Discussion:
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
(too old to reply)
Hayek
2010-07-27 16:32:44 UTC
Permalink
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?

Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?

The players :
Ann - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.

Betty - the traveling twin - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021

Enter mutual time dilation and ftl :
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.

This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.

There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.

In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.

What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?

Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.

MTD = Science Fiction.


Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
dlzc
2010-07-27 16:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann   - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin   - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
MTD = Science Fiction.
Uwe Hayek.
Your gibberish generator is still full on. FTL cannot be verified.
Therefore your "causality problem", isn't a problem.

David A. Smith
Hayek
2010-07-27 16:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlzc
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
MTD = Science Fiction.
Uwe Hayek.
Your gibberish generator is still full on.
FTL cannot be verified.
Then neither can MTD.
Post by dlzc
Therefore your "causality problem", isn't a problem.
I say the problem arises from MTD, not from FTL, if ever
possible.

Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
dlzc
2010-07-27 18:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann   - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin   - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
MTD = Science Fiction.
Uwe Hayek.
Your gibberish generator is still full on.  
FTL cannot be verified.
Then neither can MTD.
Therefore your "causality problem", isn't a problem.
I say the problem arises from MTD, not from FTL, if ever
possible.
You say that the problem arises from the one postulate of special
relativity, and not your fantasy? You mean to say "instantaneous
transmission" not any old "FTL". If these two persons have relative
motion, at two different times, there'd be two different time offsets.

Just because you won't spend the effort to learn *anything*, doesn't
mean that anyone cares. You've been ignorant of this topic for years
now, and have spent *no apparent* effort to fix your obvious
problems. Despite this, you seem to feel qualified to make statements
based on your ignorance.

Here are some appropriate links for you:
http://www.randomimage.us/32122.html
http://www.randomimage.us/34293.html
http://www.randomimage.us/32709.html
http://www.randomimage.us/18022.html
http://www.randomimage.us/35015.html
(I am guilty as charged for that one.)
http://www.randomimage.us/23901.html
http://www.randomimage.us/4198.html
http://www.randomimage.us/33177.html
http://www.randomimage.us/32897.html

David A. Smith
eric gisse
2010-07-27 21:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Hayek wrote:
[...]
Post by Hayek
Post by dlzc
FTL cannot be verified.
Then neither can MTD.
a) it has
b) what you say does not logically follow

[...]
bert
2010-07-28 01:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann   - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin   - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
MTD = Science Fiction.
Uwe Hayek.
Your gibberish generator is still full on.  FTL cannot be verified.
Therefore your "causality problem", isn't a problem.
David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Messanger particles go at c Matter particles can't go to c That is
reality TreBert
Surfer
2010-07-27 17:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
That is a good reason to look for a preferred frame. Eg.

Quantum preferred frame: Does it really exist?
EPL (Europhysics Letters) Volume 88, Number 1
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/88/1/10005;jsessionid=52ED179FF302CE9C141ECF9B9EA55927.c1

Abstract: The idea of the preferred frame as a remedy for difficulties
of the relativistic quantum mechanics in description of the non-local
quantum phenomena was undertaken by physicists such as J. S. Bell and
D. Bohm. The possibility of the existence of a preferred frame was
also seriously treated by P. A. M. Dirac. In this paper, we propose an
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen–type experiment for testing the possible
existence of quantum preferred frame. Our analysis suggests that to
verify whether a preferred frame of reference in the quantum world
exists, it is enough to perform an EPR-type experiment with a pair of
observers staying in the same inertial frame and with use of the
massive EPR pair of spin–one-half or spin-one particles.
mpc755
2010-07-27 17:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Surfer
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann   - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin   - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
That is a good reason to look for a preferred frame. Eg.
Quantum preferred frame: Does it really exist?
EPL (Europhysics Letters) Volume 88, Number 1http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/88/1/10005;jsessionid=52ED179FF30...
Abstract: The idea of the preferred frame as a remedy for difficulties
of the relativistic quantum mechanics in description of the non-local
quantum phenomena was undertaken by physicists such as J. S. Bell and
D. Bohm. The possibility of the existence of a preferred frame was
also seriously treated by P. A. M. Dirac. In this paper, we propose an
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen–type experiment for testing the possible
existence of quantum preferred frame. Our analysis suggests that to
verify whether a preferred frame of reference in the quantum world
exists, it is enough to perform an EPR-type experiment with a pair of
observers staying in the same inertial frame and with use of the
massive EPR pair of spin–one-half or spin-one particles.
The preferred frame is the state of the matter, which is the state of
the matter and the state of the dark matter; the state of which is
determined by the connections between the matter and the dark matter
which is the state of displacement.
Jacko
2010-07-27 20:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Surfer
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann   - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin   - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
That is a good reason to look for a preferred frame. Eg.
Quantum preferred frame: Does it really exist?
EPL (Europhysics Letters) Volume 88, Number 1http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/88/1/10005;jsessionid=52ED179FF30...
Abstract: The idea of the preferred frame as a remedy for difficulties
of the relativistic quantum mechanics in description of the non-local
quantum phenomena was undertaken by physicists such as J. S. Bell and
D. Bohm. The possibility of the existence of a preferred frame was
also seriously treated by P. A. M. Dirac. In this paper, we propose an
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen–type experiment for testing the possible
existence of quantum preferred frame. Our analysis suggests that to
verify whether a preferred frame of reference in the quantum world
exists, it is enough to perform an EPR-type experiment with a pair of
observers staying in the same inertial frame and with use of the
massive EPR pair of spin–one-half or spin-one particles.
So did one exist? Probably not ;-) I don't need to 'payout' to know
that.

FTL does not violate causality, just sense, 'the pond just looks
shallow'. In that sense it's not FTL but the invariant c is not
constant, but effectively faster.

http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring
eric gisse
2010-07-27 21:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Surfer wrote:
[...]
Post by Surfer
That is a good reason to look for a preferred frame. Eg.
Relativistic QM is - amazingly - Lorentz invariant. Look up the term.

