There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 14 Nov 2009 16:29 On Nov 14, 12:41 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are no flattened forms neither atoms matter or space. It is just a belief and no direct evidence. The universe cannot go flat. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 14 Nov 2009 17:01 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:0683ddcf-ccef-4ce0-8f8d-b962654e37a3(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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..... You're the idiot getting things wrong > absolute time is absolute Now there;'s a tautology > but a > standard clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute > time in different frames. So absolute time is useless. None of our clocks show it and we don't know what it is > That's why the GPS second had to be > redefined It wasn't redefined .. it was adjusted .. why dol you insist on using the wrong word? > to make it contain the same amount of absolute time as the > ground clock second. But we don't know how much of this so-called absolute time there is in either a ground clock second or a GPS clock second. All we can do is adjust the ticking rate so they tick at the same rate. No need to know this so-called absolute time at all.
From: Inertial on 14 Nov 2009 17:02 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:ec8c37a2-6253-4888-a57e-244d2fe46f82(a)g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > 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. Fail: Not in your theory. And if there is already a pair of clocks some fixed distance apart, how do you tell if they are in sync? > Or you calculate the time rate difference using IRT equations and set > the clocks before launch. What launch' .. we've just got two clocks some distance apart, not moving relative to each other
From: Inertial on 14 Nov 2009 17:06 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:b15605fd-7d45-4077-af42-10ddedf14344(a)f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > 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.... That's just some arbitrary assumption. What is the ACTUAL light path length. > so > light path length is measured. So if I measure the length of a moving ruler .. I can assume that is its light path length of the ruler. > Using this assumed standard the light > path length of a moving meter stick is predicted using the IRT > equation. And your theory says it will be shorter. And as the length of a ruler is its light path length, someone moving with the ruler would assume the length of the ruler is hosrter, because we just showed its light path length is shorter. So your theory predicts length contraction.
From: Inertial on 14 Nov 2009 17:10
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:01559f7a-f3dd-4d54-8aa3-4341ed0573f5(a)k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > 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. Its measured length is contracted .. returning to the same place doesn't make any difference to the measurement .. returning to the same velocity relative to the observer does > Sounds pretty > rubbery to me. There is no change in the ruler itself .. assuming it was a rigid body. Of course, you do know that there is no such thing as a rigid body in reality. |