Time dilation distorts c in local frames
Peri of Pera
According to the theory of relativity, changes to the metre due to
motion (length contraction) cannot be observed in the local frame but
events are directly affected by time dilation in the local frame. This
asymmetry leads to the conclusion that the speed of light is
anisotropic.
An object in space is 300000km long and at rest. The local metre is
measured as 1 metre, a second as 1 second and c as 300000km/sec.
The object accelerates to 299999km/sec. The local metre is still
measured as 1 metre but the local second has now an effective value of
only .00258 seconds. To cover the distance of 300000km of the object
from end to end, light needs more time, in fact 387.3 of the new
seconds as against 1 second at rest. Therefore, the speed of light is
reduced to 775km/sec (300000km/387.3sec).
This example makes the assumption that time dilation is immediately and
directly applied in the local frame. The same assumption is made by the
twin paradox where the moving twin experiences time dilation in his own
frame by aging more slowly than his stationary brother. Likewise,
cosmic ray muons can outlive themselves because they are subject to
time dilation. Here again, time dilation is direct rather than being
only observed from another frame and not experienced in the local
frame.
Peter Riedt
Bill Hobba
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1144990104....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Time dilation distorts c in local frames
>
> According to the theory of relativity, changes to the metre due to
> motion (length contraction) cannot be observed in the local frame but
> events are directly affected by time dilation in the local frame. This
> asymmetry leads to the conclusion that the speed of light is
> anisotropic.
Your reasoning escapes me. Please very carefully elaborate.
>
> An object in space is 300000km long and at rest. The local metre is
> measured as 1 metre, a second as 1 second and c as 300000km/sec.
>
> The object accelerates to 299999km/sec. The local metre is still
> measured as 1 metre but the local second has now an effective value of
> only .00258 seconds.
The local second remains exactly the same.
> To cover the distance of 300000km of the object
> from end to end, light needs more time, in fact 387.3 of the new
> seconds as against 1 second at rest. Therefore, the speed of light is
> reduced to 775km/sec (300000km/387.3sec).
The above makes no sense at all. Local meters and clocks behave exactly the
same regardless of how they would be measured in other coordinate systems
Thanks
Bill
Peri of Pera
However it is commonly accepted that in the case of the twin paradox
and the muon decay case, the second in the local frame is dilated and
affects events in its dilated state. I have used the same concept in my
example. If the second in the local frame is dilated with an increase
in v, then the value of c is anisotropic. If the second in the local
frame is not dilated, then the twin paradox and muon decay case are
untenable. We can't have it both ways.
Peter Riedt
Sue...
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1144990104....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Time dilation distorts c in local frames
> >
> > According to the theory of relativity, changes to the metre due to
> > motion (length contraction) cannot be observed in the local frame but
> > events are directly affected by time dilation in the local frame. This
> > asymmetry leads to the conclusion that the speed of light is
> > anisotropic.
>
> Your reasoning escapes me. Please very carefully elaborate.
>
> >
> > An object in space is 300000km long and at rest. The local metre is
> > measured as 1 metre, a second as 1 second and c as 300000km/sec.
> >
> > The object accelerates to 299999km/sec. The local metre is still
> > measured as 1 metre but the local second has now an effective value of
> > only .00258 seconds.
>
<< The local second remains exactly the same. >>
dependence. As an imaginary component (sqrt -1)
the near field of the coupling structure causes local
variations of epsilon and mu to effect an impedance
match to the 377 ohm impedance of free-space.
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
Failing to apply this reactive component to both ends
of the path is the cause of the twin paradox. Retarded
potential becomes advanced potential
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node51.html
...at the absorbing
structure. The causality violations then vanishes.
Sue...
Peri of Pera
I have achieved a great victory. The devotees of SR are stunned into
silence. They know not how to explain the double standard they apply to
the twin paradox and the muon decay question.
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1146367862.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
We are still recovering from the silence you produced to
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dedba50ba8d4c920
The answer to your question is there and in the preceding
message
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/baed92f6feaab615
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Vdm
Peri of Pera
Dirk, I think your answer to my old post in terms of obfuscation is
excellent and what is
to be expected from SR. The real question however is why time dilation
applies in
the local frame of the twin paradox and the muon decay theory but
length contraction
does not. The same standard must be applied to my example.
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
Peri of Pera wrote:
> Time dilation distorts c in local frames
How does a theory with an axoim that says the speed of light is
constant end up showing that c is not constant?
