There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 13 Nov 2009 16:36 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:ed085cf0-b3a8-4fe8-98f5-14022ece3eef(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> > There is no time dilation. >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. >> >> We call that 'time dilation'. > > Hey idiot if clocks run at different rates in different frame then the > Sr concept of mutual time dilation is wrong. SR says they will be MEASURED to run at different rates, when measured form other frames. Every clock runs at the correct rate for its own frame. It is LET (of which you IRT is a bastardised subset that doesn't work) which has acutal slowing of clocks in different frames. And it still gives mutual measured time dilation.
From: Inertial on 13 Nov 2009 16:39 "john" <vegan16(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:215ee09d-ba07-4cf2-834a-8e2946de4c91(a)b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > 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. And you will find the a moving one ticks slower.
From: Inertial on 13 Nov 2009 16:42 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > 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. So... how do you synchronise clocks in your 'theory'. How can I set up two clocks some distance apart (but not moving relative to each other) and have them in synch. How do you determine if they are in sych?
From: Inertial on 13 Nov 2009 16:43 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > 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 Something you made up and cannot measure so it is useless
From: Inertial on 13 Nov 2009 16:44
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:86d8feb2-7242-4f8a-af75-8f9e36d8bb51(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > 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. There is no 'rubber ruler' in SR at all. You clearly don't understand SR at all, yet feel compelled to make comments out of ignorance. |