Re: TIME DILATION


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20qmr3-9o2.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:19:56 GMT
| <gJ1Gg.131812$F8.1161@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:2igmr3-fk1.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, YBM
| > | <ybmess@xxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:27:15 +0200
| > | <44e87e98$0$19773$636a55ce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > Sorcerer a écrit :
| > | >> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message
| > | >> news:ejskr3-csk.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > ...
| > | >> | Doesn't quite work that way. 1 eV is the charge of 1 electron
moving
| > | >> | through a field difference of 1 volt. This is a unit of energy.
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >> Ok :-)
| > | >> Just wondered if you knew. So 2,000,000,000 V, 100,000 metres,
| > | >
| > | > Disgusting hypocrite...
| > |
| > | He is what he is. For the most part he's also wrong. :-)
| > | Yet no one can effectively refute him since he comes up
| > | with the most outlandish arguments (without any basis in
| > | experimental fact), though the lurkers who know something
| > | will probably be able to make up their own minds with
| > | any luck -- if they've not killfiled me or him already.
| >
| > That's ok, show me the experimental basis for the most outlandish
| > arguments in SR, disgusting hypocrite. For the whole part, you
| > are wrong and Your Basic Moron was killfiled a long time ago.
|
| Noted.
|
| >
| >
| > | Dirk, to his credit, has catalogued some of them; I hope
| > | he's catalogging his latest fumbles. An interesting
| > | notion, generating a muon mass 2/5th of an electron's,
| > | for example; presumably this has been measured to death
| > | in cloud chambers.
| > |
| > | I'm not sure what to do about AQL1493. This is equal to a "proof"
| > | that c'=c+v only in the way that a firefly is equal to the Sun
| > | in light ability.
| >
| > HAHAHAHA! Too funny.
| >
| > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant" -
Tom
| > Roberts
|
| Ah, so AQL1493 *disproves* SR/GR and thereby *proves* Newtonian theory?

V 1493 Aql does, yes. Not that you would understand what a proof is,
since your mentality is to read Dork Van de merde's *** and approve
of his crap.
So just go on believing the firefly blows up twice in three months,
Santa puts prezzies under your tree, the tooth fairy gives you
money and Jesus wants you for a sunbeam.
http://www.gospelmusic.org.uk/kids/ill_be_a_sunbeam.htm
You'd probably make quite a good sunbeam for about 5 seconds.
Pray for your kinetic energy in going around the sun to be removed
so that you drop in the sun and Jesus can have his wish.
As you say, you are not a physicist.


| I might buy the first, though it would have to be convincing evidence,

Nonsense. Nothing can overcome faith or bigotry. You do not have
what it takes to be convinced. Try convincing the Pope that Jesus
was not born of a virgin. The best you can manage is "How do you
know he wasn't?" and I'm damned if I'm going to argue the case
with you. How do you know your calculator won't come up with
2+2= 3 tomorrow?
I give up with you, shithead.

| tied together with other observations from other stars that show a
| similar disproof of SR/GR. Proving Newtonian theory has the same
| problems as proving any theory: one can at best show evidence therefore,
| but not prove it except in a highly theoretical sense. For now, the
| question of AQL1493's behavior remains unresolved because of lack of data.

Jesus want you for a sunbeam. The behaviour of dropping 180 lbs of water,
carbon, calcium and trace elements into the sun remains unresolved because
of lack of data so I don't know if you'll be a UV bright sunbeam
or an ordinary green one, still wet behind the ears.


| Bear also in mind that many atomic and subatomic experiments show
| fairly convincing evidence for SR,

I will not bear it in mind because SR is ***, like you. I've explained why.



