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?

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

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

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

"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.

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.


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?

See above.

Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?
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 have zero speed with respect to yourself. You are
the 'referential' of everything you measure. Your navel is
the centre of the Universe that you measure ;-)
So, of all the clocks you shoot away at in various directions
with various velocities with respect to you, the time between
two ticks on any of these clocks as measured by you, will
be longer than the time measured between two ticks on your
own clock, which goes as speed zero.
So, sloppily expressed, your clock will be the "fastest".


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

You can shoot two objects at say 0.8 c in two opposite
directions. Then according to you, the distance between the
objects will increase at a rate of 1.6 c, but according to some
people riding along with one of the objects, the other object
will recede at a velocity of (0.8+0.8)/(1+0.8^2) c, which is,
as you can verify, smaller than 1.
No object, as measured by yourself, can travel at a speed
that is greater than c.


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

Yes, we know :-)

Dirk Vdm

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

No... both twins see each and every film frame shown
on a commonly viewed movie screen.


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?

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

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

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

Yes... 'compared to what' is the correct question.
The motion of a charge (electron proton ect) relative
to another nearby charge produces forces and involves
energy exchange. The use of an artificial time scale
for the region is helpful to account for the energy.
That mathematics is the product of relativity theories.

Regards,

Sue...

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html

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?

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

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

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

xxein: Don't believe anybody, including me.

You are on the right logical and physical path. Pursue it with all the
subjective evidence provided to you. It may be confusing at first, but
you can reward yourself with simple thought.

Make a graph of what you expect to observe wrt time dilation and the
light Doppler effect. First from the perspective of you being 0v with
things whizzing past you and then from the perspective of YOU being the
thing that whizzes past a point of 0v. Don't be afraid to look at just
time or Doppler also. I find it most instructive as to how the
subjective measurements come together to form the idea of a relativity
theory with a math. But in doing this exercise, it also becomes
apparent that it is completely dependent on subjective measurement and
without any objectivity.

If subjectivity is the way THEY want physics, then they have it. I
prefer a more objective approach with an equally objective cosmology.

Have fun!

"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.


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.
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.




| 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 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)?

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, 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".

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?

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

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

| 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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

On this NG, neither of the two are right.
The absolutists do not realize the theory has
relativistic results, and the relativists do not
realize that the theory has absolute roots.

Uwe Hayek.

--
To be controlled in our economic pursuits,
is to be controlled in everything -- F.A.Hayek.

Magna est veritas et praevalebit
(great is truth, and shall prevail)
-- Del Kennedy

Government is not the solution,
government is the problem.
-- Ronald Reagan.

Once a government is committed to the principle of
silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one
way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly
repressive measures, until it becomes a source of
terror to all its citizens and creates a country
where everyone lives in fear.
-- Harry S Truman (1884 - 1972), August 8, 1950

Wie het kleine niet eert, valt op negers.
-- Karin Bloemen

Ik geloof niet meer in Evolutie !
-- Huize Hayek te Heist.

"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. 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.

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

| 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:

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.
|

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.

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.

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.)

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.

On this NG, neither of the two are right.
The absolutists do not realize the theory has
relativistic results, and the relativists do not
realize that the theory has absolute roots.

Uwe Hayek.

--
To be controlled in our economic pursuits,
is to be controlled in everything -- F.A.Hayek.

Magna est veritas et praevalebit
(great is truth, and shall prevail)
-- Del Kennedy

Government is not the solution,
government is the problem.
-- Ronald Reagan.

Once a government is committed to the principle of
silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one
way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly
repressive measures, until it becomes a source of
terror to all its citizens and creates a country
where everyone lives in fear.
-- Harry S Truman (1884 - 1972), August 8, 1950

Wie het kleine niet eert, valt op negers.
-- Karin Bloemen

Ik geloof niet meer in Evolutie !
-- Huize Hayek te Heist.