There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 15 Nov 2009 22:39 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c431f764-52be-4b3c-8b42-972c52360d18(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > 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. Well.. no, noone can have experienced eternity, though one can experience a finite part of it. But now is always now. There has never been a time in your existence when it wasn't now. Its always now.
From: BURT on 15 Nov 2009 23:25 On Nov 15, 7:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:c431f764-52be-4b3c-8b42-972c52360d18(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > Well.. no, noone can have experienced eternity, though one can experience a > finite part of it. But now is always now. There has never been a time in > your existence when it wasn't now. Its always now.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Its always now everywhere you go. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 15 Nov 2009 23:30 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c136b1c2-35c9-4247-a69f-0dcc1d85d247(a)e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 15, 7:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:c431f764-52be-4b3c-8b42-972c52360d18(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Well.. no, noone can have experienced eternity, though one can experience >> a >> finite part of it. But now is always now. There has never been a time >> in >> your existence when it wasn't now. Its always now.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Its always now everywhere you go. That's what I said. Gees.
From: BURT on 16 Nov 2009 00:50 On Nov 15, 8:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:c136b1c2-35c9-4247-a69f-0dcc1d85d247(a)e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 15, 7:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:c431f764-52be-4b3c-8b42-972c52360d18(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > 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. > > >> Well.. no, noone can have experienced eternity, though one can experience > >> a > >> finite part of it. But now is always now. There has never been a time > >> in > >> your existence when it wasn't now. Its always now.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Its always now everywhere you go. > > That's what I said. Gees.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Now is an instant everywhere. Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 16 Nov 2009 10:42
kenseto wrote: [...] > So length contraction is not real.....it is a projectional effect. It took 15 years for you to learn this. I'm so proud! [...] |