There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 14 Nov 2009 11:15 On Nov 13, 10:41 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Nov 12, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >> > There is no time dilation. > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > >> That IS time dilation! > > >> General relativity is a fruitful tool to predict time > >> dilation agreeing with observations. > > > 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. > > Absolute time doesn't seem all that absolute now does it Ken? Hey idiot....you got it wrong.....absolute time is absolute but a standard clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames. That's why the GPS second had to be redefined to make it contain the same amount of absolute time as the ground clock second. Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 14 Nov 2009 14:57 On Nov 14, 8:15 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 10:41 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > On Nov 12, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > >> kenseto wrote: > > >> > There is no time dilation. > > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > >> That IS time dilation! > > > >> General relativity is a fruitful tool to predict time > > >> dilation agreeing with observations. > > > > 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. > > > Absolute time doesn't seem all that absolute now does it Ken? > > Hey idiot....you got it wrong.....absolute time is absolute but a > standard clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute > time in different frames. That's why the GPS second had to be > redefined to make it contain the same amount of absolute time as the > ground clock second. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Even in the slow of its rate time is absolute. MItch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 14 Nov 2009 15:34 On Nov 13, 4:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee-b61f-d2ff53b6b97a(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > There is no time dilation. > > >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > > Sure I have a working theory. > > > The GPS second is redefined to have 4.15 > > more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock second...this > > is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute > > time as the ground second. > > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > >> And how is that different from time dilation? > > > The differences are: > > 1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different rates. > > That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then clock B > > is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual time > > dilation. > > So... how do you synchronise clocks in your 'theory'. How can I set up two > clocks some distance apart (but not moving relative to each other) and have > them in synch. How do you determine if they are in sych? You move the clocks in the opposite directions with the same velocity and stop them simultaneously. Such clocks will remain synchronized. Or you calculate the time rate difference using IRT equations and set the clocks before launch. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 14 Nov 2009 15:38 On Nov 13, 4:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee-b61f-d2ff53b6b97a(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > There is no time dilation. > > >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > > Sure I have a working theory. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.15 > > more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock second...this > > is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute > > time as the ground second. > > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > >> And how is that different from time dilation? > > > The differences are: > > 1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different rates. > > That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then clock B > > is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual time > > dilation. > > >> > 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. > > >> Its not supposed to be .. it supposed to keep time in its own frame > > > Hey idiot the definition for time "time is what the clock measures" is > > wrong....why? Because a clock second does not contain the same amount > > of time (same amount of duration or absolute time) in different > > frames. > > >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > > Sure I have a working theory. > > >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > >> > frames. > > >> What do you mean by physical length? > > > We use physical ruler to measure length everyday. There is no need to > > invent a rubber ruler so that you can make the speed of light to be > > constant. > > >> > 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick > >> > is the physical length of his meter stick > > >> No observer measures light path length and no observer makes any > >> assuptions > >> about something you made up > > > Hey idiot....light path length of a meter stick is > > Something you made up and cannot measure so it is useless Hey idiot....light path length of a meter stick in the observer's frame is assumed to be the physical length of his meter stick....so light path length is measured. Using this assumed standard the light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted using the IRT equation. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 14 Nov 2009 15:41
On Nov 13, 4:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:0e8846ab-d260-42ee-b61f-d2ff53b6b97a(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > There is no time dilation. > > >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > > Sure I have a working theory. The GPS second is redefined to have 4.15 > > more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the groound clock second...this > > is done to make the GPS second contains the same amount of absolute > > time as the ground second. > > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > >> And how is that different from time dilation? > > > The differences are: > > 1. clocks in relative motion are truly running at different rates. > > That means that if clock A is running faster than clock B then clock B > > is running slower than clock A. There is no such thing as mutual time > > dilation. > > >> > 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. > > >> Its not supposed to be .. it supposed to keep time in its own frame > > > Hey idiot the definition for time "time is what the clock measures" is > > wrong....why? Because a clock second does not contain the same amount > > of time (same amount of duration or absolute time) in different > > frames. > > >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > >> You have no proof of course .. not even a working theory. > > > Sure I have a working theory. > > >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > >> > frames. > > >> What do you mean by physical length? > > > We use physical ruler to measure length everyday. There is no need to > > invent a rubber ruler so that you can make the speed of light to be > > constant. > > There is no 'rubber ruler' in SR at all. You clearly don't understand SR at > all, yet feel compelled to make comments out of ignorance. Sure there is....a ruler accelerated from the observer is contracted but when it return it will recover it physical length. Sounds pretty rubbery to me. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |