On Feb 3, 10:25*pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Peri of Pera skrev:

The questions a If time slows down and there is more time to do
things will light go a longer distance or is the speed of light
reduced? Either must occur to preserve the law of physics d=v/t.
Peter Riedt

According to SR:
1. Time is what clocks show.
2. Clocks always run at their proper rate,
* * they never slow down or speed up.

Since time never slows down you haven't asked a question.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Paul,
I agree with 1. and 2. but SR asserts that time runs at a different
rate when the speed of an object increases or decreases. Question:
Does it or not?
Peter Riedt

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
I agree with 1. and 2. but SR asserts that time runs at a different
rate when the speed of an object increases or decreases. Question:
Does it or not?

The measurement of the rate depends on who is measuring it. The clock in
itself just keeps ticking out the same units of time in the same way.

On Feb 5, 12:54*pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in ...

I agree with 1. and 2. but SR asserts that time runs at a different
rate when the speed of an object increases or decreases. Question:
Does it or not?

The measurement of the rate depends on who is measuring it. *The clock in
itself just keeps ticking out the same units of time in the same way.

Jecko,
....depends on who is measuring it. That doesn't make it science or
physics or maths. Same as tossing a coin. SR is a fraud.
Peter Riedt

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
On Feb 5, 12:54 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in
...

I agree with 1. and 2. but SR asserts that time runs at a different
rate when the speed of an object increases or decreases. Question:
Does it or not?

The measurement of the rate depends on who is measuring it. The clock in
itself just keeps ticking out the same units of time in the same way.

....depends on who is measuring it.

Yes .. it does

That doesn't make it science

Yes .. it does.

or physics or maths.

Yes .. it does

Same as tossing a coin.

No .. it is not

SR is a fraud.

No .. it is not

Seems like you are wrong on all counts.

If you throw a ball up vertically while travelling in a moving train, you
see it move straight up and down fairly slowly, someone outside the train
sees it take a parabolic path very quickly .. both are right, both are
different .. what we measure depends on who measures it. Physics is about
how those measurement relate. SR is very good physics.

Now .. go and learn how science and physics and maths work, then come back
when you have something worthwhile to say. Guess it will be a long wait.

On Feb 1, 9:04 pm, Peri of Pera wrote:

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.

Nonsense. Voigt was the first to speculate on the constancy in the
speed of light. As a modification to the Galilean transform, the
Voigt transform does not invoke time dilation. However, it has other
problems. The Lorentz transform was first put together by Larmor, and
in doing so, Larmor had already noticed such a situation in time
dilation.

He thought that if the length of a moving object contracted, its
time had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.
However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

This confusion results when a plagiarist plagiarizes on a master's
work without understanding the very fundamental principle involved.
shrug

On Feb 4, 11:39 pm, Koobee Wublee :


http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif

On Feb 6, 3:16*am, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Peri of Pera skrev:





On Feb 3, 10:25 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Peri of Pera skrev:

The questions a If time slows down and there is more time to do
things will light go a longer distance or is the speed of light
reduced? Either must occur to preserve the law of physics d=v/t.
Peter Riedt
According to SR:
1. Time is what clocks show.
2. Clocks always run at their proper rate,
* * they never slow down or speed up.

Since time never slows down you haven't asked a question.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Paul,
I agree with 1. and 2. but SR asserts that time runs at a different
rate when the speed of an object increases or decreases.

No, SR doesn't 'assert' that.
According to SR:
* 1. Time is what clocks show.
* 2. Clocks always run at their proper rate,
* * * they never slow down or speed up.

Question:
Does it or not?

Short answer:
It does not.

A clock isn't affected in any way by an arbitrary
observer's *motion relative to the clock.
But the clock's motion relative to the observer
will affect the observers _observations_ of the clock.

That is, an observer will observe (measure) a moving
clock to run slow. But the clock is unaffected by
this observation, it keep running at its normal rate.

Big Ben will not slow down if you travel past it
at 0.9c in your UFO. You will however observe
Big Ben to run slow. It's your _observation_ of
Big Ben that is affected by Big Ben's speed relative
to you. Big Ben don't care, it keeps running at
its normal rate.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Paul,
I agree that any clock always ticks at the standard rate in its own
environment, the local frame. The issue is that SR claims there is
time dilation affecting moving ojects even if it cannot be measured in
the local frame.
Peter Riedt

On Feb 5, 3:39*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 1, 9:04 pm, Peri of Pera wrote:

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.

Nonsense. *Voigt was the first to speculate on the constancy in the
speed of light. *As a modification to the Galilean transform, the
Voigt transform does not invoke time dilation. *However, it has other
problems. *The Lorentz transform was first put together by Larmor, and
in doing so, Larmor had already noticed such a situation in time
dilation.

He thought that if *the length *of a moving object contracted, its
time *had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.
However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

This confusion results when a plagiarist plagiarizes on a master's
work without understanding the very fundamental principle involved.
shrug

KoWu,
Maxwell was the first to include the speed of light as a constant in
his equations.
Voigt was the first to formulate the 'Lorentz' transforms. Larmor was
the second. Lorentz was the third. Lorentz corresponded with Voigt.
Lorentz may have been the first to come up with time dilation. I am
not sure.
Peter Riedt

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
I agree that any clock always ticks at the standard rate in its own
environment, the local frame. The issue is that SR claims there is
time dilation affecting moving ojects even if it cannot be measured in
the local frame.

It affects what *would* be measured (whether or not you actually do the
measurement).

Just as it does not matter whether or not you can get a device to measure
the length of a moving object, the object still takes up an amount of space
in your inertial frame at a given time, and SR tells you the length of that
space.

On Feb 5, 5:47 pm, Peri of Pera wrote:
On Feb 5, 3:39 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Nonsense. Voigt was the first to speculate on the constancy in the
speed of light. As a modification to the Galilean transform, the
Voigt transform does not invoke time dilation. However, it has other
problems. The Lorentz transform was first put together by Larmor, and
in doing so, Larmor had already noticed such a situation in time
dilation.

Maxwell was the first to include the speed of light as a constant in
his equations.

The constant speed of light, as derived by Gauss, Faraday, Ampere,
Weber, Maxwell, and others, is the same as the saying the speed of
sound is constant. It is only constant relative to someone at
absolute rest in the medium. In this model, both the speed and the
frequency of any traveling waves vary, and the wavelength becomes
invariant.

Voigt was the first to formulate the 'Lorentz' transforms.

Voigt's modification to the Galilean transform becomes the Voigt
transform. The Voigt transform satisfies the null results of the MMX
but fails the principle of relativity. The Voigt transform is
described as follows.

dt' = dt - v dx / c^2
dx' = dx - v dt
dy' = dy sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
dz' = dz sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Larmor was the second.

Larmor was the first to modify the Voigt transform to satisfy the
principle of relativity. His transform also satisfied the null
results of MMX is the Lorentz transform as described below.

dt' = (dt - v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
dy' = dy
dz' = dz

Lorentz was the third.

Lorentz was an acquaintance of Larmor. If Lorentz did come up with
the Lorentz transform, he would be guilty of plagiarism.

Lorentz corresponded with Voigt.

Yes, Lorentz knew about Voigt's work as well.

Lorentz may have been the first to come up with time dilation. I am
not sure.

Larmor was the first to come up with the Lorentz transform. Please
don't assume that he was a vegetable. Please don't assume that anyone
who can derive the Lorentz transform is an idiot. Anyone can see that
the Lorentz transform manifests time dilation just by looking at the
mathematics involved, and that should include Larmor.