There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Nov 2009 10:13 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?
From: mpc755 on 13 Nov 2009 10:23 On Nov 13, 10:13 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? There is only the present. Clocks tick faster or slower in the present. The rate at which clocks tick has nothing to do with time. Time is a concept.
From: kenseto on 13 Nov 2009 10:23 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 frame dependent....not the physical length as asserted by the runts of the Srians like you. In fact modern interpretation of SR is that the geometric projection of a moving meter stick is contracted....this is equiavlent to the light path length of a moving meter stick is shorter. > > > and then he uses this > > assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a > > moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma. > > He doesn't care what light path length is. Its some nonsense idea you made > up that is inconsistent. Of courase he care. In SR the physical length of a meter stick is not changed ....the geometric projection of a moving meter stick is frame dependent. > > > IRT is a new theory of relativity. > > Its not new and its not a theory You are the stupidest runt of the SRians. Ken Seto
From: john on 13 Nov 2009 10:25 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. john
From: eric gisse on 13 Nov 2009 10:41
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? > > Ken Seto |