Re: Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- From: glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gregory L. Hansen)
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:01:26 +0000 (UTC)
In article <b8WdnRvEhNvVLnbenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Spaceman <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dsgb82$7b1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In article <45Gdnb-y5PIqOHbeRVn-qQ@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
| Spaceman <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >
| >"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| >news:dsg7id$5iq$5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >| In article <RdqdnYdeGLGJknTeRVn-oA@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
| >| Spaceman <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >| >Please figure supposed actual speeds if using time dilation
| >| >if you dare.
| >| >:)
| >| >
| >| >0.999c = what speed according to time dilation?
| >|
| >| 0.999c
| >|
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >0.7c = what speed according to time dilation?
| >|
| >| 0.7c
| >|
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >0.5c = what speed according to time dilation?
| >|
| >| 0.5c
| >|
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >0.3c = what speed according to time dilation?
| >|
| >| 0.3c
| >|
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >0.1c = what speed accordingto time dilation?
| >|
| >| 0.1c
| >
| >
| >Very good,
| >A person that knows time dilation is full of crap.
| >It will not matter how much the objects in motions
| >clock goof up because it is simply that....
| >a clock malfunction, not a rate of time change itself.
| >If it were a rate of time change, the speeds would not
| >be the same in thier own reference frame.
| >
| >:)
| >
| >
|
|
| You and I have a different interpretation of what those answers mean. The
| numbers I gave were derived from Einstein's special theory of relativity.
The numbers you gave are the physical speeds.
If you use time dilation for such numbers you are just being silly.
and will come up with incorrect speeds since
time dilation is a simple clock malfunction, not a physical reality
change.
The standard of time measurement is based upon a stationery
frame on Earth, using a moving frame relative to Earth frame of reference
is just plain wrong and not standard anymore at all.
:)
Speed in relativity is still the distance traveled divided by the elapsed
time. But to "use time dilation" is silly because dividing a distance
traveled as measured in one frame by an elapsed time as measured in a
different frame is meaningless. If you're the one making the measurement,
then use the distance you measure and the time you measure. If I'm the
one making the measurement then I'll use the distance I measure and the
time that I measure.
--
"Coincidences, in general, are great stumbling blocks in the way of that
class of thinkers who have been educated to know nothing of the theory of
probabilities." -- Edgar Allen Poe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- References:
- Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- From: Spaceman
- Re: Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- From: Gregory L. Hansen
- Re: Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- From: Spaceman
- Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- Prev by Date: Re: Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- Next by Date: Re: Is it our math letting us down?
- Previous by thread: Re: Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- Next by thread: Re: Anyone want to have fun with time dilation calculations?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|