[...]
bert
2010-07-28 01:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Surfer
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann   - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin   - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
That is a good reason to look for a preferred frame. Eg.
Quantum preferred frame: Does it really exist?
EPL (Europhysics Letters) Volume 88, Number 1http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/88/1/10005;jsessionid=52ED179FF30...
Abstract: The idea of the preferred frame as a remedy for difficulties
of the relativistic quantum mechanics in description of the non-local
quantum phenomena was undertaken by physicists such as J. S. Bell and
D. Bohm. The possibility of the existence of a preferred frame was
also seriously treated by P. A. M. Dirac. In this paper, we propose an
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen–type experiment for testing the possible
existence of quantum preferred frame. Our analysis suggests that to
verify whether a preferred frame of reference in the quantum world
exists, it is enough to perform an EPR-type experiment with a pair of
observers staying in the same inertial frame and with use of the
massive EPR pair of spin–one-half or spin-one particles.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
QM has a particle with up spin means its twin has down spin. That has
been proven. No message has to be used. TreBert
PD
2010-07-27 19:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann   - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin   - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
This is NOT what mutual time dilation says.
Post by Hayek
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
MTD = Science Fiction.
Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
artful
2010-07-28 00:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann   - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin   - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
This is NOT what mutual time dilation says.
Post by Hayek
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
MTD = Science Fiction.
Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
Actually it is.

If you consider Betty is still in uniform motion away from Ann, and
look at
the event in Betty's frame where Betty's clock shows 2023 .. Ann's
clock
will show an earlier time (say 2021) simultaneous with Betty
(according to
Betty). But there is also a time later than 2023 in Ann's frame (say
2025)
where Betty's clock will show 2023 and be simultaneous with Ann
(according
to Ann).

SO the description is quite compatible with SR and MTD. There is also
no
problem with causality.

However, if you introduce FTL transmission of information (which
doesn't
happen in SR) then you get breaks in causality. That is (part of )
what FTL
doesn't happen in our world (which is modelled so well by SR)
eric gisse
2010-07-27 21:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Hayek wrote:

[...]

Why do you persist in discussing a subject you clearly don't grasp?
BURT
2010-07-27 21:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
Ann   - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025
Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin   - clock points at 2023
Ann's time is 2021
Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003.
Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in
2001. Causality destroyed.
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is
still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
There is another, much more simple explanation : they
are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's
time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have
just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia),
just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system.
In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that
her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann
speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only
the phone bills are too high.
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time
dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and
causality breaches ?
Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time
dilation) does.
MTD = Science Fiction.
Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
How can there be mutual time dilation when one ages faster than the
other? I can show that lost time doesn't always work as an explanation
and because of that lost time is ruled out. This rules out Relativity,

Mitch Raemsch
whoever
2010-07-28 00:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
FTL, no .. Mutual Time Dilation, yes
Post by Hayek
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
FTL fiction .. there are no FTL devices
Mutual Time Dilation happens.
Post by Hayek
Ann - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025 Betty's time is 2023.
Betty - the traveling twin - clock points at 2023 Ann's time is 2021
So we're obviosuly talking about while Betty is still travelling away from
Ann
What you have shown is mutual time dilation .. its already there
Post by Hayek
Ann sends ftl message to Betty,
There is no FTL
Post by Hayek
message arrives in 2003. Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives
in 2001. Causality destroyed.
That's why no FTL
Post by Hayek
This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is still in 2003 and that
for Betty, Ann is still in 2001.
Which is the case
Post by Hayek
There is another, much more simple explanation : they are still both in
the same now
Except we KNOW from experiment that there is no such thing as the same
'now'. Time is NOT the same everywhere. this is experimentally proven

So everything yhou say from here on is just fantasy in some imaginary world
other than our own.

[snip fanasty]
Post by Hayek
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time dilation,
FTL. it is not observerd to happen .. that makes it fiction

Whereas mutual time dilation does .. which makes it fact
Post by Hayek
the latter giving rise to time travel
No , it doesn't
Post by Hayek
and causality breaches ?
No .. FTL does that. You just showed that.
Post by Hayek
Ftl does not breach causality,
Yes .. it does
Post by Hayek
MTD (mutual time dilation) does.
No .. it doesn't

You really are poor at physcis.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
BURT
2010-07-28 00:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by whoever
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
FTL, no .. Mutual Time Dilation, yes
Post by Hayek
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
FTL fiction .. there are no FTL devices
Mutual Time Dilation happens.
---

Space travel will be based on the opposite of mutual time dilation.
Acceleration of aether-wave energy through space slows time flow for
matter. By a slower clock you are traveling further through space.
There is more time at high speed for a slower clock's intervals by
comparison. This makes the time factor of space travel easier. You
would live loneger and travel further that way.

Mitch Raemsch
bert
2010-07-28 01:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by BURT
Post by whoever
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
FTL, no .. Mutual Time Dilation, yes
Post by Hayek
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
FTL fiction .. there are no FTL devices
Mutual Time Dilation happens.
---
Space travel will be based on the opposite of mutual time dilation.
Acceleration of aether-wave energy through space slows time flow for
matter. By a slower clock you are traveling further through space.
There is  more time at high speed for a slower clock's intervals by
comparison. This makes the time factor of space travel easier. You
would live loneger and travel further that way.
Mitch Raemsch
Black hole can have photons going though the event horizon,and they
can not pick up speed. They just get bluer TreBert
BURT
2010-07-28 01:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by bert
Post by BURT
Post by whoever
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
FTL, no .. Mutual Time Dilation, yes
Post by Hayek
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
FTL fiction .. there are no FTL devices
Mutual Time Dilation happens.
---
Space travel will be based on the opposite of mutual time dilation.
Acceleration of aether-wave energy through space slows time flow for
matter. By a slower clock you are traveling further through space.
There is  more time at high speed for a slower clock's intervals by
comparison. This makes the time factor of space travel easier. You
would live loneger and travel further that way.
Mitch Raemsch
Black hole can have photons going though the event horizon,and they
can not pick up speed. They just get bluer  TreBert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How much bluer?

You know theory says infinite energy blueshift to light at event
horizon?

Mitch Raemsch
Hayek
2010-07-28 07:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by whoever
"Hayek" wrote in message
[..]
Post by whoever
There is another, much more simple explanation : they are still both
in the same now
Except we KNOW from experiment that there is no such thing as the same
'now'. Time is NOT the same everywhere. this is experimentally proven
Only, you have not defined time, and you have not
defined what a clock is. The only thing you know is that
you read time on a clock. And that a clock is a device
you read time on.

