slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries? > > Time is in the instant. We are talking about now everywhere. > > Mitch Raemsch Exactly. |