and specifications such as those
| for the Large Hadron Collider assume SR, for whatever reason.
|
| This includes lab muon creation.
|
| And then there are interesting neutron star pairs which show good
| evidence for general relativity. One such is PSR J0737-3039.
|
| http://www.atnf.csiro.au/news/press/neutron_binary/
|
| I'm satisfied that SR is for the most part mathematically consistent.
| I lack the tools to check GR because I do not know tensors. Newtonian
| theory has some problems, especially in light of the MMX, though I'll
| have to find some data on pointing an MMX apparatus at a *moving*
| source; MMX pointing at a still source cannot differentiate between
| SR and frictionless aether theory (or for that matter constant-source
| non-aether theory, if you prefer).
|
| However, I can also point at a rather sophisticated GR experiment that
| involved bouncing radio waves off Venus. Or:
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
|
| B. Bertotti, L. Iess and P. Tortora, "A test of general relativity
using
| radio links with the Cassini spacecraft", Nature 425, 374 (2003)
|
| is one that might interest you. There is also the LATOR mission:
|
| Turyshev, Slava G.; Shao, Michael; Nordtvedt Jr, Kenneth (2003-11-07)
| In Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 2773 (2004)
|
| which is presumably an improvement over
|
| K. Nordtvedt, Testing relativity with laser ranging to the moon",
| Phys. Rev." 170 1186-7 (1968).

<yawn>





| >
| > I'm not sure what to do about the firefly, it is better the moon in
light
| > ability, the moon has none.
| >
|
| The moon generates plenty of "light" in the gamma wavelengths -- more
| than the Sun, in fact.

Does it?
|
| For what it's worth.

Probably more than a firefly.

|
| http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tutorial/sources/moon.html
|
| > | In any event, mass = energy to some extent, if only because
| > | one can pass a photon near an atom and "split" it into an
| > | electron-positron pair, and vice versa. The conversion factors
| > | are well known, or should be.
| >
| > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant" -
Tom
| > Roberts
| > (or should be, probably, disgusting hypocrite)
| > Ghost, to his debit, is hypocritical enough to require physical proof
| > when it suits him but willingly accepts a mathematical paper without
proof.
|
| One cannot prove using a mathematical paper. You should know; your
| attempts are laughable.

Dork is between a rock and a hard place. Had he the balls to
correct my "error" he'd have been trapped by his own ***
just as Tusselad was when I had him claim

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

The genius passes himself off as "Assistant Professor".
Not that you would understand at your level of algebra, but
v = xi/tau. That's too subtle for you.


| All I can do is point out at evidence, which
| for whatever reason you're either ignoring or have already analyzed in
| detail (incorrectly, I might add, in many cases -- I'll admittedly have
| to look for them but Dirk has some of them on file).

I don't give a *** what Dork has on file. I've got a file on Dork,
a file on Roberts, a file on Baez, a file on Bilewacky, a file on Phuckwit
Duck, a file on Bilge... need I go on?
The difference is I don't continually tout it, I'm interested
in physics, not shitheads.
You've got no evidence or brain either. You are just another ignorant
bigot.



|
| > His prejudice shows, though the lurkers who know something will
probably
| > be able to make up their own minds without luck being involved, and
| > those that know nothing will continue to have their prejudices with
luck.
| > Androcles
| >
|
| Ah, of course. I'm the prejudiced one here, and you're not.

Correct. You are the bigot, not I.


|
| Well, there is something to that; I've been prejudiced by our
| educational system and my brain has been ruined by reading
| various news releases and the occasional textbook. Of course,
| you appear to be prejudiced against SR. Why is that?
|
| Is it because:
|
| - you refuse to consider that t' != t?
Considered and rejected, leads to well-known paradox.

| - you refuse to consider that w != (u+v)?
Yes. Vector addition of velocities is an axiom.

| - you refuse to consider that c' = c?
No, v can be zero, but c = 0/0 in SR.

Of course, you appear to be prejudiced in favour of SR. Why is that?

Is it because:

- you prefer to believe w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) because you have your
head up your arse and (1+15)/(1+1*15/1^2) = 1 and not 1+15 = 16?

With some help from section 3, of course, which uses t = x'/(c-v)
and not t = x' / [ (c-v)/(1-v/c) ] to be consistent, shithead.

Androcles





.