And because you believe in MTD, you assume there must be
a time dimension, and that there cannot be ftl, because
in that case it would violate causality.

Is the time in your kitchen the same as in your fridge ?

How come your food stays fresh much longer in the fridge ?

Exactly, molecules move slower at lower temperatures...

What if "time" dilation was based on the same principle,
molecules moving slower ?
Post by whoever
So everything yhou say from here on is just fantasy in some imaginary
world other than our own.
[snip fanasty]
What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time dilation,
FTL. it is not observerd to happen
Aspect's experiments could be interpreted as such.
Post by whoever
.. that makes it fiction
MTD is neither proved. Actually, there is less evidence
for MTD than for ftl.

It is exactly the statement that "nothing can go faster
than light" that protects MTD from being tested.
Post by whoever
Whereas mutual time dilation does .. which makes it fact
Where has it been proven ? Observing, does not prove it,
it might be apparent.
Post by whoever
the latter giving rise to time travel
No , it doesn't
Let me correct this : giving rise to a time dimension,
with a theoretical possibility of time travel. The past
still exists, as Einstein mentioned in a condoleance
letter to the family of his friend and collegue Besso.
Post by whoever
and causality breaches ?
No .. FTL does that. You just showed that.
Only if there is MTD and a time dimension.
Post by whoever
Ftl does not breach causality,
Yes .. it does
MTD (mutual time dilation) does.
No .. it doesn't
You really are poor at physcis.
You are poor at reasoning. That is much worse.

Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
eric gisse
2010-07-28 07:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Hayek wrote:
[...]
Post by Hayek
What if "time" dilation was based on the same principle,
molecules moving slower ?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367

[...]
Igor
2010-07-28 14:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
How come your food stays fresh much longer in the fridge ?
Exactly, molecules move slower at lower temperatures...
And all this time, I thought it was because bacteria grow more slowly
at lower temps.
Hayek
2010-07-28 14:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor
Post by Hayek
How come your food stays fresh much longer in the fridge ?
Exactly, molecules move slower at lower temperatures...
And all this time, I thought it was because bacteria grow more slowly
at lower temps.
And all this "time" you never realized that bacteria are
made up of molecules ....

Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
artful
2010-07-28 14:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
Post by whoever
"Hayek"  wrote in message
[..]
Post by whoever
There is another, much more simple explanation : they are still both
in the same now
Except we KNOW from experiment that there is no such thing as the same
'now'.  Time is NOT the same everywhere.  this is experimentally proven
Only, you have not defined time,
I don't need to. Have you defined space?
Post by Hayek
and you have not
defined what a clock is.
Yes I have .. it is a device to measure time
Post by Hayek
The only thing you know is that
you read time on a clock. And that a clock is a device
you read time on.
There you go .. you just defined it
Post by Hayek
And because you believe in MTD,
it haas nothing to do with what I believe. It is what we observe
experimentally
Post by Hayek
you assume there must be
a time dimension, and that there cannot be ftl, because
in that case it would violate causality.
FTL results in causality violation. Glad you admit it

[snip more stupity about fridges and lack of logic]

Learn physics .. then learn logic. Then try to apply the latter to
the former. So far you are failing dismally on both
artful
2010-07-28 07:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Your argument seems to be

We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality
well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc)

Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of
causality (so isn't right)

You then take the illogical step of concluding this means the SR is
wrong, and even more ridiculous that FTL is right.

You need to reexamine your (lack of) logic.
Hayek
2010-07-28 09:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Your argument seems to be
We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality
well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc)
Some of it predicts reality well.
And it has to state that ftl is impossible to conserve
its scope. Darryl said that ftl would destroy SR, I
answered it would only destroy the parts that were wrong
about SR
Post by artful
Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of
causality (so isn't right)
I said that ftl would expose the flaws in SR, some of
these flaws can only be tested by ftl.
Post by artful
You then take the illogical step of concluding this means the SR is
wrong, and even more ridiculous that FTL is right.
I did not say that all of SR was wrong, but that the
untested and unverified assumption of SR could be proved
wrong, IF we had ftl.
Post by artful
You need to reexamine your (lack of) logic.
Cure Yourself. You amalgamate SR, say that ALL of it
must be true, because some of it was verified. That is
lack of logic.

Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
artful
2010-07-28 14:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Your argument seems to be
We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality
well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc)
Some of it predicts reality well.
All of it
Post by Hayek
And it has to state that ftl is impossible to conserve
its scope.
No .. it is based on a finite limit to information transfer
Post by Hayek
Darryl said that ftl would destroy SR,
FTL information transfer is impossible in SR. So if there is FTL
information trnasfer, that would refute SR. So far there is no such
thing.
Post by Hayek
I
answered it would only destroy the parts that were wrong
about SR
No .. it would refute the entire basis for modern SR. You also can't
just remove a 'bit' of SR.
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of
causality (so isn't right)
I said that ftl would expose the flaws in SR,
There is no flaw
Post by Hayek
some of
these flaws can only be tested by ftl.
There is no flaw to test.

SR is self-consistent and models reality.

You suggest that if FTL (which we do not observe happening) did
happen, then (as it is contrary to the premises of SR) it could
results in contradiction. That is not a flaw.
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
You then take the illogical step of concluding this means the SR is
wrong, and even more ridiculous that FTL is right.
I did not say that all of SR was wrong,
You can't just look at bits of it in isolation .. it is all
interrelated
Post by Hayek
but that the
untested and unverified assumption of SR
Which ones are they .. SR is one of the best tested theories we have
Post by Hayek
could be proved
wrong, IF we had ftl.
We don't.

Conversely, FTL can be proved wrong if we have SR. And we do.
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
You need to reexamine your (lack of) logic.
Cure Yourself. You amalgamate SR, say that ALL of it
must be true,
That is correct
Post by Hayek
because some of it was verified. That is
lack of logic.
Nope .. the parts are interrelated. Enough are demonstrated to show
the whole. It is not divisible.
Hayek
2010-08-01 06:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Your argument seems to be
We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality
well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc)
Some of it predicts reality well.
All of it
The EPR experiment, designed by Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen, based on SR, was proven DEAD WRONG, refutng SR.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
And it has to state that ftl is impossible to conserve
its scope.
No .. it is based on a finite limit to information transfer
That is simple not true.

