Re: Time Machine

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:13:08 GMT

"Theo Wollenleben" <alpha0x89@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:ci8stg$71l$1@mlucom4.urz.uni-halle.de...
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > "Theo Wollenleben" <alpha0x89@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:ci64t8$ae4$1@mlucom4.urz.uni-halle.de...
| >
| >>I believe that the name time dilation comes from the idea, that
| >>according to the formula
| >>
| >>t' = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| >>
| >>the shorter time t' (< t) is "dilated" to connect the two events where
| >>the twins compare their clocks.
| >>
| >>I have in mind the picture of two rubber bands of different length l'<l.
| >>When two points in space have the distance l, then we needn't stretch
| >>the longer band to connect these point. But we have to stretch the
| >>shorter band to do so. Though this band is the shorter one it is the one
| >>which is dilated.
| >
| > I think that, when talking about time dilation, most people have
| > a moving clock in mind. The time measured by you (t') between
| > two ticks on the travelling clock is longer that the time (t) between
| > those ticks measured on the clock itself, hence
| > t' = t / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

ROFLMAO!
What an im-moortel FUMBLE from the fumble-mumbling dog turd itself!
Let's put some numbers to his idiocy.
Let the two ticks by the hourly measuring moving clock be at 12:00pm and
1:00pm according to the clocks.
Let the two ticks by the hourly measuring stationary clock be at 12:00pm and
1:00pm.
Let the 12.00pm tick of each be simultaneous, which can only be when the
clocks are adjacent.
Proof:
"It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the
definition of ``time'' by substituting ``the position of the small hand of
my watch'' for ``time.'' And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when
we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the
watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect
in time series of events occurring at different places, or--what comes to
the same thing--to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote
from the watch. " - Einstein.

So the moving clock goes merrily on its way at 0.866c, but who knows whether
the stationary clock ticks its 1:00pm before the moving clock ticks 1:00pm?
What shall we do? Look at it through a telescope perhaps? Have it flash
some light at its 1:00pm tick? That's OWLS. It'll take 0.866 hours (at
least) after 1:00pm to see it, so time on the moving clock is not measured
by the stationary clock.
Can't do that, OWLS been argued out of existence over and over on this ng.

Calculate it? Ok, let's try it.
sqrt(1-0.866c/c) = 0.5 when I went to school.
(I had 20 years of education, I passed 10th grade twice :-)

2 hours = 1 hour * 0.5... nope... that doesn't work.
1 hour = 2 hours / 0.5... nope... that doesn't work.
1 hour = 2 hours * 0.5 .... seems to be ok.
So...
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Well, as I've said before,
t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - given by Einstein,
and since we now have
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) ,
it follows that
(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
hence
t-vx/c^2= t * (1 - v^2/c^2)
and
t-vx/c^2= t - t.v^2/c^2.
Subracting t and then multiplying by -1,
vx/c^2 = t.v^2/c^2.
Cancelling c^2,
vx = t.v^2
and dividing by v,
x = tv.

Sanity check:
t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - given by Arsehole Einstein,
substituting for x,
t' = (t-tv^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
   = t(1-v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
   = t* sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
as before.

The moronic trolls moortel and assistant teacher Andersen both deny that
x = vt in SR, believing x can be arbitrarily chosen. It only displays how
idiotic they are.

If the moving clock runs slow, it will tick it's 1:00pm at 2:00pm by the
stationary clock.
" The time measured by you (t') between two ticks on the travelling clock [1
hour] is longer that the time (t) [2 hours] between those ticks measured on
the clock itself [1 hour]."
So according to Dinky the Deranged, one hour is longer than two hours.
Let's see if the spermless dog turd has the balls to place it's own fumble
on it's website. It won't of course. Dog turds never do. It only posts what
it thinks are fumbles by others.
That's a proof that Dinky really is a deranged dog turd without a clue.

But how do we know when the tick occurred? Trust the calculation?
That hasn't proved it. We need to check by some other method for
consistency.

Bring it back again? Hmm... that's the twin paradox. Of course we'll have to
use some infinite acceleration, but that can be overcome by having a third
clock fly by in the opposite direction. This is after all only a gedanken,
Einstein said so.

Let's try it.
The tick frequency is one tick per hour, by definition.
The Einstein doppler equation is
f' = f.sqrt([1-v/c]/[1+v/c]) outbound and
f' = f.sqrt([1+v/c]/[1-v/c]) inbound.
It has to be, we reversed the sign of v, and unless anyone doesn't believe
in blue shift and red shift, those equations are correct according to A.
Einstein.
Anyone got a calculator?
f' = f.sqrt([1-0.866]/[1.866]) = 0.268 outbound
and 3.732 inbound.
3.732 + 0.268 = 4 ticks total from the moving clock.
Time for the round trip by the stationary clock, now reading 4:00pm?
Time for the moving clock, after issuing 4 ticks?
Yes, it is 4 hours for each.
Using the idiot Einstein's own 1/2(t1 + t2) = t1,
The moving clock showed 2:00pm when the stationary clock showed
2:00pm.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

| I agree on the physical content,

Then you agree with bull***.

 but your notation differs from the
| usual convention.

Dinky de Torquemada is a useless giggling idiot that doesn't know his arse
from his elbow, and farts out of his mouth constantly. His incompetence
knows no bounds.

|
| > and hence dilation...
|
| I disagree. The common notation is t' for the time of the moving clock
| and t for the observer in the rest frame. Then the formula reads:
|
| t' = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Quite correct, but it disagrees with Einstein's own doppler shift. Therefore
SR is NOT self consistent.
So what went wrong?
========================================
              The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.

For quotations following, reference:
 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
 ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.

2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

3) 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)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
  tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
  xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
 "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
========================================

|
| From the observer in the rest frame the time of the moving clock (t')
| seems to be stretched (or "dilated") compared to his own time.

Not by this observer it doesn't, and not by Newton or Doppler either.
Einstein was an idiot.

|
| Think of a video in slow motion: time slows down - it is stretched.
| If
| someone is still not convinced about the meaning of the word "time
| dilation" he may ask an expert:
|
| "Now, special relativity predicts (and it is in fact very well
| confirmed) the phenomenon called 'time dilation', which simply means
| that a clock in motion relative to an observer seems to run slower than
| a stationary clock; that is, the seconds on the moving clock seem to get
| 'stretched out'"
| (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae260.cfm)

An expert moron, of course. For a real expert opinion on the meaning of
dilation, consult an English Professor, not a dumb relativist. Or any
dictionary will do. Still, you don't have a problem with the meaning of
words or equations the way the stupid moron moortel does. I'd be kinder to
him and show some pity for it's weak mind, but it's such a bombastic stupid
*** calling other people "dog turd" that I'd as soon step on it and
suffer the stink to clean it off my shoe.

|
| > You see rubber bands... hm... perhaps you have Eugen Shubert's
| > Shubertian clock in mind? :-)
|
| I feel the need to to emphasize that my rubber bands may not be
| interpreted as a colossal clock. They have no physical meaning in
| Special Relativity.
|
| I was only visualizing how something that is shorter can be called
| "dilated".

Trying to visualize the impossible is of course possible,
or we'd have no sci-fi.
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long
breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe
impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your
age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as
many as six impossible things before breakfast." - Lewis Carroll.

Androcles.

Quantcast