The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.

From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Subject:
 Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.

More options Apr 26 2012, 4:57 pm
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
From: "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Apr 26 2012 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: There is no absolute time dilation or physical length contraction.
On Apr 26, 12:30 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/26/12 8:12 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> > On Apr 26, 8:53 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 4/24/12 9:08 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> >>> Too bad for you....I am light years ahead of you in smart.

> >>     You don't even understand concepts of motion, Seto!

> > ROTFLOL....pot kettle black. Relative motion between two objects is
> > the vector difference of their absolute motions. Gee you are so stupid.

>    Seto consider two points, T and B representing the top and bottom
>    of the building from which Pound and Rebka conducted their famous
>    experiment.

>    Chose one or the other as the origin of an inertial frame coordinate
>    system. This is an important step you often misunderstand, Seto!

No this is not an important step. The important step is to measure the
frequency of the distant source. If there is a difference between the
incoming light than the frequency of the observer's identical source
then there is relative motion between them.

>    The displacement vector, s, between T and B has magnitude and
>    direction. Note that v = ds/dt = zero and there *is no relative
>    motion* between T and B. End of story.