>
> According to the theory of relativity, changes to the metre due to
> motion (length contraction) cannot be observed in the local frame but
> events are directly affected by time dilation in the local frame. This
> asymmetry leads to the conclusion that the speed of light is
> anisotropic.
>
> An object in space is 300000km long and at rest. The local metre is
> measured as 1 metre, a second as 1 second and c as 300000km/sec.
>
> The object accelerates to 299999km/sec. The local metre is still
> measured as 1 metre but the local second has now an effective value of
> only .00258 seconds. To cover the distance of 300000km of the object
> from end to end, light needs more time, in fact 387.3 of the new
> seconds as against 1 second at rest. Therefore, the speed of light is
> reduced to 775km/sec (300000km/387.3sec).
Hint: Distance is not an invariant, it undergoes a transformation
exactly like the transformation that happens to time. Do your
computation again - this time, transform distance *and* time, not just
one.
If you are going to criticise SR, it is best you learn SR before
attempting to do so.
[snip]
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1146619395.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The real answer is in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/baed92f6feaab615
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dedba50ba8d4c920
Don't be a coward.
Dirk Vdm
Peri of Pera
Eric, you didn't grasp the problem. An observer , according to SR,
cannot measure the effects of length contraction in his own frame as
his measuring rod is also contracted. However, in the twin paradox, the
moving twin experiences time dilation in his own frame. In this case,
time dilation applies but length contraction does not. This leads to
the anomaly that time is variant but distance is not and therefore c in
the twin paradox (and the muon decay theory) is variant. Comprende?
Eric Gisse
Your ignorance is the problem, whether you know it or not.
> An observer , according to SR,
> cannot measure the effects of length contraction in his own frame as
> his measuring rod is also contracted. However, in the twin paradox, the
> moving twin experiences time dilation in his own frame.
No, he doesn't.
Relative to itself, an observer is not moving.
> In this case, time dilation applies but length contraction does not.
No, it doesn't.
Furthermore, you can not decouple length and time dilation at will -
either you have both or you have none. Quite frankly you need to take a
look at how the transformation equations in special relativity are
derived and learn what they imply.
But if you want to insist that there is time dilation locally, you will
have to show how an observer - relative to itself - manages to be
moving.
> This leads to the anomaly that time is variant but distance is not and therefore c in
> the twin paradox (and the muon decay theory) is variant. Comprende?
Your conclusion follows from an invalid premise, and is thus wrong.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1146649242.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Peter, you didn't grasp the answer. I told you that you could ask
questions about it.
Dirk Vdm
brian a m stuckless
$$ DiVERGence (disPLACEment) was RELATiVE ..in GR.
$$ There was NO CURL, in GR ..no ANGULAR momentum.
Peri of Pera
Eric, I agree. I was however restating the absurd proposition by the
advocates of the twin paradox that the twin in his own frame
experiences the effects of time dilation by aging less quickly than his
stationary brother. He ages at the same rate and the twin paradox is
not a paradox but a hoax.
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
So proud about your ignorance. You and Henri Wilson would make great
friends.
The traveling twin's clock would be observed to tick slower because of
the time dilation. The traveling twin, while looking at his clock,
would not notice anything.
If you continue to advocate the twin's paradox is a "hoax", you will be
mocked and ridiculed for believing stupid things. You will either leave
or you will stay and post your idiocy over and over. What will it be?
Peri of Pera
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Dirk, we are talking about different things. We can agree only if we
use the same definitions of the fundamentals. My definitions are:
Observed frame = frame which has a different v from frame of observer.
Local frame = frame in which v of observed objects = v of observer.
In an observed frame, L1 and T1 are measured or calculated:
L1 = L*sqrt(1-vv/cc), T1 = T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) (1).
In a local frame, L1 and T1 are measured or experienced:
L1 = L, T1= T (2)
or
L1 = L, T1 = T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) (3).
The usual and consistent application of SR to problems is by (1) and
(2). However in the situation of the twin paradox etc., (3) is used
i.e. length contraction is not applicable but time dilation is applied.
This amounts to SR being inconsistent and the value of c being
different from 300,000km/sec.
Please correct me if I am wrong but keep within the same simple
definitions without using additional maths.
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
NO!
Why do you keep saying that?!
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1146797525.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Dirk, we are talking about different things. We can agree only if we
> use the same definitions of the fundamentals. My definitions are:
>
> Observed frame = frame which has a different v from frame of observer.
> Local frame = frame in which v of observed objects = v of observer.
Sorry, I don't understand this.