The difference between LET and SR cannot be proven by
experiment :
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests

LET does not need this limit on information transfer.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Darryl said that ftl would destroy SR,
FTL information transfer is impossible in SR.
Not in Nature : EPR experiment proved that.
Post by artful
So if there is FTL
information trnasfer, that would refute SR. So far there is no such
thing.
Only if you ignore Aspects experiment, and the follow up
experiments at larger distances, which again turned out
in favor of QM, and again refuting SR.

Who is ignoring experiments ? The SR-ians.

EPR was DESIGNED by EINSTEIN HIMSELF, totally based on
SR : turned out to be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

It is you being the Ostrich, and saves as "it is not
really useful information transfer" is bullocks. The
experiment was not designed for useful information
transfer. It was designed to prove SR right, and IT DID
NOT. It proved Einstein WRONG, and QM right.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
I
answered it would only destroy the parts that were wrong
about SR
No .. it would refute the entire basis for modern SR. You also can't
just remove a 'bit' of SR.
EPR did just THAT !
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of
causality (so isn't right)
I said that ftl would expose the flaws in SR,
There is no flaw
SR-ians can't even prove it is unique

"Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way
light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable
to rule out a large class of theories in which the
one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories
share the property that the round-trip speed of light is
isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed
is isotropic only in an æther frame. In all of these
theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly
offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of
light (in any inertial frame), and all are
experimentally indistinguishable from SR. "
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests

So, the postulate SR is really based on, not the crap
that you have been producing, can not even be verified
experimentally (yet). A theory that is not falsifiable,
is vacuous.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
some of
these flaws can only be tested by ftl.
There is no flaw to test.
SR is self-consistent and models reality.
Totally inconsistent and on several points ad odds with
reality. One of its postulates not experimentally
verifiable, not falsifiable.

In real terms : CRAP !
Post by artful
You suggest that if FTL (which we do not observe happening)
Not if you are an Ostrich. EPR EPR EPR EPR....WRONG
WRONG WRONG....
Post by artful
did
happen, then (as it is contrary to the premises of SR) it could
results in contradiction. That is not a flaw.
You can't just look at bits of it in isolation .. it is all
interrelated
[...]
Post by artful
Nope .. the parts are interrelated. Enough are demonstrated to show
the whole. It is not divisible.
They say that about the Koran too, and they even say it
is all the science you need.

Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
BURT
2010-08-01 21:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Your argument seems to be
We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality
well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc)
Some of it predicts reality well.
All of it
The EPR experiment, designed by Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen, based on SR, was proven DEAD WRONG, refutng SR.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
And it has to state that ftl is impossible to conserve
its scope.
No .. it is based on a finite limit to information transfer
That is simple not true.
The difference between LET and SR cannot be proven by
experiment :http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experimen...
LET does not need this limit on information transfer.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Darryl said that ftl would destroy SR,
FTL information transfer is impossible in SR.
Not in Nature : EPR experiment proved that.
Post by artful
 So if there is FTL
information trnasfer, that would refute SR.  So far there is no such
thing.
Only if you ignore Aspects experiment, and the follow up
experiments at larger distances, which again turned out
in favor of QM, and again refuting SR.
Who is ignoring experiments ? The SR-ians.
EPR was DESIGNED by EINSTEIN HIMSELF, totally based on
SR : turned out to be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
It is you being the Ostrich, and saves as "it is not
really useful information transfer" is bullocks. The
experiment was not designed for useful information
transfer. It was designed to prove SR right, and IT DID
NOT. It proved Einstein WRONG, and QM right.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
I
answered it would only destroy the parts that were wrong
about SR
No .. it would refute the entire basis for modern SR.  You also can't
just remove a 'bit' of SR.
EPR did just THAT !
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of
causality (so isn't right)
I said that ftl would expose the flaws in SR,
There is no flaw
SR-ians can't even prove it is unique
"Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way
light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable
to rule out a large class of theories in which the
one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories
share the property that the round-trip speed of light is
isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed
is isotropic only in an æther frame. In all of these
theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly
offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of
light (in any inertial frame), and all are
experimentally indistinguishable from SR. "http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experimen...
So, the postulate SR is really based on, not the crap
that you have been producing, can not even be verified
experimentally (yet). A theory that is not falsifiable,
is vacuous.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
some of
these flaws can only be tested by ftl.
There is no flaw to test.
SR is self-consistent and models reality.
Totally inconsistent and on several points ad odds with
reality. One of its postulates not experimentally
verifiable, not falsifiable.
In real terms : CRAP !
Post by artful
You suggest that if FTL (which we do not observe happening)
Not if you are an Ostrich. EPR EPR EPR EPR....WRONG
WRONG WRONG....
Post by artful
did
happen, then (as it is contrary to the premises of SR) it could
results in contradiction.  That is not a flaw.
You can't just look at bits of it in isolation .. it is all
interrelated
[...]
Post by artful
Nope .. the parts are interrelated.  Enough are demonstrated to show
the whole.  It is not divisible.
They say that about the Koran too, and they even say it
is all the science you need.
Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
If there is mutual time slowdown then both would run slow together but
instead one is supposed to age more. There is a problem here.

A fast moving train observes a station clock as it passes if it sees
it running slower when does this clock have the opportunity to age
more then?

No. Lost time is a lost argument.


