correct representation of slower clocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Attraction of opposite electric charges would form neutronium
Next: EINSTEIN TOPPLED BY MOVING OBSERVER
From: rbwinn on 23 Jul 2010 03:13 On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > news:9c342fcd-ef8d-4b43-9ba3-c17cd82876ef(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > >On Jul 22, 10:28 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Inertial wrote: > > >> [snip all] > > >> rbwinn has nothing to say except the same thing he has been saying for > >> ~15 > >> years now. Just like the seto, the rbwinn deserves short bursts of > >> contempt > >> or straight up killfiling. > > >The problem I see for you, eric, is that I am right > > No .. you just proved yourself wrong. Galilean transforms do not agree with > what happens in reality. You showed it very nicely. A parrot could do what you are doing just as well. Here, if you think you want to talk to me, solve this little problem. In the Etvos experiment, a clock was put in the nosecone of a Vanguard missile and recovered and compared to a clock kept on the ground. The clock in the missile nosecone showed less time. Since the variable n' causes you so much consternation, we are going to call the time on the nosecone clock A and the time on the ground clock B. What you need to prove is that the slow clock in the missile gives the same speed for the missile as the faster clock on the ground. Thank you for sharing, Inertial.
From: Inertial on 23 Jul 2010 03:22 "rbwinn" wrote in message news:a4b1e0e1-2e42-4a28-ab27-32ce66e30a87(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > >On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" wrote in message >> >> news:9c342fcd-ef8d-4b43-9ba3-c17cd82876ef(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >On Jul 22, 10:28 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Inertial wrote: >> >> >> [snip all] >> >> >> rbwinn has nothing to say except the same thing he has been saying for >> >> ~15 >> >> years now. Just like the seto, the rbwinn deserves short bursts of >> >> contempt >> >> or straight up killfiling. >> >> >The problem I see for you, eric, is that I am right >> >> No .. you just proved yourself wrong. Galilean transforms do not agree >> with >> what happens in reality. You showed it very nicely. > >A parrot could do what you are doing just as well. it is indeed very easy to show you are wrong. You did it yourself. > Here, if you think >you want to talk to me, solve this little problem. In the Etvos >experiment, a clock was put in the nosecone of a Vanguard missile and >recovered and compared to a clock kept on the ground. The clock in >the missile nosecone showed less time. So, Galilean transforms (which say there is no change in time when you change inertial frames) is refuted. Thanks for playing.
From: rbwinn on 23 Jul 2010 04:52 On Jul 23, 12:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > news:a4b1e0e1-2e42-4a28-ab27-32ce66e30a87(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > >On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" wrote in message > > >>news:9c342fcd-ef8d-4b43-9ba3-c17cd82876ef(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com.... > > >> >On Jul 22, 10:28 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Inertial wrote: > > >> >> [snip all] > > >> >> rbwinn has nothing to say except the same thing he has been saying for > >> >> ~15 > >> >> years now. Just like the seto, the rbwinn deserves short bursts of > >> >> contempt > >> >> or straight up killfiling. > > >> >The problem I see for you, eric, is that I am right > > >> No .. you just proved yourself wrong. Galilean transforms do not agree > >> with > >> what happens in reality. You showed it very nicely. > > >A parrot could do what you are doing just as well. > > it is indeed very easy to show you are wrong. You did it yourself. > > > Here, if you think > >you want to talk to me, solve this little problem. In the Etvos > >experiment, a clock was put in the nosecone of a Vanguard missile and > >recovered and compared to a clock kept on the ground. The clock in > >the missile nosecone showed less time. > > So, Galilean transforms (which say there is no change in time when you > change inertial frames) is refuted. Thanks for playing. This is not a game, Inertial. How does a slower clock change time? I bought an alarm clock that lost ten minutes every day. How did that affect time at your house?
From: rbwinn on 23 Jul 2010 19:08 On Jul 22, 11:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >"rbwinn" wrote in message > >news:114f2da8-f6d4-4a98-8af4-79dd4e710f71(a)p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com.... > > >On Jul 22, 10:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "rbwinn" wrote in message > > >>news:3f93b27a-8cb5-48fa-a85a-bd880bd73984(a)x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > You did not prove anything > > >> You proved Galilean transforms do not work .. in that they are > >> contradicted > >> by what we observe experimentally. I just pointed out that you did it. > > >> > except that you are capable of saying, > >> > Absolute time, absolute time, absolute time, just as I predicted. > > >> Funny .. you predict that the thing the shows Galilean transforms are > >> incorrect would be used to prove Galilean transforms are incorrect. Not > >> a > >> terribly clever prediction. > > >> Nor does your prediction reduce in anyway the validity of the arguments > >> that > >> refute Galilean transforms, because those transforms mean that time is > >> the > >> same in all frames (and we know, and you admit, that time is NOT the same > >> in > >> all frames). > > >> > I already proved what I set out to prove. > > >> No .. You proved Galilean transforms do not work. That's not what you > >> set > >> out to prove. But you did it anyway. > > >Whatever. > > What a dishonest way of ignoring that you've just proved yourself wrong. > Galilean transforms mean time is the same everywhere, reality shows > otherwise, so Galilean transforms do not work in realirty. Simple. And you > just proved it yourself Well, I am just using the Galilean transformation equations to describe the rotation of the earth. For you scientists, the earth rotates every 24 hours. From S the earth rotates once every 24 hours. From S', the earth rotates once every 24 hours. The Galilean transformation equations show this with the equation t'=t. See, 24 hours = 24 hours. Amazing how mathematics works.
From: Inertial on 23 Jul 2010 19:35
"rbwinn" wrote in message news:6b2e9130-354e-45aa-a6fb-64780df93f6e(a)y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 22, 11:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >"rbwinn" wrote in message >> What a dishonest way of ignoring that you've just proved yourself wrong. >> Galilean transforms mean time is the same everywhere, reality shows >> otherwise, so Galilean transforms do not work in realirty. Simple. And >> you >> just proved it yourself > >Well, I am just using the Galilean transformation equations to >describe the rotation of the earth. They say the time is the same everywhere, whether you talk about earth of a spaceship or the sun or some little green man on the other side of the universe. > For you scientists, the earth > rotates every 24 hours. Close enough. Galilean transforms say ALL correct clocks will agree on that. But in reality it depends on who measures it. As your own example shows. > From S the earth rotates once every 24 > hours. From S', the earth rotates once every 24 hours. Nope .. you just showed that from a missile it take less time to rotate. Try to keep up. > The Galilean >transformation equations show this with the equation t'=t. Yes they do .. glad you agree. > See, 24 >hours = 24 hours. Amazing how mathematics works. And how it doesn't correspond to reality in this case. Because according to the time in a missile, it takes less than 24 hours. |