Two clocks; one moving past the other at high speed
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
Next: The Quantum Geometry of the Spacetime
From: BURT on 5 Nov 2009 21:43 On Nov 5, 6:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 6:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:f9e4d2ab-86e0-406e-8e56-37a8fb4e8763(a)g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Nov 4, 8:54 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > On Nov 2, 2:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >> > >news:0d4fefb0-ed41-45e3-b67f-694d1fab63ba(a)x5g2000prf.googlegroups..com... > > > >> > > > If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen > > >> > > > as > > >> > > > the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing > > >> > > > around > > >> > > > it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This > > >> > > > contradiction is dumb science. > > > >> > > So speaks the dumb non-scientist. > > > >> > If only one clock is the one going slow it can only be seen that that > > >> > clock is running slower than the other in every frame. It can't be any > > >> > other way. > > > >> > Mitch Raemsch > > > >> xxein: If you are stupid, it can only be seen that you are stupid for > > >> every case. It can't be any other way.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > I see you are talking about yourself. > > > > I am an aether scientist. Even Einstein brought back the aether after > > > he developed General Relativity. > > > You are no scientist .. you're a bullshit artist.- Hide quoted text - > > Carl Marx said accuse your enermy of what you do. It was fullproof. > I won't let you do that to me. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Everything has a rate though it may be different. This creates different appearences of outer clocks. And there is no proper time if time ends altogether in any frame. Mitch Raemsch
From: nuny on 6 Nov 2009 02:21 On Nov 5, 3:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 12:52 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 5, 11:36 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 5, 11:21 am, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I agree, but I would replace the "most important" to "quite useful". > > > > > > It has its advantages. > > > > > > No. There can be no doubt rot. It is the most important. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > No, it cannot be the "most" important: How do you define or quantify > > > > "most important" ? > > > > Through my intuition. And it is never wrong. > > > What is your intuition's answer my question; > > > "One train is stationary with respect to the Earth, but the Earth is > > rotating with an equatorial velocity of ~1000 mph eastward. The other > > train is traveling westward at 1000 mph, cancelling the Earth's > > rotation velocity. > > > Which train's clock runs slow?" > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > With respect to the space they traverse through globaly(since there is > no absolute rest) both are going slow. First, going slow with respect to what, exactly? What clock can be seen as going faster than both trains' clocks? Second, in the first post in this thread you wrote: "If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen as the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing around it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This contradiction is dumb science." Your statement says that the idle train will see the moving train's clock going fast. You have contradicted yourself. Care to back up and try again? Mark L. Fergerson
From: BURT on 6 Nov 2009 16:12 On Nov 5, 11:21 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 3:05 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 12:52 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 5, 11:36 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 5, 11:21 am, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree, but I would replace the "most important" to "quite useful". > > > > > > > It has its advantages. > > > > > > > No. There can be no doubt rot. It is the most important. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > No, it cannot be the "most" important: How do you define or quantify > > > > > "most important" ? > > > > > Through my intuition. And it is never wrong. > > > > What is your intuition's answer my question; > > > > "One train is stationary with respect to the Earth, but the Earth is > > > rotating with an equatorial velocity of ~1000 mph eastward. The other > > > train is traveling westward at 1000 mph, cancelling the Earth's > > > rotation velocity. > > > > Which train's clock runs slow?" > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > With respect to the space they traverse through globaly(since there is > > no absolute rest) both are going slow. > > First, going slow with respect to what, exactly? What clock can be > seen as going faster than both trains' clocks? > > Second, in the first post in this thread you wrote: > > "If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen > as > the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing around > it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This > contradiction is dumb science." > > Your statement says that the idle train will see the moving train's > clock going fast. You have contradicted yourself. Care to back up and > try again? > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If one clock slower than other there isn't anything to make the wrong appearence. It will be seen as it is. Mitch Raemsch
From: xxein on 6 Nov 2009 18:55 On Nov 5, 9:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 5, 6:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:f9e4d2ab-86e0-406e-8e56-37a8fb4e8763(a)g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On Nov 4, 8:54 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > On Nov 2, 2:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >> > >news:0d4fefb0-ed41-45e3-b67f-694d1fab63ba(a)x5g2000prf.googlegroups..com... > > > >> > > > If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen > > >> > > > as > > >> > > > the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing > > >> > > > around > > >> > > > it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This > > >> > > > contradiction is dumb science. > > > >> > > So speaks the dumb non-scientist. > > > >> > If only one clock is the one going slow it can only be seen that that > > >> > clock is running slower than the other in every frame. It can't be any > > >> > other way. > > > >> > Mitch Raemsch > > > >>xxein: If you are stupid, it can only be seen that you are stupid for > > >> every case. It can't be any other way.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > I see you are talking about yourself. > > > > I am an aether scientist. Even Einstein brought back the aether after > > > he developed General Relativity. > > > You are no scientist .. you're a bullshit artist.- Hide quoted text - > > Carl Marx said accuse your enermy of what you do. It was fullproof. > I won't let you do that to me. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: True. Nobody could penetrate your idiocy.
From: BURT on 6 Nov 2009 21:01
On Nov 6, 3:55 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Nov 5, 9:27 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 6:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >news:f9e4d2ab-86e0-406e-8e56-37a8fb4e8763(a)g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On Nov 4, 8:54 pm,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >> > On Nov 2, 2:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > >> > >news:0d4fefb0-ed41-45e3-b67f-694d1fab63ba(a)x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> > > > If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen > > > >> > > > as > > > >> > > > the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing > > > >> > > > around > > > >> > > > it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This > > > >> > > > contradiction is dumb science. > > > > >> > > So speaks the dumb non-scientist. > > > > >> > If only one clock is the one going slow it can only be seen that that > > > >> > clock is running slower than the other in every frame. It can't be any > > > >> > other way. > > > > >> > Mitch Raemsch > > > > >>xxein: If you are stupid, it can only be seen that you are stupid for > > > >> every case. It can't be any other way.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > I see you are talking about yourself. > > > > > I am an aether scientist. Even Einstein brought back the aether after > > > > he developed General Relativity. > > > > You are no scientist .. you're a bullshit artist.- Hide quoted text - > > > Carl Marx said accuse your enermy of what you do. It was fullproof. > > I won't let you do that to me. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: True. Nobody could penetrate your idiocy.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No. I don't let anybody effect me for the negative. Go judge the other educated people who are compensating with the hubris of science. Science doesn't know much. Mitch Raemsch |