Androcles wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
| | If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
|
| You got it wrong.
|
|
| |
| | But there's something that seems weird to me, if this is true (I don't
| | doubt it is),
|
| I would if I were you, it is nonsense.
|
| Does it mean that according to you there's no such thing as time
| dilation?

Correct, and according to Newton also.

I wish it was true. Who knows, maybe it is... but right now I kinda
doubt it.

Newton was the greatest
physicist ever. There is no such thing as time dilation.
"1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year. "

--Sir Isaac Newton.

|
| then there must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
| | certain speed and direction in the universe which makes time go the
| | fastest, in other words, "if you go faster time goes slower for you",
| | faster compared to what?
|
| Eggsactly.
|
| |
| | Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?
|
| I'm travelling at speed zero right now.
|
|
| | Because, as I understand it, it seems that if you throw a whole lots of
| | probes in various directions and at various speeds, there will be one
| | that will have it's clock running faster than the others, and it will
| | be the one going the slowest (compared to a referential, well I guess).
|
| You don't understand it. It's hoax, I'll explain it.
|
| The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
|
| This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
|
| Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
|
| [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
| http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Ptolemy.html
|
| The most recent accusations of forgery made against Einstein came from Androcles right now. He begins this accusation by stating clearly his views:-
|
| This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
|
| Towards the end Androcles, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Einstein in the theory of relativity was fabricated, writes:-
|
| Einstein developed certain physical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
|
|
| | Same for the speed limit in the universe, nothing can go faster than c,
| | ok, but, compared to what referential?
|
| Not ok. Nonsense.
| Cosmic muons originating in the upper atsmosphere 100 Km have a
| life span of 2.2 usec athreach sea level. Therefore their speed is 15c.
|
| wow, are you sure about that???

Very sure.

I mean, where you got that information from?

v = 100km/2.2microseconds = 4,545,454,545,454 meters/second ~= 15c.



| I'd like to know what other people out
| here think about that claim.

These morons are too stupid to calculate v = x/t.

They'll prattle on about the muon living longer in its own frame of reference. It doesn't matter if it does, it will have further to go in its own frame of reference.

sqrt(-1) = i,

xi = (100km)/sqrt(1-15^2/1^2) = i6.6815310478106096171138370219938 imaginary meters

|
| Idiots accepted certain physical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, they deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of the theories.
|
| ok but, well in case you're trying to say that time dilation is
| bull****, well, it's been verified with the GPS system,

Nonsense.

| I mean, the GPS
| system corrects its timing according to that time dilation thing,
| doesn't it?

Nope. Satellites in orbit are constantly perturbed by the Moon and do not know exaclty where they are. Ground stations upload their position and time to them. To see the perturbations, look at

http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html

Nice applet thing. However, it seems the GPS really corrects it's time
according to einstein's theories (or at least officialy) ;-)

| I mean, no matter what Einstein could have fabricated, his
| theories still predict things that actually happen... I don't see how
| this whole thing could be an hoax..


"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." -- Albert Huckster Einstein.

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

You've never been shown the truth before. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is. This is the oldest working clock in the world, it has not gained or lost a picosecond in 3,500 years:

A picosecond, I wouldn't bet on it, considered that the length of a day
on earth was about 21 hours a few hundred million years ago... I'm not
sure to see what it can have to do with time dilatation anyways. btw,
didn't Gravity Probe A prove time dilatation?


http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMStonehenge.jpg

A precisely similar clock at the pole doesn't gain or loose either.

Maybe you think a sundial at the south pole can gain over a sundial at the equator, but I'm not that gullible. Mr. Nice Guy doesn't fool me.

Androcles.



| | I mean, if you throw a whole lot
| | of probes at the same time from one unique moving point in any
| | direction at speed c (or close), where will be the middle between all
| | these probes. If you are going at half of c (once again, compared to
| | what, yeah i'm very confused with that) and throw a rocket that can get
| | near c in the direction you're going, and another one like this in the
| | opposite direction, the middle between those two rockets wont be you,
| | or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.
|
| Of course. Einstein was a fraud.
|
| |
| | And please explain things simply, you all know how hard it can be to
| | understand/admitt all those weird relativity things, thanks.
|
| Oh, its as simple as it can be. In order to be a successful confidence
| trickster you have to have the appearance of being Mr. Nice Guy.
| The greatest genius of all time pulled off the greatest hoax of all time,
| and it does take genius to fool most of the people all of the time.
| Even if you point it out to them, they'll be too embarrassed to admit
| they were duped. But duped they are.
| Look at Michelson pointing the finger and grinning at the scruffy
| con-artist without the detachable collar who is too embarrassed
| to face the camera.
| http://www.oisc.net/scientist.jpg
|
| Androcles.
|

CFran wrote:

Hayek wrote:

CFran wrote:


If I got it right, the faster you go, the
slower time goes for you.