Here's how everyone talks about this. I you understand this,
you can talk with everone.
You use coordinates x and t to describe the locations and the
times of events. You are (and stay) at location x = 0.
I use coordinates x' and t' to describe the locations and the
times of the same events. I am and stay at location x' = 0.
We have constant relative velocity v along our common x-
and x'-axis, such that your description of my movement (all
the events that happen on me) is
x = v t ,
and my description of your movement (all the events that
happen on you) is
x' = -v t'
>
> In an observed frame, L1 and T1 are measured or calculated:
> L1 = L*sqrt(1-vv/cc), T1 = T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) (1).
Can you describe your problem in terms of the above?
Make sure that if you measure something, you use unprimed
variables like L and T, and if I measure something, you use
primed variables like L' and T'.
Dirk Vdm
Fredrik Bulow
It's kind a funny really, Peri of Pera has learnt about time dilation
and length contraction but not understood that they both applies at
the same time. Then he starts to reason around his new concepts and
actually provides a good argument proving that both effects must be
applied simultaneously. That is, Pera misunderstood something and now
he has proved that the misunderstanding is wrong... Actually, this is
probably a healthy thing.
/Fredrik
Peri of Pera
Eric, once again, I agree with you. The travelling twin would not
notice anything, neither would he age at a different rate to his
brother. The twin paradox is a hoax.
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
That is wrong, for the same reasons as before.
First, you must understand special relativity. Next, you must
understand how the twins "paradox" is setup. Last, learn about the
tests of special relativity that show the dilation effects to be real.
You are failing the first step. If a twin is traveling, then the rate
of time passage will be different - this is a trivial consequence of
special relativity.
[...]
Peri of Pera
frame will not be different from the time rate experienced by his
brother in his frame. An observer of the travelling twin may measure a
different time rate according to SR but that is irrelevant to what I am
trying to express in this post.
Peter Riedt
[...]
Eric Gisse
Peri of Pera wrote:
[...]
> >
> Eric, The time rate as experienced by the travelling twin in his own
> frame will not be different from the time rate experienced by his
> brother in his frame. An observer of the travelling twin may measure a
> different time rate according to SR but that is irrelevant to what I am
> trying to express in this post.
I'm tired of repeating myself.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/relativ/twin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/specialrelativity/applications/section2.rhtml
>
> Peter Riedt
> [...]
The Ghost In The Machine
A direct comparison is impossible between the twins until they are once
again coincident. The best one can do here is to have them observe each
other using light pulses, which basically generates a ratio of
sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) outbound, and sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) inbound.
Here's how that works, where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2):
Trip Part A B
(Stationary) (Moving)
Outbound L/v L/(gv)
Return L/v L/(gv)
Trip Part A observing B
Outbound observed L/(gv)*sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)=(L/v)(1+v/c)
Return observed L/(gv)*sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)=(L/v)(1-v/c)
Trip Part B observing A
Outbound L/(gv)*sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)=(L/v)(1+v/c)
Return L/(gv)*sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)=(L/v)(1-v/c)
In other words, A watches B go slow for (L/v)(1+v/c), then go fast for
(L/v)(1-v/c) time units; A perceive B to go through 2L/(gv) time units.
B watches A go slow for L/(gv) units, then watches A go fast for L/(gv)
time units, and perceives A to go through 2L/v time units.
Of course each twin can observe his own watch, and will perceive no
difference.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Peri of Pera
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Dirk, I am trying to look at time dilation logically, not
mathematically.
Let me use the example of the twin paradox. The moving twin is at x'
and his events pass at t' while observed by you. He however sees
himself at x and his events pass at t. Is it credible that he has two
ages, one age measured by you (age@t') and one measured by himself
(age@t)? When he returns to his stationary brother, which age is he? Is
this not absurd?
Peter Riedt
Peri of Pera
that the twin paradox is no more than a theoretical exercise to support
the absurd notion that you can travel to faraway stars in one's
lifetime. A hoax.
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
Just because you do not understand something does not mean it is a
Peri of Pera
Peter Riedt
The Ghost In The Machine
Brilliant? It's not even my math. This result was known quite some time
before I wrote it. Perhaps I need to clarify that twin B, in addition to
experiencing bone-crunching acceleration (in most idealized formulations
of the problem), also may notice that his trip does not take as long as
twin A supposed, though he does reach the star and his velocity is correct.