Mitch Raemsch
G. L. Bradford
2010-08-01 22:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Your argument seems to be
We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality
well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc)
Some of it predicts reality well.
All of it
The EPR experiment, designed by Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen, based on SR, was proven DEAD WRONG, refutng SR.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
And it has to state that ftl is impossible to conserve
its scope.
No .. it is based on a finite limit to information transfer
That is simple not true.
The difference between LET and SR cannot be proven by
experiment
:http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experimen...
LET does not need this limit on information transfer.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Darryl said that ftl would destroy SR,
FTL information transfer is impossible in SR.
Not in Nature : EPR experiment proved that.
Post by artful
So if there is FTL
information trnasfer, that would refute SR. So far there is no such
thing.
Only if you ignore Aspects experiment, and the follow up
experiments at larger distances, which again turned out
in favor of QM, and again refuting SR.
Who is ignoring experiments ? The SR-ians.
EPR was DESIGNED by EINSTEIN HIMSELF, totally based on
SR : turned out to be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
It is you being the Ostrich, and saves as "it is not
really useful information transfer" is bullocks. The
experiment was not designed for useful information
transfer. It was designed to prove SR right, and IT DID
NOT. It proved Einstein WRONG, and QM right.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
I
answered it would only destroy the parts that were wrong
about SR
No .. it would refute the entire basis for modern SR. You also can't
just remove a 'bit' of SR.
EPR did just THAT !
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of
causality (so isn't right)
I said that ftl would expose the flaws in SR,
There is no flaw
SR-ians can't even prove it is unique
"Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way
light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable
to rule out a large class of theories in which the
one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories
share the property that the round-trip speed of light is
isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed
is isotropic only in an æther frame. In all of these
theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly
offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of
light (in any inertial frame), and all are
experimentally indistinguishable from SR.
"http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experimen...
So, the postulate SR is really based on, not the crap
that you have been producing, can not even be verified
experimentally (yet). A theory that is not falsifiable,
is vacuous.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
some of
these flaws can only be tested by ftl.
There is no flaw to test.
SR is self-consistent and models reality.
Totally inconsistent and on several points ad odds with
reality. One of its postulates not experimentally
verifiable, not falsifiable.
In real terms : CRAP !
Post by artful
You suggest that if FTL (which we do not observe happening)
Not if you are an Ostrich. EPR EPR EPR EPR....WRONG
WRONG WRONG....
Post by artful
did
happen, then (as it is contrary to the premises of SR) it could
results in contradiction. That is not a flaw.
You can't just look at bits of it in isolation .. it is all
interrelated
[...]
Post by artful
Nope .. the parts are interrelated. Enough are demonstrated to show
the whole. It is not divisible.
They say that about the Koran too, and they even say it
is all the science you need.
Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
If there is mutual time slowdown then both would run slow together but
instead one is supposed to age more. There is a problem here.

A fast moving train observes a station clock as it passes if it sees
it running slower when does this clock have the opportunity to age
more then?

No. Lost time is a lost argument.


Mitch Raemsch

========================

A passenger aboard a fast moving train observes a station clock ahead of
the train as the train approaches the station (an [increasing] contraction
in space and time). The train is not stopping at this particular station.
The passenger observes the station clock as the train flies by the station
(a rapidly changing curvature in space and time). Lastly the passenger
observes the station clock as the train rapidly leaves the station in the
distance (an [increasing] expansion in space and time).

You mistakenly think the passenger is dealing in reality as far as the
station clock is concerned. At no time did the passenger observe the reality
of the station clock. At all times the passenger observed a relative station
clock. First, observation of a contraction (observation of a speeding up in
time, a rapid closing in time, a decreasing, contracting, interval between
ticks of the station clock, from a more distant history that was to a nearer
history that is closer to currency in time) courtesy of speed of light 'c'.
Then, observation of a curvature courtesy of speed of light 'c' (currency
still not there, difference in velocity still there, change from approach to
leaving, from contraction to expansion, occurring; the total linear geometry
regarding the "observable universe" and the 'unobservable universe' forward
of it in space and time (regardless of how slight here in this case), an
observable balloon curvature coming into being then going out of being).
Then following, observation of an expansion (observation of a slowing down
in time occurring rather than a speeding up. An observation of a growing,
expanding, interval between ticks of the station clock occurring. An
observation of an expansion, or backward movement in time, occurring from a
nearer history to an increasingly more distant history ever further from the
current time) courtesy of speed of light 'c'.

GLB

========================
PD
2010-08-02 15:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Your argument seems to be
We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality
well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc)
Some of it predicts reality well.
All of it
The EPR experiment, designed by Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen, based on SR, was proven DEAD WRONG, refutng SR.
No, it does not. What got refuted was the principle of locality, which
demanded that the states of two objects could not be correlated except
via signal transmission. This is where SR comes in, restricting that
signal transmission to be less than c.
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
And it has to state that ftl is impossible to conserve
its scope.
No .. it is based on a finite limit to information transfer
That is simple not true.
The difference between LET and SR cannot be proven by
experiment :http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experimen...
LET does not need this limit on information transfer.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Darryl said that ftl would destroy SR,
FTL information transfer is impossible in SR.
Not in Nature : EPR experiment proved that.
No, it did not. The correlation of properties of two particles is not
FTL information transfer. It is a consequence of quantum mechanics for
a SINGLE two-particle state.