But there's something that seems weird to me,
if this is true (I don't doubt it is), then
there must be a referential, I mean, there
must be a certain speed and direction in the
universe which makes time go the fastest, in
other words, "if you go faster time goes
slower for you", faster compared to what?

You have an excellent intuition !


faster compared to what?

The average mass distribution of the
surrounding masses. That is a lot of mass : the
whole visible universe.


so there's a referential!! that's funny that I
never heard of it before tho.

It is the same one from Mach's Principle and the
same one from General Relativity. If a mass affects
a clock, then lots of mass will also affect a clock,
a mass nearby is the same as a universe of mass
spread around.


But there is a BIG catch : suppose you move
contantly wrt this average mass distribution
and a rocket moves away from you, and is slower
with respect to (wrt) this average mass
distribution (amd). This rockets clock will run
faster. Then when the rocket has to rejoin you,
it has to catch up with you and move faster wrt
the amd. Since the time dilation factor is not
linear the clock of this rocket will slow down
so much more than yours that in the end, the
total elapsed time of the rocket will always
be LESS than your time.

If an object accelerates away from you and
comes back his total elapsed time will ALWAYS
be less than your time.



Is there something like a speed zero, where
time goes the fastest?

No motion wrt tne average mass distribution,
and as far away from a cluster of masses. A lot
of mass nearby will slow down your clock also.


makes sence. I think the second thing you said is
a property of the general relativity.

General Relativity is all you need : it includes
special relativity.

And your clock will run infinitely fast in an
empty universe.

Actually, a clock is an inertiameter. It simply
reacts to changing inertia, when the clockrate
varies, it meanse inertia has varied.

Mass creates an inertial field. Moving through
this field makes inertia greater, and your
inertiameter or clock simply reacts to that.
More inertia also makes the molecules in your
body move slower, so your "time" moves slower
too. Your body reacts to the increased inertia
by slowing down as much as your clock. And you
cannot compare it locally you must always
relate to an external clock. That is the real
reason why it is called relativity.




Because, as I understand it, it seems that if
you throw a whole lots of probes in various
directions and at various speeds, there will
be one that will have it's clock running
faster than the others, and it will be the
one going the slowest (compared to a
referential, well I guess).

Your absolutely right.

But there is again a big catch : you have NO
way of measuring ! In order to stay in contact
with the probes you need radio contact, and
that goes, by current technology, and maybe
even all future technology, at the speed of
light.


Well, yes you can, you can still compensate by
calculating the time the radio waves took for
doing the travel. For example, you send a radio
signal to a probe which makes the target probe
send back to you as soon a signal containing it's
time, you calculate the time it took between when
you emited the signal and when you received the
response, and with the measurement of the doppler
shift of the received response you can calculate
how long it took for the first signal and for
the response signal to travel, and thus
compensate the delay due to the speed of light
(maybe it would be usefull too to include the
shift due to the doppler effect in the first
signal as received by the probe in the response
signal, but that's a detail.)

I just thought of something simpler : You could send
pobes of in 6 directions Up, Down, Left, Right,
Forward, Backward. Just before they turn around, you
stop their clocks. And they "come home" with just
the accumulated time of the outward trip. Then you
can calculate your own speed wrt average mass
distribution.

It is very difficult to undertake an experiment
like you described above, with different
probes, first because it is poorly understood.
Some adamantly deny the existence of a
preferential frame. Because they say, there is
no need for it : any object that accelerates
away from you and comes back, will always have
a slower clock than yours, no matter if you
move wrt the amd, the preferential frame.


Same for the speed limit in the universe,
nothing can go faster than c, ok, but,
compared to what referential?

Again the amd of the visible universe around
the you.

But since moving wrt the amd affects your
clock, you will always measure c in ANY moving
frame.


I mean, if you throw a whole lot of probes at
the same time from one unique moving point in
any direction at speed c (or close), where
will be the middle between all these probes.
If you are going at half of c (once again,
compared to what, yeah i'm very confused with
that) and throw a rocket that can get near c
in the direction you're going, and another
one like this in the opposite direction, the
middle between those two rockets wont be you,
or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.

If you move at .5 c and you throw a rocket it
will move at c wrt to you : but because your
clock has slowed down your measurement of the
speed of the rocket will be different than that
of a stationary observer. The measurement would
differ but the outcome will be : c for both !


And please explain things simply, you all
know how hard it can be to understand/admitt
all those weird relativity things, thanks.

Because inertia affects ALL of physics we
currently know of, it is impossible to measure
it locally. Comparing it to remote sources is
hampered by the transmission speed of c, and
dopller effects. This all conspires in such
way, that for the current state of science,
relativity can be explained in different ways.

There are two camps : those that adhere to a
preferential frame : they are called
Aetherists, Lorentzians, absolutists, and those
who reject any absolute frame and believe it
takes only two to tango : motion and
relativistic effects are due to the relative
motion of the two objects in question, they are
the pure relativists.