Other calculations, which assume a *very* idealized engine (which takes 25
MeV from the combination of 4 protons), yield an exhaust velocity of about
.115c (throwing away the alpha particle/helium nucleus) and a trip to,
say, Sirius (8 light-years distant), at a speed of about 1/10 c, taking 80
years minus about 5 months because of the relativistic correction. That's
the absolute best Earthly technology can ever do, and we may never get
there because getting 4 protons to fuse is a very tricky problem (most
current fusion projects are attempting deuterium-tritium), plus I've not
compensated for Carnot thermodynamic inefficiencies. Also, acceleration
to 1/10c will take about a month to do comfortably. 3*10^8 m/s / 10 /
(9.805 m/s/s) = 35 days, 10 hours, give or take.
In any event, the Einstein/SR "hoax" has been indirectly verified by a
number of particle experiments, and is ingrained in the design of such
items as the Large Hadron Collider, which stuffs 7 TeV protons into a
path that takes them just a smidge below lightspeed. They should be going
many times (120x, by my calculations using a naive Newtonian model) the
speed of light.
It is also ingrained into the Global Positioning System, though the math
is more complex than SR can handle; General Relativity has to enter the
picture. A correction factor of 4.4647 * 10^-10 seconds per second is
expected there.
[.sigsnip]
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1147073954.4...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Then you should not use equations and variables, but words only,
yet you still use variables in the following:
>
> Let me use the example of the twin paradox. The moving twin is at x'
> and his events pass at t' while observed by you.
No. I (the 'moving' twin) use variables x' and t' to describe where
and when events happen.
> He however sees
> himself at x
No, I see myself always at location x' = 0.
You see me at a location x = v t while I recede from you
and (for some L) at a location x = L - v t while I return to you.
> and his events pass at t.
... and you (the stay at home twin) use variables x and t to describe
where and when events happen.
You clearly have no idea what the variables represent, let alone what
the equations tell us. Try to either understand them (- which is what
I'm trying to help you do -), or just avoid using them altogether in
the future.
> Is it credible that he has two
> ages, one age measured by you (age@t') and one measured by himself
> (age@t)? When he returns to his stationary brother, which age is he? Is
> this not absurd?
If you go from A to B via C, and I go via D, then our odometers show
different distances between A and B. This is not absurd. It has to do
with the way we measure things.
According to my clock I have been away 10 hours but according to yours
I have been away 10.000000000005 hours. I don't see anything absurd
about that. Something similar has been actually measured:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
under 5. Tests of the Twin Paradox
It might be a bit counter-intuitive alright, but I wouldn't call it absurd.
I'm sure you don't find the strange behaviour of a spinning top absurd
either.
Dirk Vdm
Peri of Pera
Fred, I didn't really misunderstand it but tried to point out that
there is a double standard. In the local frame both contraction and
dilation cannot be experienced and therefore the returning twin in the
twin paradox never exceeds his natural lifespan neither does the
decaying space muon.
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1147147567.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Indeed, the twin paradox never exceeds his natural lifespan
neither does the decaying space muon.
If you understood what the contraction and the dilation really
mean, you wouldn't write this. Is there any reason why you
don't try to understand the help I offered in this respect?
Dirk Vdm
Hexenmeister
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:u4X7g.415078$CN3.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| If you understood what the contraction and the dilation really
| mean, you wouldn't write this. Is there any reason why you
| don't try to understand the help I offered in this respect?
|
| Dirk Vdm
Dork? Help? ahahaha.. HAHAHAHA... hahahaha...
Androcles
Peri of Pera
Dirk, I agree with you that the times of the brother at home and the
travelling brother as calculated under the dogma of SR differs by five
nanoseconds per second. The mathematical calculation cannot however be
accepted as proof that the ageing of the travelling twin is retarded by
any speed of his space vehicle. He ages at the same rate as everything
else in the universe, stationary or not. A star is 10 billion years
old. Please tell me, what is the real age of the star if it is speeding
away from our planet at .9c?
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1147244481....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Of course the calculation cannot be accepted as a proof.
What gave you that silly idea?
The calculation just shows what the theory is telling you.
A theory cannot be proven. It can unly be unproven. It was
created to be consistent with what we have noticed about
the world:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
But I know that you are not impressed by that. That is of
course your right. After all, they didn't land on the moon
either, did they?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/MoonLanding/MoonLanding.html
> He ages at the same rate as everything
> else in the universe, stationary or not. A star is 10 billion years
> old. Please tell me, what is the real age of the star if it is speeding
> away from our planet at .9c?
