What about electromagnetic time dilation?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Ooh! Ooh! I know the main ingrediend of "dark matter"--it's "Planck matter"! (Re: Would proton decay allow for black holes?)
Next: Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
From: BURT on 8 Feb 2010 00:03 On Feb 7, 8:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 7 Feb, 18:14, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 7:08 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 8, 2:44 pm, 7 <website_has_em...(a)www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > I think I had a dopey fantasmogaric reason at the time and it was > > > > limitation of speed of computation. > > > > > The idea was that even if nothing came through the screen, > > > > the local space time with all those high intensity beams crossing > > > > would become computationally intensive for a > > > > universe to run as a simulation, and it would have to slow down the > > > > muon time to effectively borrow CPU time to process the events > > > > behind the screen. So even if no fields had crossed the > > > > screen, time dilation would be experienced by the muon > > > > Well, that's a dopey phantasmagoric reason! :-) > > > Gravity is the only force that dilates time. This is gravitational > > slower timerate. > > Nonsense. Non-gravitational acceleration also dilates time.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Energy speeding up has a slower clock. But that is artificial gravity. Mitch Raemsch
From: Ste on 8 Feb 2010 00:45 On 8 Feb, 05:03, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 8:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 Feb, 18:14, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 6, 7:08 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 8, 2:44 pm, 7 <website_has_em...(a)www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > I think I had a dopey fantasmogaric reason at the time and it was > > > > > limitation of speed of computation. > > > > > > The idea was that even if nothing came through the screen, > > > > > the local space time with all those high intensity beams crossing > > > > > would become computationally intensive for a > > > > > universe to run as a simulation, and it would have to slow down the > > > > > muon time to effectively borrow CPU time to process the events > > > > > behind the screen. So even if no fields had crossed the > > > > > screen, time dilation would be experienced by the muon > > > > > Well, that's a dopey phantasmagoric reason! :-) > > > > Gravity is the only force that dilates time. This is gravitational > > > slower timerate. > > > Nonsense. Non-gravitational acceleration also dilates time.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Energy speeding up has a slower clock. But that is artificial gravity. That seems to put the cart before the horse. It is much better (and conceptually simpler) to say that acceleration dilates time, and that gravity is an instance of this.
From: Peter Webb on 8 Feb 2010 01:43 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d8b11e06-b0aa-4bbc-8798-2c9370d3728e(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On 8 Feb, 05:03, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 8:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 Feb, 18:14, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 6, 7:08 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 8, 2:44 pm, 7 <website_has_em...(a)www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > I think I had a dopey fantasmogaric reason at the time and it was > > > > > limitation of speed of computation. > > > > > > The idea was that even if nothing came through the screen, > > > > > the local space time with all those high intensity beams crossing > > > > > would become computationally intensive for a > > > > > universe to run as a simulation, and it would have to slow down > > > > > the > > > > > muon time to effectively borrow CPU time to process the events > > > > > behind the screen. So even if no fields had crossed the > > > > > screen, time dilation would be experienced by the muon > > > > > Well, that's a dopey phantasmagoric reason! :-) > > > > Gravity is the only force that dilates time. This is gravitational > > > slower timerate. > > > Nonsense. Non-gravitational acceleration also dilates time.- Hide quoted > > text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Energy speeding up has a slower clock. But that is artificial gravity. That seems to put the cart before the horse. It is much better (and conceptually simpler) to say that acceleration dilates time, and that gravity is an instance of this. __________________________ It may be conceptually simpler, but it is wrong. Perhaps you should spend more than a month learning physics before trying to redefine General Relativity.
From: Ste on 8 Feb 2010 06:07 On 8 Feb, 06:43, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d8b11e06-b0aa-4bbc-8798-2c9370d3728e(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On 8 Feb, 05:03, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 8:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 7 Feb, 18:14, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 6, 7:08 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2:44 pm, 7 <website_has_em...(a)www.enemygadgets.com> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > I think I had a dopey fantasmogaric reason at the time and it was > > > > > > limitation of speed of computation. > > > > > > > The idea was that even if nothing came through the screen, > > > > > > the local space time with all those high intensity beams crossing > > > > > > would become computationally intensive for a > > > > > > universe to run as a simulation, and it would have to slow down > > > > > > the > > > > > > muon time to effectively borrow CPU time to process the events > > > > > > behind the screen. So even if no fields had crossed the > > > > > > screen, time dilation would be experienced by the muon > > > > > > Well, that's a dopey phantasmagoric reason! :-) > > > > > Gravity is the only force that dilates time. This is gravitational > > > > slower timerate. > > > > Nonsense. Non-gravitational acceleration also dilates time.- Hide quoted > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Energy speeding up has a slower clock. But that is artificial gravity. > > That seems to put the cart before the horse. It is much better (and > conceptually simpler) to say that acceleration dilates time, and that > gravity is an instance of this. > > __________________________ > > It may be conceptually simpler, but it is wrong. > > Perhaps you should spend more than a month learning physics before trying to > redefine General Relativity. I haven't redefined GR. The time dilation effects of acceleration are identical to the effects of gravity, and the only difference between gravitational acceleration and any other form is that the physical mediator of gravity is not yet understood.
From: Jarek Duda on 8 Feb 2010 06:21
Here is van Holten paper "Relativistic time dilation in external field" with similar point of view: http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img_index?9107099 |