Oh, I think I know which camp you chose. As for
me, I like the idea of a preferential frame, but
as of right now I really have no idea of which
makes more sence, provided that things need to be
really senseful when it comes to relativity.


Modern scientist shy away from making sense. The
maths are the theory, no need to explain anything
else, they say.

I adhere to the words of lord Kelvin :

"It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not
understand a particular point in physics" is, "Can
we make a mechanical model of it:" " - lord Kelvin

Uwe Hayek.

Ignore androcles. He's am arogant, vulgar, willfully ignorant imbecile
who's incapable of understanding concepts like coordinates and
variables.

Paul Cardinale

CFran wrote:
If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.


Yes, that's correct, according to Einstein's SR and my model of the
universe.


But there's something that seems weird to me, if this is true (I don't
doubt it is), then there must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
certain speed and direction in the universe which makes time go the
fastest, in other words, "if you go faster time goes slower for you",
faster compared to what?


You've gotten a lot of response to that, none of which is simple and
all of which is debatable. Let me explain the way I see it.

Faster to what? Faster compared to the speed of other objects in the
universe. All objects in the universe are in motion and so there is no
one object we can say is stationary wrt the universe. Objects can be
stationary wrt each other, or not, if, and only if, they are moving at
the same speed and in the same direction. In such a case, their time
rates are the same.

If not, then they have either a different speed or are moving in
different directions, or both, and they have different time rates
because they are moving at certain speeds wrt the universe.


Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?


Yes, of course. If you have varying things like speed and time, and
beginnings and endings, it follows that there must be a first and last
or a slowest and a fastest.

The only things that have speed are visible objects and so they are the
things that have time as a property. If it has visible matter, we can
usually observe and measure it's speed to some degree from here to
there.
But since everything in the universe is in motion, we can find no
object to measure that has a zero speed. But if there is motion, there
is the possibility of nonmotion even though from we sit we cannot find
an object that is still wrt the universe. It may be that there are no
objects with zero speed in the universe and so we can say that wrt the
universe nothing is stationary.


Because, as I understand it, it seems that if you throw a whole lots of
probes in various directions and at various speeds, there will be one
that will have it's clock running faster than the others, and it will
be the one going the slowest (compared to a referential, well I guess).


Yes, and the reference is wrt the universe or another object. It can
be either one. Since most objects are moving at different speeds wrt
to the universe as well as wrt each other, we must be specific as to
which reference we are speaking about or we will be making incorrect
statements. We cannot simply say, "that object is moving faster".
Such a statement must have a qualifier to it which refers to one or the
other of the two refs, the universe or another object.


Same for the speed limit in the universe, nothing can go faster than c,
ok, but, compared to what referential?


In this case, the reference is to c, the speed of light. The qualifier
is "than c" which makes the statement a correct one. To say simply,
"Nothing can go faster" is an incomplete statement because it does not
include the qualifier that tells us what "faster" refers to.


I mean, if you throw a whole lot
of probes at the same time from one unique moving point in any
direction at speed c (or close), where will be the middle between all
these probes. If you are going at half of c (once again, compared to
what, yeah i'm very confused with that) and throw a rocket that can get
near c in the direction you're going, and another one like this in the
opposite direction, the middle between those two rockets wont be you,
or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.


That has to do with Einstein's principle that light moves at c to any
observers regardless of their speeds. To understand that, it is better
to imagine that space is a medium like water or air through which light
can pass at only certain speeds and light can pass at a faster speed in
the medium of space than in any other medium.


And please explain things simply, you all know how hard it can be to
understand/admitt all those weird relativity things, thanks.


I hope that helped you better understand what the time dilation (not
"dilatation") effect is, but if not, feel free to ask more questions.

"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
| | | If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
| |
| | You got it wrong.
| |
| |
| | |
| | | But there's something that seems weird to me, if this is true (I don't
| | | doubt it is),
| |
| | I would if I were you, it is nonsense.
| |
| | Does it mean that according to you there's no such thing as time
| | dilation?
|
| Correct, and according to Newton also.
|
| I wish it was true. Who knows, maybe it is... but right now I kinda
| doubt it.

Either follow cold hard mathematical logic or be taken in by
a hoax. Your choice. Few around here know v = dx/dt.
Here's Einstein's paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

His opening paragraph is a discussion of Galilean Relativity.
where he uses an example. His second paragraph refers to
the example and calls he example the "Principle of Relativity".
Idiots that cannot read, do not know what a subject and a
predicate are, do not know what a modifier is, will tell you
different. They think the PoR is the modifier.
In the seventh paragraph of section I, after he's bored you to tears
with his own ideas of time, he gives a royal proclamation,
a papal bull, "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required
by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel
from B to A. "
Pure nonsense. Idiocy. The time dilation you imagine to be true
is nothing more than Einstein stomping his foot and saying "Dammit,
it is because I say so!"
Then he has the temerity to claim 4 paragrapshs further:
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c."