Exercise:
What do *you* think it would be "as calculated under the dogma of SR"?
Hint: the answer is not just "22.9 billion years".
Dirk Vdm
Peri of Pera
Dirk, I choose not to believe the dogmas of SR and need not to
understand all the mathematical contortions of that belief system. The
fundamentals of SR defy logic. The MMX experiment on which the Lorentz
contraction theory is based has been misinterpreted as I have
demonstrated a number of times in this newsgroup.
You are free to believe what you like but SR stands in the way of
scientific progress. In respect of my question to you, why do you evade
and sidestep?
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
Peri of Pera wrote:
[...]
>
> Dirk, I choose not to believe the dogmas of SR and need not to
> understand all the mathematical contortions of that belief system. The
> fundamentals of SR defy logic. The MMX experiment on which the Lorentz
> contraction theory is based has been misinterpreted as I have
> demonstrated a number of times in this newsgroup.
>From this I can safely conclude:
a) You do not understand special relativity.
b) You do not like mathematics.
c) You are arrogant enough to believe you are the only one who can
correctly an experiment that is over a century old and has been
repeated countless times at higher sensitivities.
>
> You are free to believe what you like but SR stands in the way of
> scientific progress. In respect of my question to you, why do you evade
> and sidestep?
What is it with cranks and the undying belief that they are smarter
than over a century of physicists?
>
> Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1147335563.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
No one is asking you to believe anything. Some people
are trying to help you to get rid of your misunderstandings.
> The
> fundamentals of SR defy logic.
Since you obviously have no idea what the fundamentals
of SR are to begin with, I really think you are not well
placed to judge their value, let alone their logic. Logic has
nothing to do with fundamentals of a theory. Logic is used
to deduce predictions from the fundamantals. It seems that
you also have a problem with the concept of science in
general.
> The MMX experiment on which the Lorentz
> contraction theory is based has been misinterpreted as I have
> demonstrated a number of times in this newsgroup.
Well, the only thing that you really have publicly demonstrated,
is that you really have no idea what you are talking about, and
judging by your attitude, I'm afraid that you have a very long
way to go.
>
> You are free to believe what you like but SR stands in the way of
> scientific progress. In respect of my question to you, why do you evade
> and sidestep?
Exercise:
What do *you* think would be the answer "as calculated under
the dogma of SR"?
First hint:
The answer is not just "22.9 billion years".
Second hint:
The answer is no just "4.27 billion light years" either.
Requirement:
Use at least 100 and at most 200 words for your answer.
You don't have to use equations, but if you do, you can
use between 150 and 250 words, but make sure that you
clearly specify the physical meaning of all the variables.
Only if you can do this, you can demonstrate that you
understand "the dogma of SR" to begin with.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1147335563.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
No one is asking you to believe anything. Some people
are trying to help you to get rid of your misunderstandings.
> The
> fundamentals of SR defy logic.
Since you obviously have no idea what the fundamentals
of SR are to begin with, I really think you are not well
placed to judge their value, let alone their logic. Logic has
nothing to do with fundamentals of a theory. Logic is used
to deduce predictions from the fundamantals. It seems that
you also have a problem with the concept of science in
general.
> The MMX experiment on which the Lorentz
> contraction theory is based has been misinterpreted as I have
> demonstrated a number of times in this newsgroup.
Well, the only thing that you really have publicly demonstrated,
is that you really have no idea what you are talking about, and
judging by your attitude, I'm afraid that you have a very long
way to go.
>
> You are free to believe what you like but SR stands in the way of
> scientific progress. In respect of my question to you, why do you evade
> and sidestep?
Exercise:
What do *you* think would be the answer "as calculated under
the dogma of SR"?
Hexenmeister
[snip]
Fucking schizophrenic psychopathic local Waterloo village moron.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/xorimpliesor.PNG
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.PNG
Mission accomplished.
Androcles
Hexenmeister
Peri of Pera
Dirk, it is apparent that you run out of arguments and resort to
attacking me rather than credibly defending SR. As for my question
about the age of the star, please answer it yourself instead of
throwing it back at me. I think you do not want to expose yourself to
ridicule if your answer is anything other than 10 billion years.
Peter Riedt
Peri of Pera
Eric, with the mentality of people like you, we would still be told to
believe
that the earth is flat and the sun is the centre of the universe etc.
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1147404191.2...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter, I don't have to defend SR. There is nothing to defend.
I am trying to *help* you understand it.