There is no FTL information transfer in EPR-like experiments.
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
 So if there is FTL
information trnasfer, that would refute SR.  So far there is no such
thing.
Only if you ignore Aspects experiment, and the follow up
experiments at larger distances, which again turned out
in favor of QM, and again refuting SR.
Who is ignoring experiments ? The SR-ians.
EPR was DESIGNED by EINSTEIN HIMSELF, totally based on
SR : turned out to be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
No, it was NOT totally based on SR. It was based on TWO things: SR +
Principle of locality.
Post by Hayek
It is you being the Ostrich, and saves as "it is not
really useful information transfer" is bullocks. The
experiment was not designed for useful information
transfer. It was designed to prove SR right, and IT DID
NOT. It proved Einstein WRONG, and QM right.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
I
answered it would only destroy the parts that were wrong
about SR
No .. it would refute the entire basis for modern SR.  You also can't
just remove a 'bit' of SR.
EPR did just THAT !
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of
causality (so isn't right)
I said that ftl would expose the flaws in SR,
There is no flaw
SR-ians can't even prove it is unique
"Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way
light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable
to rule out a large class of theories in which the
one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories
share the property that the round-trip speed of light is
isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed
is isotropic only in an æther frame. In all of these
theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly
offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of
light (in any inertial frame), and all are
experimentally indistinguishable from SR. "http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experimen...
So, the postulate SR is really based on, not the crap
that you have been producing, can not even be verified
experimentally (yet). A theory that is not falsifiable,
is vacuous.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
some of
these flaws can only be tested by ftl.
There is no flaw to test.
SR is self-consistent and models reality.
Totally inconsistent and on several points ad odds with
reality. One of its postulates not experimentally
verifiable, not falsifiable.
In real terms : CRAP !
Post by artful
You suggest that if FTL (which we do not observe happening)
Not if you are an Ostrich. EPR EPR EPR EPR....WRONG
WRONG WRONG....
Post by artful
did
happen, then (as it is contrary to the premises of SR) it could
results in contradiction.  That is not a flaw.
You can't just look at bits of it in isolation .. it is all
interrelated
[...]
Post by artful
Nope .. the parts are interrelated.  Enough are demonstrated to show
the whole.  It is not divisible.
They say that about the Koran too, and they even say it
is all the science you need.
Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
BURT
2010-08-03 19:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by PD
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Your argument seems to be
We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality
well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc)
Some of it predicts reality well.
All of it
The EPR experiment, designed by Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen, based on SR, was proven DEAD WRONG, refutng SR.
No, it does not. What got refuted was the principle of locality, which
demanded that the states of two objects could not be correlated except
via signal transmission. This is where SR comes in, restricting that
signal transmission to be less than c.
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
And it has to state that ftl is impossible to conserve
its scope.
No .. it is based on a finite limit to information transfer
That is simple not true.
The difference between LET and SR cannot be proven by
experiment :http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experimen...
LET does not need this limit on information transfer.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Darryl said that ftl would destroy SR,
FTL information transfer is impossible in SR.
Not in Nature : EPR experiment proved that.
No, it did not. The correlation of properties of two particles is not
FTL information transfer. It is a consequence of quantum mechanics for
a SINGLE two-particle state.
There is no FTL information transfer in EPR-like experiments.
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
 So if there is FTL
information trnasfer, that would refute SR.  So far there is no such
thing.
Only if you ignore Aspects experiment, and the follow up
experiments at larger distances, which again turned out
in favor of QM, and again refuting SR.
Who is ignoring experiments ? The SR-ians.
EPR was DESIGNED by EINSTEIN HIMSELF, totally based on
SR : turned out to be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
No, it was NOT totally based on SR. It was based on TWO things: SR +
Principle of locality.
Post by Hayek
It is you being the Ostrich, and saves as "it is not
really useful information transfer" is bullocks. The
experiment was not designed for useful information
transfer. It was designed to prove SR right, and IT DID
NOT. It proved Einstein WRONG, and QM right.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
I
answered it would only destroy the parts that were wrong
about SR
No .. it would refute the entire basis for modern SR.  You also can't
just remove a 'bit' of SR.
EPR did just THAT !
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
Post by artful
Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of
causality (so isn't right)
I said that ftl would expose the flaws in SR,
There is no flaw
SR-ians can't even prove it is unique
"Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way
light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable
to rule out a large class of theories in which the
one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories
share the property that the round-trip speed of light is
isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed
is isotropic only in an æther frame. In all of these
theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly
offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of
light (in any inertial frame), and all are
experimentally indistinguishable from SR. "http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experimen...
So, the postulate SR is really based on, not the crap
that you have been producing, can not even be verified
experimentally (yet). A theory that is not falsifiable,
is vacuous.
Post by artful
Post by Hayek
some of
these flaws can only be tested by ftl.
There is no flaw to test.
SR is self-consistent and models reality.
Totally inconsistent and on several points ad odds with
reality. One of its postulates not experimentally
verifiable, not falsifiable.
In real terms : CRAP !
Post by artful
You suggest that if FTL (which we do not observe happening)
Not if you are an Ostrich. EPR EPR EPR EPR....WRONG
WRONG WRONG....
Post by artful
did
happen, then (as it is contrary to the premises of SR) it could
results in contradiction.  That is not a flaw.
You can't just look at bits of it in isolation .. it is all
interrelated
[...]
Post by artful
Nope .. the parts are interrelated.  Enough are demonstrated to show
the whole.  It is not divisible.
They say that about the Koran too, and they even say it
is all the science you need.
Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If time slowing down is mutual then the clocks age the same.

Mitch Raemsch

harald
2010-07-28 08:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
If you have time dilation and length contraction, then with the
appropriate sync convention you get "mutual time dilation". That has
been explained over and over, by several people incl. myself and
recently by Daryl. Thus, what causes your above question? Don't you
understand the math?

Harald

[..]
Hayek
2010-07-28 09:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by harald
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
If you have time dilation and length contraction, then with the
appropriate sync convention you get "mutual time dilation". That has
been explained over and over, by several people incl. myself and
recently by Daryl. Thus, what causes your above question? Don't you
understand the math?
The math is but an imperfect model of reality.

The LET of SR was made up starting from the fact that we
do not see the Preferred reference.

It was based on the following reasoning : what would
happen if some physical property of the preferred frame
hid its existence from us.

In order for us not to be able to measure the PF, after
some calculations, we arrived that rods should shrink
and time should slow.

If you know something about math, you realize that the
gamma factor would hide a PF. Which is perfectly ok,
because that is what we looked for in the first place,
and the result was the gamma factor.

Wrongly assuming there is no PF, we continue to state
that all motion is relative. Thus A can say B moves and
vice versa. So now can have 10 spaceships moving away
from Earth at gamma [1..10], and the Earth's clocks will
tick also at ten gammas at the same time, and be
flattened in ten different directions.

I see only one way out of this, and that is that the
mutual effects are only apparent for the moving observer
wrt the PF.

A time dimension could help a little bit, and still it
would be only apparent, because if the twins are joined,
the effects are over.

What experimental proof do we have of MTD anyway ?

Uwe Hayek.
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
harald
2010-07-28 11:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
Post by harald
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
If you have time dilation and length contraction, then with the
appropriate sync convention you get "mutual time dilation". That has
been explained over and over, by several people incl. myself and
recently by Daryl. Thus, what causes your above question? Don't you
understand the math?
The math is but an imperfect model of reality.
The math is *not* a model of reality - nor does it purports to be so.
Post by Hayek
The LET of SR was made up starting from the fact that we
do not see the Preferred reference.
In which case it obviously isn NOT "preferred"...
Not really - but never mind!
Post by Hayek
what would
happen if some physical property of the preferred frame
hid its existence from us.
That property called "velocity".
Indeed, that one is hidden; it wasn't a problem for Newton.
Post by Hayek
In order for us not to be able to measure the PF, after
some calculations, we arrived that rods should shrink
and time should slow.
Clocks. Rods and clocks, on which we base our concepts of "length" and
"time".
Post by Hayek
If you know something about math, you realize that the
gamma factor would hide a PF. Which is perfectly ok,
because that is what we looked for in the first place,
and the result was the gamma factor.
Wrongly assuming there is no PF, we continue to state
that all motion is relative.
I don't. Neither did Langevin.
Post by Hayek
Thus A can say B moves and
vice versa. So now can have 10 spaceships moving away
from Earth at gamma [1..10], and the Earth's clocks will
tick also at ten gammas at the same time, and be
flattened in ten different directions.
No, that's a misrepresentation. Anyone who understands SRT like that
would better stick with reading cartoons.
Post by Hayek
I see only one way out of this, and that is that the
mutual effects are only apparent for the moving observer
wrt the PF.
That is the oldest interpretation of SRT; I also see no other
reasonable alternative.
Post by Hayek
A time dimension could help a little bit, and still it
would be only apparent, because if the twins are joined,
the effects are over.
What experimental proof do we have of MTD anyway ?
Now you effectively answer my question to you in the negative. We do
not NEED other experimental proof than the confirmation that if 2+2=4,
then 4-2=2. We already know from a nearly infinite amount of
experiments that simple math is reliable.