A-----------------------(distance x)------------------------B
Light leaves A, travels x, reflects, travels -x back to A.
(x+ (-x))/(t'a-tA) = 0.
Einstein the huckster playing games with speed and velocity.
WE have NO experience of 2AB being AB + BA.
It's a con. A hoax.
Why does he have to say "In agreement with experience"?
To persuade, of course. No other reason for it.
Would you like to buy this car? Only used by a little old lady
to go to church on Sundays. Hymn book still on the back seat.
No need to kick the tires, I checked 'em myself. That oily
black smoke from the exhaust? You won't see that when you
drive it, trust me. I'm a regular mosque-goer myself. Know the
rabbi, he's been appointed by the Pope.
No no, I'd never sell you a car without checking it over myself,
you don't need to worry. Would you like to buy an extended
warranty to put your mind at rest?

What Einstein is NOT telling you at this stage is that if A moves toward
B, A's clock will slow down to allow for more time for the light
to get back to A. That comes later. If you want to get into the math we
can do that, I don't mind.
The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)),
is a con. The ½ is derived from above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.




| Newton was the greatest
| physicist ever. There is no such thing as time dilation.
| "1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year. "
|
| --Sir Isaac Newton.
|
| |
| | then there must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
| | | certain speed and direction in the universe which makes time go the
| | | fastest, in other words, "if you go faster time goes slower for you",
| | | faster compared to what?
| |
| | Eggsactly.
| |
| | |
| | | Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?
| |
| | I'm travelling at speed zero right now.
| |
| |
| | | Because, as I understand it, it seems that if you throw a whole lots of
| | | probes in various directions and at various speeds, there will be one
| | | that will have it's clock running faster than the others, and it will
| | | be the one going the slowest (compared to a referential, well I guess).
| |
| | You don't understand it. It's hoax, I'll explain it.
| |
| | The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
| |
| | This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
| |
| | Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
| |
| | [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
| | http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Ptolemy.html
| |
| | The most recent accusations of forgery made against Einstein came from Androcles right now. He begins this accusation by stating clearly his views:-
| |
| | This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
| |
| | Towards the end Androcles, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Einstein in the theory of relativity was fabricated, writes:-
| |
| | Einstein developed certain physical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
| |
| |
| | | Same for the speed limit in the universe, nothing can go faster than c,
| | | ok, but, compared to what referential?
| |
| | Not ok. Nonsense.
| | Cosmic muons originating in the upper atsmosphere 100 Km have a
| | life span of 2.2 usec athreach sea level. Therefore their speed is 15c.
| |
| | wow, are you sure about that???
|
| Very sure.
|
| I mean, where you got that information from?
Experiment. The actual value doesn't matter, but it IS the value relativists use.

| v = 100km/2.2microseconds = 4,545,454,545,454 meters/second ~= 15c.
|
|
|
| | I'd like to know what other people out
| | here think about that claim.
|
| These morons are too stupid to calculate v = x/t.
|
| They'll prattle on about the muon living longer in its own frame of reference. It doesn't matter if it does, it will have further to go in its own frame of reference.
|
| sqrt(-1) = i,
|
| xi = (100km)/sqrt(1-15^2/1^2) = i6.6815310478106096171138370219938 imaginary meters
|
| |
| | Idiots accepted certain physical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, they deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of the theories.
| |
| | ok but, well in case you're trying to say that time dilation is
| | bull****, well, it's been verified with the GPS system,
|
| Nonsense.
|
| | I mean, the GPS
| | system corrects its timing according to that time dilation thing,
| | doesn't it?
|
| Nope. Satellites in orbit are constantly perturbed by the Moon and do not know exaclty where they are. Ground stations upload their position and time to them. To see the perturbations, look at
|
| http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
|
| Nice applet thing. However, it seems the GPS really corrects it's time
| according to einstein's theories (or at least officialy) ;-)

The US Navy would prefer you believe that, just as the CIA would
prefer you believe in flying saucers. Make it too accurate and use it
to guide your missile through the Oval office window would not look
good. I'm sure they'd prefer your missile hit the reflecting pool, so
you can be pretty sure anything moving fast near a sensitive site
will get a bum steer. 'Course on 9-11 low tech Kamikazi pilots
beat the system, but they didn't expect that when GPS was launched.

|
| | I mean, no matter what Einstein could have fabricated, his
| | theories still predict things that actually happen... I don't see how
| | this whole thing could be an hoax..
|
|
| "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." -- Albert Huckster Einstein.
|
| Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| You've never been shown the truth before. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is. This is the oldest working clock in the world, it has not gained or lost a picosecond in 3,500 years:
|
| A picosecond, I wouldn't bet on it, considered that the length of a day
| on earth was about 21 hours a few hundred million years ago...

Ok, so there were more days in a year a few hundred million years ago.
Are you claiming time slows down because the Earth spins slower?

| I'm not
| sure to see what it can have to do with time dilatation anyways. btw,
| didn't Gravity Probe A prove time dilatation?