> As for my question
> about the age of the star, please answer it yourself instead of
> throwing it back at me. I think you do not want to expose yourself to
> ridicule if your answer is anything other than 10 billion years.
As I suggested, the best way to show that you understand the
"fundamentals of SR", is by showing that you indeed understand
what the answer is according to the "fundamentals of SR".
So try give it an honest try:
Exercise:
What do *you* think would be the answer "as calculated under
the dogma of SR"?
First hint:
The answer is not just "22.9 billion years".
Second hint:
The answer is no just "4.27 billion years" either.
Requirement:
Use at least 100 and at most 200 words for your answer.
You don't have to use equations, but if you do, you can
use between 150 and 250 words, but make sure that you
clearly specify the physical meaning of all the variables.
Use the opportunity.
Dirk Vdm
Peri of Pera
Dirk, I have said before that everything in the universe ages at the
same rate.
The star is observed at 10billion years old and that is the correct
age. If you have a
different idea please tell and why.
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1147487483.5...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
> > > > > > "Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1147244481....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > He ages at the same rate as everything
> > > > > > > else in the universe, stationary or not. A star is 10 billion years
> > > > > > > old. Please tell me, what is the real age of the star if it is speeding
> > > > > > > away from our planet at .9c?
[snip]
> Dirk, I have said before that everything in the universe ages at the
> same rate. The star is observed at 10billion years old and that is the correct
> age. If you have a
> different idea please tell and why.
Judging my previous replies to you and the way you ignored
them, it is clear that merely telling you what my idea is and why,
is a waste of both my and your time.
Yes, I know, you said that "everything in the universe ages at the
same rate", and that you think that "SR stands in the way of
scientific progress" and that the "fundamentals of SR defy logic".
Then you asked "Please tell me, what is the real age of the star
if it is speeding away from our planet at .9c?"
So I give you the perfect opportunity to show that you are not
merely opposing some *misunderstandings* about SR with its
fundamentals and/or the logic that is used to make deductions
from these fundamentals.
If you do your part of the job, I will do mine.
So, again, this is your exercise:
Don't repeat what the age is according to you - we know that and
why - but what do *you* think would be the answer "as calculated
under the dogma of SR"?
First hint:
The answer is not just "22.9 billion years".
Second hint:
The answer is no just "4.27 billion years" either.
Requirement:
Use at least 100 and at most 200 words for your answer.
You don't have to use equations, but if you do, you can
use between 150 and 250 words, but make sure that you
clearly specify the physical meaning of all the variables.
We can work from here.
Dirk Vdm
Hexenmeister
First hint: For a shithead who thinks "xor implies or" you couldn't fucking
work.
Androcles.
Peri of Pera
Dirk,
I don't know how much a star
measured by astronomers as 10billion years old
and speeding away at .9c
is older or younger according to
SR's time dilation theory
but if you explain it to me
I would appreciate it.
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1147575618.3...@d71g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Indeed you don't know. Otherwise you would have made the
exercise 4 days ago. It's a good thing that you already admit
that you have difficulty making the exercise.
Yet you do seem to know that "SR stands in the way of scientific
progress" and that the "fundamentals of SR defy logic". I hope
that you also admit that something doesn't add up here.
> but if you explain it to me
> I would appreciate it.
Elsewhere on this thread I already have explained and pointed
to everything you need to make the exercise. It is all there.You
just have to put it together into a coherent statement.
Don't be shy - give it a try. Show how the consequences of the
fundamentals of SR stand in the way of scientific progress.
Show your work.
Dirk Vdm
Peri of Pera
Dirk, please try to find the answer to my question.
Hint1: It is not 22.9B years
Hint2: It is not 4.27B years
Hint3: 4.27B is closer than 22.9B.
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peri of Pera" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1147744442.6...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Dirk, please try to find the answer to my question.
> Hint1: It is not 22.9B years
> Hint2: It is not 4.27B years
> Hint3: 4.27B is closer than 22.9B.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RiedtTroll.html
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
We are. You are obviously unfamiliar with the flat earth folks.
It is just that nobody listens to those people anymore, much like how
nobody listens to anti-relativity kooks anymore.
>
> Peter Riedt
Peri of Pera
Eric, I still have only one question: If time dilation cannot be
measured or ascertained in the local frame, why is it possible that the
effect of time dilation is experienced in their respective local frames
by the moving twin in the twin paradox and space muons in the
atmosphere?
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
They are measuring the time dilation of everyone else.
It isn't called relativity for nothing.
>
> Peter Riedt