Harald
Igor
2010-07-28 14:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
The math is but an imperfect model of reality.
But alas, it's the only way we have to model reality. How else do you
propose doing it?
Androcles
2010-07-28 14:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
The math is but an imperfect model of reality.
But alas, it's the only way we have to model reality. How else do you
propose doing it?
========================================
By adhering to the rules mathematics, which you are incapable of.
artful
2010-07-28 14:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hayek
Post by harald
Post by Hayek
FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ?
If you have time dilation and length contraction, then with the
appropriate sync convention you get "mutual time dilation". That has
been explained over and over, by several people incl. myself and
recently by Daryl. Thus, what causes your above question? Don't you
understand the math?
The math is but an imperfect model of reality.
Why imperfect.. it gets it right
Post by Hayek
The LET of SR
Don't you mean the LT of SR?
Post by Hayek
was made up starting from the fact that we
do not see the Preferred reference.
Nope.
Post by Hayek
It was based on the following reasoning : what would
happen if some physical property of the preferred frame
hid its existence from us.
Nope
Post by Hayek
In order for us not to be able to measure the PF, after
some calculations, we arrived that rods should shrink
and time should slow.
You really need to learn some physics
Post by Hayek
If you know something about math, you realize that the
gamma factor would hide a PF.
There is no preferred frame in SR to hide.

There is a hidden preferred frame in LET, of course, and the
properties of the aether and how it affects matter (in particular that
it results in the LT) do mean one cannot detect it.
Post by Hayek
Which is perfectly ok,
because that is what we looked for in the first place,
and the result was the gamma factor.
You are confusing cause with effect
Post by Hayek
Wrongly assuming there is no PF,
Why is that wrong? there is no evidence of one
Post by Hayek
we continue to state
that all motion is relative.
Of course it is. Regardless of whether there is a PF or not.
Post by Hayek
Thus A can say B moves and
vice versa.
Of course they can. Regardless of whether there is a PF or not.
Post by Hayek
So now can have 10 spaceships moving away
from Earth at gamma [1..10], and the Earth's clocks will
tick also at ten gammas at the same time, and be
flattened in ten different directions.
Wrong.. nothing happens to the earth clocks themselves. You really
need to understand the physics. They will simply be MEASURED as
ticking slower and contracting. Just as different observers measure
different velocities and momentums etc
Post by Hayek
I see only one way out of this,
There is nothing to required a way out
Post by Hayek
and that is that the
mutual effects are only apparent for the moving observer
wrt the PF.
Nope
Post by Hayek
A time dimension could help a little bit, and still it
would be only apparent, because if the twins are joined,
the effects are over.
No .. the effect remains after the twins reunite.
Post by Hayek
What experimental proof do we have of MTD anyway ?
Please refer to the links given many times before here on experimental
test of SR
Paul Cardinale
2010-07-28 19:01:47 UTC
Permalink
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
Androcles
2010-07-28 20:29:05 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Cardinale" <***@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:10ec0e46-620b-406e-9707-***@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.
BURT
2010-07-28 22:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
| 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 which is of course nonsense.

Mitch Raemsch
artful
2010-07-28 23:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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
Post by BURT
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.
BURT
2010-07-29 01:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by artful
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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.
Post by artful
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 but you can observe it. And if it is
going slower at all possible observations how can that clock age more?

Mitch Raemsch
Post by artful
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
Post by BURT
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 -
artful
2010-07-29 03:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by artful
Post by artful
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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.
Post by artful
Post by artful
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
Post by artful
but you can observe it.
Which is part of the process of measuring its rate.
Post by artful
And if it is
going slower
It isn't 'going slower'. A relatively moving observer does nothing to
a clock. But it is measured as slower by the moving observer.
Post by artful
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
dlzc
2010-07-29 15:34:19 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by artful
Post by BURT
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
I found Mitch's picture the other day...
http://www.randomimage.us/32897.html

David A. Smith
BURT
2010-07-29 19:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by artful
Post by artful
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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.
Post by artful
Post by artful
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
Post by artful
but you can observe it.
Which is part of the process of measuring its rate.
Post by artful
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.
Post by artful
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 -
artful
2010-07-30 02:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by BURT
Post by artful
Post by artful
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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.
Post by artful
Post by artful
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
Post by artful
but you can observe it.
Which is part of the process of measuring its rate.
Post by artful
And if it is
going slower
It isn't 'going slower'.  A relatively moving observer does nothing to
No.
Wrong. Tell me .. if a fast observer goes past your clock .. what do
YOU think SR says happens to your clock? Does it matter if the
observer actually looks at your clock? Does it matter how far away he
is? What if tow observers go past your clock at different speeds at
the same time? What happens to your clock then?
Post by BURT
At least one clock is going slower and there is no mutual
dilation.
You're looking like a moron again. Probably a good reason for that,