No.
| Merc | Venus |Earth |Solar | Pulsar| Wheel |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| |88/ |88/ | 88 / | 88/ | 88/ |
Mercury | 1 | 225 | 365 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 225/ | | 225/ | 225/ |225/ | 225/ |
Venus | 88 | 1 | 365 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 365/ | 365/ | | 365/ | 365/ | 365/ |
Earth year| 88 | 225 | 1 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 1/ | 1/ | 1/ | | 1/ | 1/ |
Solar day| 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
Distant | N/ | N/ | N/ | N/ | | N/ |
Pulsar | 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | 1 | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| M/ | M/ | M/ | M/ | M/ | |
Balance | 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | N | 1 |
wheel |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|


Each entry in the table is a ratio of counts between oscillators.
Change one oscillator, you change all its row and colum entries.
The remainder are unaffected. Time is universal.
You asked "please explain things simply, you all know how hard it can be to
understand/admitt all those weird relativity things, thanks."
I've done that. The weirdest thing about relativity is that fools believe it.
That's as weird as Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. They are not difficult
to understand, they are a con too.
Didn't Gravity Probe B locate Santa's Grotto at the North Pole?
Androcles.

|
|
| http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMStonehenge.jpg
|
| A precisely similar clock at the pole doesn't gain or loose either.
|
| Maybe you think a sundial at the south pole can gain over a sundial at the equator, but I'm not that gullible. Mr. Nice Guy doesn't fool me.
|
| Androcles.
|
|
|
| | | I mean, if you throw a whole lot
| | | of probes at the same time from one unique moving point in any
| | | direction at speed c (or close), where will be the middle between all
| | | these probes. If you are going at half of c (once again, compared to
| | | what, yeah i'm very confused with that) and throw a rocket that can get
| | | near c in the direction you're going, and another one like this in the
| | | opposite direction, the middle between those two rockets wont be you,
| | | or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.
| |
| | Of course. Einstein was a fraud.
| |
| | |
| | | And please explain things simply, you all know how hard it can be to
| | | understand/admitt all those weird relativity things, thanks.
| |
| | Oh, its as simple as it can be. In order to be a successful confidence
| | trickster you have to have the appearance of being Mr. Nice Guy.
| | The greatest genius of all time pulled off the greatest hoax of all time,
| | and it does take genius to fool most of the people all of the time.
| | Even if you point it out to them, they'll be too embarrassed to admit
| | they were duped. But duped they are.
| | Look at Michelson pointing the finger and grinning at the scruffy
| | con-artist without the detachable collar who is too embarrassed
| | to face the camera.
| | http://www.oisc.net/scientist.jpg
| |
| | Androcles.
| |
|

CFran wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
| | If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
|
| You got it wrong.
|
|
| |
| | But there's something that seems weird to me, if this is true (I don't
| | doubt it is),
|
| I would if I were you, it is nonsense.
|
| Does it mean that according to you there's no such thing as time
| dilation?

Correct, and according to Newton also.

I wish it was true. Who knows, maybe it is... but right now I kinda
doubt it.

Newton was the greatest
physicist ever. There is no such thing as time dilation.
"1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year. "

--Sir Isaac Newton.

|
| then there must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
| | certain speed and direction in the universe which makes time go the
| | fastest, in other words, "if you go faster time goes slower for you",
| | faster compared to what?
|
| Eggsactly.
|
| |
| | Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?
|
| I'm travelling at speed zero right now.
|
|
| | Because, as I understand it, it seems that if you throw a whole lots of
| | probes in various directions and at various speeds, there will be one
| | that will have it's clock running faster than the others, and it will
| | be the one going the slowest (compared to a referential, well I guess).
|
| You don't understand it. It's hoax, I'll explain it.
|
| The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
|
| This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
|
| Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
|
| [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
| http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Ptolemy.html
|
| The most recent accusations of forgery made against Einstein came from Androcles right now. He begins this accusation by stating clearly his views:-
|
| This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
|
| Towards the end Androcles, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Einstein in the theory of relativity was fabricated, writes:-
|
| Einstein developed certain physical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
|
|
| | Same for the speed limit in the universe, nothing can go faster than c,
| | ok, but, compared to what referential?
|
| Not ok. Nonsense.
| Cosmic muons originating in the upper atsmosphere 100 Km have a
| life span of 2.2 usec athreach sea level. Therefore their speed is 15c.
|
| wow, are you sure about that???

Very sure.

I mean, where you got that information from?

v = 100km/2.2microseconds = 4,545,454,545,454 meters/second ~= 15c.



| I'd like to know what other people out
| here think about that claim.

These morons are too stupid to calculate v = x/t.

