FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Wherefore Art Thou, Little Higgsy?
Next: solutions book
From: Paul Cardinale on 29 Jul 2010 14:54 On Jul 28, 4:15 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 29, 8:42 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 28, 1:29 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...(a)volcanomail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:10ec0e46-620b-406e-9707-a62596dc4f43(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > > | When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > > > | The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > > > | time dilation. > > > | > > > | Paul Cardinale > > > | > > > When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > > > The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > > > the Easter Bunny. > > > If time dilation is mutual then no one can age faster. That means both > > clocks are going equally slow > > Quite correct .. both age at the same rate in their own frame. It is > only when one tries to measure the age of the other that is moving in > their frame that they get a lower value. > > Of course, if there is a change in the rest frame of reference for one > of them, then that changes simultaneity (ie causes a 'jump' in > time) .. then its a different situation > > > which is of course nonsense. > > Mitch again shows he's never really studied physics, but still feels > the need to make his ignorance public. Go figure.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It's easy to figure out. Stupidity exacerbates arrogance. This allows raemsch to convince himself that he's a genius and everyone else is an idiot. Note also that this is not a correctable condition; raemsch is ineducable, unable even to learn that he is ignorant. As he ages, lack of recognition will cause him to become more and more bitter; like androcrap.
From: BURT on 29 Jul 2010 15:11 On Jul 28, 8:22 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 29, 11:50 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 28, 4:15 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 29, 8:42 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 28, 1:29 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > > "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...(a)volcanomail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:10ec0e46-620b-406e-9707-a62596dc4f43(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups..com... > > > > > | When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > > > > > | The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > > > > > | time dilation. > > > > > | > > > > > | Paul Cardinale > > > > > | > > > > > When you misapply a formula or a theory, you get nonsense. > > > > > The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know how to apply > > > > > the Easter Bunny. > > > > > If time dilation is mutual then no one can age faster. That means both > > > > clocks are going equally slow > > > > Quite correct . > > > Wrong. > > Nope .. I'm right. Study SR and understand it (even if you don't > believe it) and see. > > > > both age at the same rate in their own frame. It is > > > only when one tries to measure the age of the other that is moving in > > > their frame that they get a lower value. > > > You can't measure another's clock > > Wrong > > > but you can observe it. > > Which is part of the process of measuring its rate. > > > And if it is > > going slower > > It isn't 'going slower'. A relatively moving observer does nothing to No. At least one clock is going slower and there is no mutual dilation. Mitch Raemsch > a clock. But it is measured as slower by the moving observer. > > > at all possible observations how can that clock age more? > > Read what I wrote. > > Mitch again shows he's never really studied physics, but still feels > the need to make his ignorance public. Go figure- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: eric gisse on 30 Jul 2010 00:20 artful wrote: [...] > > [snip more mitch bullshit] It used to be the case he was just a white noise generator of idiocy. Guess he finally grew up to the the crank we all knew he would become.
From: BURT on 30 Jul 2010 01:05
On Jul 29, 9:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > artful wrote: > > [...] > > > > > [snip more mitch bullshit] > > It used to be the case he was just a white noise generator of idiocy. > > Guess he finally grew up to the the crank we all knew he would become. If there is mutual time slow how does one clock age faster then? Go look at your sheepskins Eric. You can't answer this question. Mitch Raemsch |