Re: Is time dilation real?


"jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jgreen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138264295.025952.207780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Androcles wrote:
>
>> "jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jgreen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1138259940.695592.173830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Gary Matthews wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ahh now i understand what jgreenfield was saying.
>> >>
>> >> Ok but here i now have a problem. If gravity can focus light one would
>> >> assume that light aproaching a dense mass with a large gravity field
>> >> would also be accelerated and on passing the outer edge of the mass
>> >> decelerate. If the light is accelerated and decelerates before and
>> >> after passing massive object/s
>> >> would it return to the speed or is the deviation from its original
>> >> course (turn velocity) replacing forward velocity effectivly leaving
>> >> the orignal speed unchaged?
>> >
>> > You got it! The direction of the photon is altered by the fly-by of the
>> > mass, but its speed is unaltered per Newton, and conservation of the
>> > energy of the photon. Trace back the direction from which the photon
>> > APPEARS to strike the eye, and the correct reason for gravitational
>> > lensing is understood.
>>
>> Ever seen two fish swimming side-by-side in a rectangular tank?
>> They mimic each others movements perfectly.
>> Of course you have to look through the front glass and the side glass
>> of the tank at the same time, because if you look through only the
>> front glass one of them disappears! Magic fish, I call 'em. How do
>> they do that?
>> Androcles.
>> x' = x-vt
>> c' = c-v
>
> Not to mention the infinite (or c) velocities they obtain!
> Change your angle of view slightly, and voila', they are at the
> opposite end of the tank.
> lol
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
> (PS: MY (c+v) >> than YOUR (c-v) :-) )

"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v."

Don't rob Einstein of the little bit he did get right, use it to blast
relativists instead.
There is nothing better than using their own ammunition against them.
This is what killed Uncle Al.

Einstein:
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))
Reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


Proof "Uncle Al" cannot read:
"BTW, you ***-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it. Hey Androcyst, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling
alley." --Schwartz the fucking imbecile.

Ya gotta love "nor could it", but it must be stated that Einstein only uses
it a couple of times, he's forced to.

Needless to say I blitzkreiged Schwartz and he vanished in a flood of
"River of ***, FOaD" Now THAT was funny. Ten years of drool
down the fucking sewer, victories don't come much sweeter than that. :-)
The sad part is the guy is a chemist. He only imagines he's a mathematician
and physicist.

Androcles.
x' = x-vt
c' = c-v




.

Quantcast