They'll prattle on about the muon living longer in its own frame of reference. It doesn't matter if it does, it will have further to go in its own frame of reference.

sqrt(-1) = i,

xi = (100km)/sqrt(1-15^2/1^2) = i6.6815310478106096171138370219938 imaginary meters

|
| Idiots accepted certain physical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, they deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of the theories.
|
| ok but, well in case you're trying to say that time dilation is
| bull****, well, it's been verified with the GPS system,

Nonsense.

| I mean, the GPS
| system corrects its timing according to that time dilation thing,
| doesn't it?

Nope. Satellites in orbit are constantly perturbed by the Moon and do not know exaclty where they are. Ground stations upload their position and time to them. To see the perturbations, look at

http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html

Nice applet thing. However, it seems the GPS really corrects it's time
according to einstein's theories (or at least officialy) ;-)

I did not realise we have Einstein to thank for phenomena
described by Newton, Sagnac and Doppler.



| I mean, no matter what Einstein could have fabricated, his
| theories still predict things that actually happen... I don't see how
| this whole thing could be an hoax..


"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." -- Albert Huckster Einstein.

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

You've never been shown the truth before. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is. This is the oldest working clock in the world, it has not gained or lost a picosecond in 3,500 years:

A picosecond, I wouldn't bet on it, considered that the length of a day
on earth was about 21 hours a few hundred million years ago... I'm not
sure to see what it can have to do with time dilatation anyways. btw,
didn't Gravity Probe A prove time dilatation?

You might find the answer to that at the Smithsonian.
Didn't Vessot work there for a while?

Accession 99-171 - Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
....... Investigations of Atomic Physics with A Cryogenic
Hydrogen Maser, 07/06/92-07/14/92; P2725-7-92, Cont'd NAS8-39194
NASA/MSFC, PI-Vessot , Missing Folder ...
http:// http://www.si.edu/archives/archives/.../fa99-171.html
©2005 Google


Also:
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Apparent weight of photons,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960). [2] This paper was the first
measurement.
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear
Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more accurate
measurement with Snider.

Time dilation is "proved" when you try to put a 50 MHz dipole
antenna in your hip pocket.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node46.html

;-)
Sue...



http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMStonehenge.jpg

A precisely similar clock at the pole doesn't gain or loose either.

Maybe you think a sundial at the south pole can gain over a sundial at the equator, but I'm not that gullible. Mr. Nice Guy doesn't fool me.

Androcles.



| | I mean, if you throw a whole lot
| | of probes at the same time from one unique moving point in any
| | direction at speed c (or close), where will be the middle between all
| | these probes. If you are going at half of c (once again, compared to
| | what, yeah i'm very confused with that) and throw a rocket that can get
| | near c in the direction you're going, and another one like this in the
| | opposite direction, the middle between those two rockets wont be you,
| | or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.
|
| Of course. Einstein was a fraud.
|
| |
| | And please explain things simply, you all know how hard it can be to
| | understand/admitt all those weird relativity things, thanks.
|
| Oh, its as simple as it can be. In order to be a successful confidence
| trickster you have to have the appearance of being Mr. Nice Guy.
| The greatest genius of all time pulled off the greatest hoax of all time,
| and it does take genius to fool most of the people all of the time.
| Even if you point it out to them, they'll be too embarrassed to admit
| they were duped. But duped they are.
| Look at Michelson pointing the finger and grinning at the scruffy
| con-artist without the detachable collar who is too embarrassed
| to face the camera.
| http://www.oisc.net/scientist.jpg
|
| Androcles.
|

"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.

No, that is wrong. You notice nothing about time.

oh, yeah, that's right, it looks like outside things accelerate (i
think)

The faster you go with respect to someone, the longer the time
that person will measure between two ticks on *your* clock,
and likewise, the longer the time *you* will measure between
two ticks on that *person's* clock.

OK that's where it's getting hard to understand. But when you say that
the time between two observed ticks gets longer, do you include the
doppler effect or is it supposed to be compensed (as for example by
compensating the delay due to the travel of light)?

No, it has nothing to do with the Doppler effect.


Because as I understand it, according to what you say, there's a
problem with the twin paradox, because if both twins see each other
clock ticking slower,

They don't *see* each other's clock ticking slower.
They *measure* or *calculate* it ticking slower.
Remember, when you approach a clock, you *see*
it ticking *faster*.

what happens when they meet again? I mean, in
this paradox, one twin stays on earth, while another does a high speed
trip in space, and when the two meet again on earth the one who stayed
on earth is much older than the one who traveled in space, that's the
problem to me, considering the traveling twin as the center of the
universe, it should be then the non-moving twin who would be the
youngest once the two would meet, because he would be the one traveling
very fast, relatively to the traveling twin. That's why this paradox
kind of prevents me from understanding why there is no "referential".

There is a huge difference between the traveller and the stay
at home. The traveller does not remain in an inertial frame all
the time. He will feel accelerations, or he must jump from
one spaceship to another (without getting killed), while the
stay at home twin does not feel anything. He remains inertial
and will the one with the largest elapsed time on his clock.
That is the essential difference.

