0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

One second of slow time covers more events than one second of fast time does. Any object overcomes greater distance in a second of the observer with slow time, than overcomes in a second of the observer with fast time. Therefore the measured speed by observer with slow time should be more than the same measured speed by the observer with fast time.

If atomic clock of the first observer ticks more slowly than atomic clock of the second observer ticks, then time of the first observer is slow, time of the second observer is fast. Formula of the law of speeds measurement: time of first observer/time of second observer = measured speed by second observer/measured speed by first observer

Quote from: simplified on 15/07/2010 11:25:08If atomic clock of the first observer ticks more slowly than atomic clock of the second observer ticks, then time of the first observer is slow, time of the second observer is fast. Formula of the law of speeds measurement: time of first observer/time of second observer = measured speed by second observer/measured speed by first observer ...if the space is the same, otherwise your formula is wrong (see relativity).

Quote from: lightarrow on 15/07/2010 16:14:16Quote from: simplified on 15/07/2010 11:25:08If atomic clock of the first observer ticks more slowly than atomic clock of the second observer ticks, then time of the first observer is slow, time of the second observer is fast. Formula of the law of speeds measurement: time of first observer/time of second observer = measured speed by second observer/measured speed by first observer ...if the space is the same, otherwise your formula is wrong (see relativity).I do not think that a traveller relatively of dominant mass sees reduction of distances.

Why do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?

Simplified, in your original questionQuoteWhy do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?What is this "law of speeds measurement" and who's theory is it? It's not anything I've heard of before.

Quote from: JP on 19/07/2010 09:47:51Simplified, in your original questionQuoteWhy do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?What is this "law of speeds measurement" and who's theory is it? It's not anything I've heard of before.I have already received the answer and an interdiction at other forum. My law is wrong for zero speed. Now I only state disagreement with the relativity.

Quote from: simplified on 19/07/2010 16:35:06Quote from: JP on 19/07/2010 09:47:51Simplified, in your original questionQuoteWhy do physicists not recognize law of speeds measurement?What is this "law of speeds measurement" and who's theory is it? It's not anything I've heard of before.I have already received the answer and an interdiction at other forum. My law is wrong for zero speed. Now I only state disagreement with the relativity.So the theory is your own? And you're asking why scientists ignore it?

Since you're asking about a new law of your own, rather than something within standard physics, I'm going to move this to New Theories. If you think it doesn't belong there, please let me know.

Ok. I don't fully understand what your theory is predicting, so its hard to tell you why scientists won't accept it. Usually the problem is that a new theory doesn't agree with what's been observed in experiments or that a new theory does agree, in which case the theory isn't a good model of nature. Relativity (so far) has been found to be in excellent agreement with experiments. What does your theory predict that relativity doesn't? Can you tell me an experiment that I could do to check your theory, and what I should expect to see when I do it?

Ok. I get it now, and lightarrow was right. You're accounting for time going faster and slower between observers, but not for lengths changing. Since speed = length/time, you need to also account for length changes. It's tricky to work out the mathematics for your experiment in terms of general relativity, but it can be done and the results of experiments match relativistic theory.

Nobody saw kinematic contraction of length of dominant mass.