There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 15 Nov 2009 11:01 On Nov 14, 5:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(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. Hey idiot...it is in my theory. > > And if there is already a pair of clocks some fixed distance apart, how do > you tell if they are in sync? Clocks apart cannot be in sync unless they were originally out of sync before they were moved apart. > > > 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 There is no way to make two spatially separated clocks to have the same reading at the same instant of time. However, two clocks in the same frame will run at the same rate. BTW that's the reason why physicists refused to measure the one-way speed of light. In SR Einstein assumed that the speed of light is isotropic and he sync the two spatially separated clocks by sending a light signal to the other clock and when the signal arrive at the other clock you advance the clock to have a reading of L/c. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 15 Nov 2009 17:48 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:76ef4732-79df-438e-8ee0-0a22b4356a36(a)p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 14, 5:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(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. > > Hey idiot...it is in my theory. > >> >> And if there is already a pair of clocks some fixed distance apart, how >> do >> you tell if they are in sync? > > Clocks apart cannot be in sync unless they were originally out of sync > before they were moved apart. > >> >> > 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 > > There is no way to make two spatially separated clocks to have the > same reading at the same instant of time. Not in your theory. Which makes it pretty much useless. > However, two clocks in the > same frame will run at the same rate. Yes they will > BTW that's the reason why > physicists refused to measure the one-way speed of light. > In SR Einstein assumed that the speed of light is isotropic and he > sync the two spatially separated clocks by sending a light signal to > the other clock and when the signal arrive at the other clock you > advance the clock to have a reading of L/c. But you can keep clocks in sync in SR by syncing them when together and then moving them apart. You can't do that in your theory. Or by sending known-speed signals between them; you could do that in yours, but then in your theory, you wouldn't measure isotropic speed for light in that case using those clocks.
From: BURT on 15 Nov 2009 18:21 On Nov 15, 2:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:76ef4732-79df-438e-8ee0-0a22b4356a36(a)p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 5:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(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. > > > Hey idiot...it is in my theory. > > >> And if there is already a pair of clocks some fixed distance apart, how > >> do > >> you tell if they are in sync? > > > Clocks apart cannot be in sync unless they were originally out of sync > > before they were moved apart. > > >> > 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 > > > There is no way to make two spatially separated clocks to have the > > same reading at the same instant of time. > > Not in your theory. Which makes it pretty much useless. > > > However, two clocks in the > > same frame will run at the same rate. > > Yes they will > > > BTW that's the reason why > > physicists refused to measure the one-way speed of light. > > In SR Einstein assumed that the speed of light is isotropic and he > > sync the two spatially separated clocks by sending a light signal to > > the other clock and when the signal arrive at the other clock you > > advance the clock to have a reading of L/c. > > But you can keep clocks in sync in SR by syncing them when together and then > moving them apart. You can't do that in your theory. Or by sending > known-speed signals between them; you could do that in yours, but then in > your theory, you wouldn't measure isotropic speed for light in that case > using those clocks.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - All clocks are in their now instant everywhere. This is universal. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 15 Nov 2009 19:39 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:24ca75a4-0ed6-4e23-91e8-7621fad544c5(a)h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 15, 2:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:76ef4732-79df-438e-8ee0-0a22b4356a36(a)p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 14, 5:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(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. >> >> > Hey idiot...it is in my theory. >> >> >> And if there is already a pair of clocks some fixed distance apart, >> >> how >> >> do >> >> you tell if they are in sync? >> >> > Clocks apart cannot be in sync unless they were originally out of sync >> > before they were moved apart. >> >> >> > 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 >> >> > There is no way to make two spatially separated clocks to have the >> > same reading at the same instant of time. >> >> Not in your theory. Which makes it pretty much useless. >> >> > However, two clocks in the >> > same frame will run at the same rate. >> >> Yes they will >> >> > BTW that's the reason why >> > physicists refused to measure the one-way speed of light. >> > In SR Einstein assumed that the speed of light is isotropic and he >> > sync the two spatially separated clocks by sending a light signal to >> > the other clock and when the signal arrive at the other clock you >> > advance the clock to have a reading of L/c. >> >> But you can keep clocks in sync in SR by syncing them when together and >> then >> moving them apart. You can't do that in your theory. Or by sending >> known-speed signals between them; you could do that in yours, but then in >> your theory, you wouldn't measure isotropic speed for light in that case >> using those clocks.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > All clocks are in their now instant everywhere. This is universal. The now instant isn't an instant .. its eternal. Its always now. Have you ever woken up in the morning and found that it wasn't now? Of course, at any instant of time (whatever that really means) we only experience one part of the eternal now. Everyone you see is experiencing a different part of their now by the time you get to see them (or hear them etc) .. you only ever experience the past now's of others. And they experience you as you were in your past now's.
From: BURT on 15 Nov 2009 19:46
On Nov 15, 4:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:24ca75a4-0ed6-4e23-91e8-7621fad544c5(a)h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 15, 2:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:76ef4732-79df-438e-8ee0-0a22b4356a36(a)p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Nov 14, 5:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(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. > > >> > Hey idiot...it is in my theory. > > >> >> And if there is already a pair of clocks some fixed distance apart, > >> >> how > >> >> do > >> >> you tell if they are in sync? > > >> > Clocks apart cannot be in sync unless they were originally out of sync > >> > before they were moved apart. > > >> >> > 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 > > >> > There is no way to make two spatially separated clocks to have the > >> > same reading at the same instant of time. > > >> Not in your theory. Which makes it pretty much useless. > > >> > However, two clocks in the > >> > same frame will run at the same rate. > > >> Yes they will > > >> > BTW that's the reason why > >> > physicists refused to measure the one-way speed of light. > >> > In SR Einstein assumed that the speed of light is isotropic and he > >> > sync the two spatially separated clocks by sending a light signal to > >> > the other clock and when the signal arrive at the other clock you > >> > advance the clock to have a reading of L/c. > > >> But you can keep clocks in sync in SR by syncing them when together and > >> then > >> moving them apart. You can't do that in your theory. Or by sending > >> known-speed signals between them; you could do that in yours, but then in > >> your theory, you wouldn't measure isotropic speed for light in that case > >> using those clocks.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > All clocks are in their now instant everywhere. This is universal. > > The now instant isn't an instant .. its eternal. You wouldn't know eternity from a hole in a wall. Mitch Raemsch |