The question you ask is asked just about 5 times each week.
Perhaps it's time to do some reading:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...n_paradox.html

Now, if you are interested in Village Idiot Psychology,
you certainly must carefully study the responses of the
others who are trying to "help" you. Some of their most
interesting viewpoints are quoted right he
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...alFumbles.html
Check them out. If, doing so, you learn that "AIDS is
not caused by HIV", don't be surprised ;-)

Dirk Vdm

"Sue..." schreef in bericht
ups.com...

CFran wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message
ups.com...
| | If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for
you.
|
| You got it wrong.
|
|
| |
| | But there's something that seems weird to me, if this is true (I
don't
| | doubt it is),
|
| I would if I were you, it is nonsense.
|
| Does it mean that according to you there's no such thing as time
| dilation?

Correct, and according to Newton also.

I wish it was true. Who knows, maybe it is... but right now I kinda
doubt it.

Newton was the greatest

he undoubtely was in his time,but once he said,that could not understand
that the earth could attract the moon and keep it in place over that
distance,and hoped,that sometime after him some one would figure out that
one ,and that person came,and stated that there was no force at all,
but mass dictates space (or space time) how to curve,and the curved spactime
dictates objects how to move,,,really ,brilliant,
and I think that Newton would have loved it

physicist ever. There is no such thing as time dilation.
"1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own
nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time
is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of
duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true
time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year. "

--Sir Isaac Newton.

|
| then there must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
| | certain speed and direction in the universe which makes time go
the
| | fastest, in other words, "if you go faster time goes slower for
you",
| | faster compared to what?
|
| Eggsactly.
|
| |
| | Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?
|
| I'm travelling at speed zero right now.
|
|
| | Because, as I understand it, it seems that if you throw a whole
lots of
| | probes in various directions and at various speeds, there will be
one
| | that will have it's clock running faster than the others, and it
will
| | be the one going the slowest (compared to a referential, well I
guess).
|
| You don't understand it. It's hoax, I'll explain it.
|
| The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came
from Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
|
| This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime
committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a
betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever
deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of
astronomy and history.
|
| Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation
claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
|
| [Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered
that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning
the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories
so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his
theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice
is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
|
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Ptolemy.html
|
| The most recent accusations of forgery made against Einstein came
from Androcles right now. He begins this accusation by stating clearly
his views:-
|
| This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime
committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a
betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever
deprived mankind of fundamental information about an important area of
astronomy and history.
|
| Towards the end Androcles, having claimed to prove every observation
claimed by Einstein in the theory of relativity was fabricated, writes:-
|
| Einstein developed certain physical theories and discovered that
they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the
theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so
that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his
theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice
is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship.
|
|
| | Same for the speed limit in the universe, nothing can go faster
than c,
| | ok, but, compared to what referential?
|
| Not ok. Nonsense.
| Cosmic muons originating in the upper atsmosphere 100 Km have a
| life span of 2.2 usec athreach sea level. Therefore their speed is
15c.
|
| wow, are you sure about that???

Very sure.

I mean, where you got that information from?

v = 100km/2.2microseconds = 4,545,454,545,454 meters/second ~= 15c.



| I'd like to know what other people out
| here think about that claim.

These morons are too stupid to calculate v = x/t.

They'll prattle on about the muon living longer in its own frame of
reference. It doesn't matter if it does, it will have further to go in
its own frame of reference.

sqrt(-1) = i,

xi = (100km)/sqrt(1-15^2/1^2) = i6.6815310478106096171138370219938
imaginary meters

|
| Idiots accepted certain physical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the
theories, they deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so
that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of the
theories.
|
| ok but, well in case you're trying to say that time dilation is
| bull****, well, it's been verified with the GPS system,

Nonsense.

| I mean, the GPS
| system corrects its timing according to that time dilation thing,
| doesn't it?

Nope. Satellites in orbit are constantly perturbed by the Moon and do
not know exaclty where they are. Ground stations upload their position
and time to them. To see the perturbations, look at

http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html

Nice applet thing. However, it seems the GPS really corrects it's time
according to einstein's theories (or at least officialy) ;-)

I did not realise we have Einstein to thank for phenomena
described by Newton, Sagnac and Doppler.



| I mean, no matter what Einstein could have fabricated, his
| theories still predict things that actually happen... I don't see how
| this whole thing could be an hoax..


"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." -- Albert
Huckster Einstein.

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

You've never been shown the truth before. Sorry about that, but that's
the way it is. This is the oldest working clock in the world, it has not
gained or lost a picosecond in 3,500 years:

A picosecond, I wouldn't bet on it, considered that the length of a day
on earth was about 21 hours a few hundred million years ago... I'm not
sure to see what it can have to do with time dilatation anyways. btw,
didn't Gravity Probe A prove time dilatation?

You might find the answer to that at the Smithsonian.
Didn't Vessot work there for a while?