That is NOT the case for two clocks moving at a constant velocity
relative to each other in SR. As I said .. read and study SR so you
understand it. Even if you don't agree with it. You can't really
disagree with it with any valid justification if you don't understand
what it says. And you clearly do NOT understand what it says.
BURT
2010-07-30 02:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by BURT
Post by artful
Post by artful
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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.
Post by artful
Post by artful
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
Post by artful
but you can observe it.
Which is part of the process of measuring its rate.
Post by artful
And if it is
going slower
It isn't 'going slower'.  A relatively moving observer does nothing to
No.
Wrong.  Tell me .. if a fast observer goes past your clock .. what do
YOU think SR says happens to your clock?  Does it matter if the
observer actually looks at your clock?  Does it matter how far away he
is?  What if tow observers go past your clock at different speeds at
the same time?  What happens to your clock then?
Post by BURT
At least one clock is going slower and there is no mutual
dilation.
You're looking like a moron again.  Probably a good reason for that,
That is NOT the case for two clocks moving at a constant velocity
relative to each other in SR.  As I said .. read and study SR so you
understand it.  Even if you don't agree with it.  You can't really
disagree with it with any valid justification if you don't understand
what it says.  And you clearly do NOT understand what it says.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No. There is no mutual time dilation. Your acceleration cannot create
the appearence of a slow clock of energy that has not changed in its
own motion. But the accelerated clock will go slow and everybody will
be able to see. Only the energy that has really accelerated will be
weighted. The rest is an appearence.

Mitch Raemsch
artful
2010-07-30 03:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by BURT
Post by BURT
Post by artful
Post by artful
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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.
Post by artful
Post by artful
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
Post by artful
but you can observe it.
Which is part of the process of measuring its rate.
Post by artful
And if it is
going slower
It isn't 'going slower'.  A relatively moving observer does nothing to
No.
Wrong.  Tell me .. if a fast observer goes past your clock .. what do
YOU think SR says happens to your clock?  Does it matter if the
observer actually looks at your clock?  Does it matter how far away he
is?  What if tow observers go past your clock at different speeds at
the same time?  What happens to your clock then?
Post by BURT
At least one clock is going slower and there is no mutual
dilation.
You're looking like a moron again.  Probably a good reason for that,
That is NOT the case for two clocks moving at a constant velocity
relative to each other in SR.  As I said .. read and study SR so you
understand it.  Even if you don't agree with it.  You can't really
disagree with it with any valid justification if you don't understand
what it says.  And you clearly do NOT understand what it says.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No. There is no mutual time dilation.
Wrong .. we are talking SR here. There is in SR.

[snip more mitch bullshit]
BURT
2010-07-30 04:04:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by BURT
Post by BURT
Post by artful
Post by artful
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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.
Post by artful
Post by artful
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
Post by artful
but you can observe it.
Which is part of the process of measuring its rate.
Post by artful
And if it is
going slower
It isn't 'going slower'.  A relatively moving observer does nothing to
No.
Wrong.  Tell me .. if a fast observer goes past your clock .. what do
YOU think SR says happens to your clock?  Does it matter if the
observer actually looks at your clock?  Does it matter how far away he
is?  What if tow observers go past your clock at different speeds at
the same time?  What happens to your clock then?
Post by BURT
At least one clock is going slower and there is no mutual
dilation.
You're looking like a moron again.  Probably a good reason for that,
That is NOT the case for two clocks moving at a constant velocity
relative to each other in SR.  As I said .. read and study SR so you
understand it.  Even if you don't agree with it.  You can't really
disagree with it with any valid justification if you don't understand
what it says.  And you clearly do NOT understand what it says.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No. There is no mutual time dilation.
Wrong .. we are talking SR here.  There is in SR.
[snip more mitch bullshit]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If there is mutual time slow how does one clock age faster then?

Mitch Raemsch
artful
2010-07-30 06:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by BURT
Post by BURT
Post by BURT
Post by artful
Post by artful
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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.
Post by artful
Post by artful
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
Post by artful
but you can observe it.
Which is part of the process of measuring its rate.
Post by artful
And if it is
going slower
It isn't 'going slower'.  A relatively moving observer does nothing to
No.
Wrong.  Tell me .. if a fast observer goes past your clock .. what do
YOU think SR says happens to your clock?  Does it matter if the
observer actually looks at your clock?  Does it matter how far away he
is?  What if tow observers go past your clock at different speeds at
the same time?  What happens to your clock then?
Post by BURT
At least one clock is going slower and there is no mutual
dilation.
You're looking like a moron again.  Probably a good reason for that,
That is NOT the case for two clocks moving at a constant velocity
relative to each other in SR.  As I said .. read and study SR so you
understand it.  Even if you don't agree with it.  You can't really
disagree with it with any valid justification if you don't understand
what it says.  And you clearly do NOT understand what it says.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No. There is no mutual time dilation.
Wrong .. we are talking SR here.  There is in SR.
[snip more mitch bullshit]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If there is mutual time slow how does one clock age faster then?
They don't. They age at the same rate.

However, if one of the changes its rest frame of reference then that
changes its path through spacetime and so less time elapses. Unlike
space, the straightest path through spacetime .. ie uniform
velocity .. is the longest 'time' between two points; the more you
change velocity, the shorter the 'time' between the events.
BURT
2010-07-30 18:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by BURT
Post by BURT
Post by BURT
Post by artful
Post by artful
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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.
Post by artful
Post by artful
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
Post by artful
but you can observe it.
Which is part of the process of measuring its rate.
Post by artful
And if it is
going slower
It isn't 'going slower'.  A relatively moving observer does nothing to
No.
Wrong.  Tell me .. if a fast observer goes past your clock .. what do
YOU think SR says happens to your clock?  Does it matter if the
observer actually looks at your clock?  Does it matter how far away he
is?  What if tow observers go past your clock at different speeds at
the same time?  What happens to your clock then?
Post by BURT
At least one clock is going slower and there is no mutual
dilation.
You're looking like a moron again.  Probably a good reason for that,
That is NOT the case for two clocks moving at a constant velocity
relative to each other in SR.  As I said .. read and study SR so you
understand it.  Even if you don't agree with it.  You can't really
disagree with it with any valid justification if you don't understand
what it says.  And you clearly do NOT understand what it says.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No. There is no mutual time dilation.
Wrong .. we are talking SR here.  There is in SR.
[snip more mitch bullshit]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If there is mutual time slow how does one clock age faster then?
They don't.  They age at the same rate.
Not according to Relativity. One of them ages more than the other. But
by mutual time flow slowdown this cannot be.

Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
2010-07-30 04:20:43 UTC
Permalink
artful wrote:
[...]
Post by artful
[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.
Paul Cardinale
2010-07-29 18:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by BURT
Post by Androcles
| 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
Post by BURT
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.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...