Re: Time Dilation flaw: Reciprocity is a liability not a feature.
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: Ben Bean: "Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong"
- Previous message: DavidBowman: "Re: Why being Real Smart SUCKS"
- In reply to: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Time Dilation flaw: Reciprocity is a liability not a feature."
- Next in thread: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Time Dilation flaw: Reciprocity is a liability not a feature."
- Reply: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Time Dilation flaw: Reciprocity is a liability not a feature."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:36:27 GMT
<guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107895871.895640.151570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > <guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1107865623.051875.184980@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Time Dilation Flaw:
> > >
> > >
> > > LAW 1. Relativity Liability: we cannot specify a specific Newtonian
> > > velocity to either twin. Example twin1 is traveling 10km/s and
> twin2 is
> > > traveling 40km/s is illegal. (Only that there is a difference of
> 30km/s
> > > between the twins is correct).
> >
> > Sure it is possible have a set up where one can only specify the
> relative
> > velocity of the two twins - but we can detect by the presence of
> forces
> > acceleration which twin is accelerating.
> >
>
> Ohhhh is it Houdini! Are you drunk. It's old school in terms of
> Relativity you can't specify a velocity to any object. In Newton
> Mecanics you can.
In the so called twin paradox it looks like you are considering one can
always measure ones velocity relative to the other twin. But only one twin
will experience forces of acceleration.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > LAW 2. Relativity Liability: There is no + or - vector to velocity
> > > therefor it is a liability to specify if a twin is accelerating or
> > > decelerating.
> > > (only that there's a change in velocity is correct otherwise it
> would
> > > be an Absolute space infringement).
> >
> > ?????????????. It is possible (eg using accelerometers) to detect
> forces of
> > acceleration.
>
> Really now.
Yes really. Have you any actual constructive comment to make?
Bill
>
> >
> > >
> > > LAW 3. In Relativity RECIPROCITY (meaning vice-versa) is a
> LIABLILITY
> > > and not a FEATURE:
> >
> > ???????????
> >
> > It might be a good idea to express yourself more clearly - then it is
> > possible any problems you have may not arise.
> >
> > Rest snipped.
> >
> > Bill
>
- Next message: Ben Bean: "Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong"
- Previous message: DavidBowman: "Re: Why being Real Smart SUCKS"
- In reply to: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Time Dilation flaw: Reciprocity is a liability not a feature."
- Next in thread: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Time Dilation flaw: Reciprocity is a liability not a feature."
- Reply: guskz_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Time Dilation flaw: Reciprocity is a liability not a feature."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|