Accession 99-171 - Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
....... Investigations of Atomic Physics with A Cryogenic
Hydrogen Maser, 07/06/92-07/14/92; P2725-7-92, Cont'd NAS8-39194
NASA/MSFC, PI-Vessot , Missing Folder ...
http:// http://www.si.edu/archives/archives/.../fa99-171.html
©2005 Google


Also:
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Apparent weight of photons,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960). [2] This paper was the first
measurement.
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear
Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more accurate
measurement with Snider.

Time dilation is "proved" when you try to put a 50 MHz dipole
antenna in your hip pocket.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node46.html

;-)
Sue...



http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMStonehenge.jpg

A precisely similar clock at the pole doesn't gain or loose either.

Maybe you think a sundial at the south pole can gain over a sundial at
the equator, but I'm not that gullible. Mr. Nice Guy doesn't fool me.

Androcles.



| | I mean, if you throw a whole lot
| | of probes at the same time from one unique moving point in any
| | direction at speed c (or close), where will be the middle between
all
| | these probes. If you are going at half of c (once again, compared
to
| | what, yeah i'm very confused with that) and throw a rocket that
can get
| | near c in the direction you're going, and another one like this in
the
| | opposite direction, the middle between those two rockets wont be
you,
| | or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.
|
| Of course. Einstein was a fraud.
|
| |
| | And please explain things simply, you all know how hard it can be
to
| | understand/admitt all those weird relativity things, thanks.
|
| Oh, its as simple as it can be. In order to be a successful
confidence
| trickster you have to have the appearance of being Mr. Nice Guy.
| The greatest genius of all time pulled off the greatest hoax of all
time,
| and it does take genius to fool most of the people all of the time.
| Even if you point it out to them, they'll be too embarrassed to
admit
| they were duped. But duped they are.
| Look at Michelson pointing the finger and grinning at the scruffy
| con-artist without the detachable collar who is too embarrassed
| to face the camera.
| http://www.oisc.net/scientist.jpg
|
| Androcles.
|

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.

No, that is wrong. You notice nothing about time.

oh, yeah, that's right, it looks like outside things accelerate (i
think)

The faster you go with respect to someone, the longer the time
that person will measure between two ticks on *your* clock,
and likewise, the longer the time *you* will measure between
two ticks on that *person's* clock.

OK that's where it's getting hard to understand. But when you say that
the time between two observed ticks gets longer, do you include the
doppler effect or is it supposed to be compensed (as for example by
compensating the delay due to the travel of light)?

No, it has nothing to do with the Doppler effect.

yeah, i think i meant the delay due to the travel of light


Because as I understand it, according to what you say, there's a
problem with the twin paradox, because if both twins see each other
clock ticking slower,

They don't *see* each other's clock ticking slower.
They *measure* or *calculate* it ticking slower.
Remember, when you approach a clock, you *see*
it ticking *faster*.

what happens when they meet again? I mean, in
this paradox, one twin stays on earth, while another does a high speed
trip in space, and when the two meet again on earth the one who stayed
on earth is much older than the one who traveled in space, that's the
problem to me, considering the traveling twin as the center of the
universe, it should be then the non-moving twin who would be the
youngest once the two would meet, because he would be the one traveling
very fast, relatively to the traveling twin. That's why this paradox
kind of prevents me from understanding why there is no "referential".

There is a huge difference between the traveller and the stay
at home. The traveller does not remain in an inertial frame all
the time. He will feel accelerations, or he must jump from
one spaceship to another (without getting killed), while the
stay at home twin does not feel anything. He remains inertial
and will the one with the largest elapsed time on his clock.
That is the essential difference.

oh ok, so that's acceleration that makes the whole difference. makes
sence.

The question you ask is asked just about 5 times each week.
Perhaps it's time to do some reading:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...n_paradox.html

Now, if you are interested in Village Idiot Psychology,
you certainly must carefully study the responses of the
others who are trying to "help" you. Some of their most
interesting viewpoints are quoted right he
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...alFumbles.html
Check them out. If, doing so, you learn that "AIDS is
not caused by HIV", don't be surprised ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Wow, Androcles is pretty popular on your page. Personally, he told me
that cosmic muons were travelling at 15 c.

Sue... wrote:
CFran wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message roups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
| | If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
|
| You got it wrong.
|
|
| |
| | But there's something that seems weird to me, if this is true (I don't
| | doubt it is),
|
| I would if I were you, it is nonsense.
|
| Does it mean that according to you there's no such thing as time
| dilation?

Correct, and according to Newton also.

I wish it was true. Who knows, maybe it is... but right now I kinda
doubt it.

Newton was the greatest
physicist ever. There is no such thing as time dilation.
"1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year. "

--Sir Isaac Newton.

|
| then there must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
| | certain speed and direction in the universe which makes time go the
| | fastest, in other words, "if you go faster time goes slower for you",
| | faster compared to what?
|
| Eggsactly.
|
| |
| | Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?
|
| I'm travelling at speed zero right now.
|
|