Post by: guest39538 on 21/03/2019 09:52:34
ls.jpg (15.79 kB . 375x253 - viewed 6125 times)Post by: guest39538 on 21/03/2019 15:38:51
Post by: mad aetherist on 22/03/2019 22:56:20
Both observers experience the exact same amount of light seconds.I dont understand the diagram etc. But i understand the heading -- Killing Time Dilation -- so i will comment.
There is no such thing as time, hencely no such thing as time dilation. Or, there is such a thing as time, it is the present instant, & this is universal, but it cant be dilated.
It would be ok to talk of ticking dilation, ie where processes are slowed by something, the slowing being due primarily to the speed of the clock etc relative to the aether. Here that V is inserted up Lorentz's equation for gamma.
Slowing in ticking might be exactly as described by Lorentz's gamma. But i doubt it. I thing that Lorentz's gamma might apply directly to micro ticking (eg atomic clocks), but i doubt that it can be applied directly to macro ticking.
Macro ticking is i think affected indirectly by Lorentz's gamma -- here gamma is merely applied to one or more dimensions of the macro process (the dimensions are contracted by LLC). Then the macro ticking changes according to whether it is a pendulum ticktock or a balance wheel ticktock or a tuning fork quartz ticktock etc.
Observers are of course just such a macro process.
I would think that the observer's tickerthalamus is a macro thing & has a complicated macro equation for ticking.
An observer ant would feel ticking & time differently to an observer elephant.
I think it depends on the distance from the eye to the tickerthalamus (with all due respect to the blind).
What kind of animals are your observers?
That was a major flaw in Einstein's train embankment lighting thortX -- he didnt cover the general case -- which would involve an elephant say in the carriage (the circus was coming to town) & an ant say on the embankment.
But there are three kinds of ticking, we have actual (absolute) ticking, & apparent (perceived) ticking, & relative apparent (perceived) ticking. Hencely it is easy to get into a fight here.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 00:03:57
Both observers experience the exact same amount of light seconds.I dont understand the diagram etc. But i understand the heading -- Killing Time Dilation -- so i will comment.
There is no such thing as time, hencely no such thing as time dilation. Or, there is such a thing as time, it is the present instant, & this is universal, but it cant be dilated.
It would be ok to talk of ticking dilation, ie where processes are slowed by something, the slowing being due primarily to the speed of the clock etc relative to the aether.
The slowing in ticking might be exactly as described by Lorentz's gamma. Or it might be due to a macro process affecting macro ticking due to the indirect affect of Lorentz's gamma but here applied to one or more dimensions of the macro process (the dimensions having been contracted due to LLC).
Observers are of course just such a macro process.
I would think that the observer's tickerthalamus is a macro thing & has a complicated macro equation for ticking.
An observer ant would feel ticking & time differently to an observer elephant.
I think it depends on the distance from the eye to the tickerthalamus (with all due respect to the blind).
What kind of animals are your observers?
That was a major flaw in Einstein's train embankment lighting thortX -- he didnt cover the general case -- which would involve an elephant say in the carriage (the circus was coming to town) & an ant say on the embankment.
Actually , there is such a thing as time but not in accordance with present definition and semantics. The diagram is of the Einstein's famous light clock thought experiment that explains time dilation using length contraction . However this experimental thought is at error and my diagram demonstrates that time does not slow down or speed up for an observer in motion . However there is an actual real life experiment involving caesium clocks , these show a frequency dilation when the entropy is changed . This can be expresses delta S = delta t , where S is entropy and t is time .
Time is not an independent entity , it is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to aging . Meaning simply time is aging and aging has a rate of change that can be measured .
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 00:18:34
Actually , there is such a thing as time but not in accordance with present definition and semantics. The diagram is of the Einstein's famous light clock thought experiment that explains time dilation using length contraction . However this experimental thought is at error and my diagram demonstrates that time does not slow down or speed up for an observer in motion . However there is an actual real life experiment involving caesium clocks , these show a frequency dilation when the entropy is changed . This can be expresses delta S = delta t , where S is entropy and t is time .Ticking is aging & aging is ticking. Agreed. But the notion of time is superfluous.
Time is not an independent entity , it is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to aging. Meaning simply time is aging and aging has a rate of change that can be measured.
Re your comment that time does not slow down or speed up for an observer in motion. I think that this might fit exactly with what i think. Me myself being an aetherist i believe that a ticktock has an absolute ticking rate when sitting still in the absolute aether reference frame, ie where the aetherwind is zero kmps. And when there is a wind blowing throo the ticktock the ticktock ticks slower. But, if the observer is sitting next to the ticktock the observer will see that the ticktock has a ticking rate equal to the ticktock's absolute ticking rate, because the observer's ticking is affected equally to the ticktock's ticking. Which sounds to me to be virtually the same thing that u mention.
However i now have a problem. I used to think the above. But in recent weeks i have become aware that ticktocks are macro things & their ticking is affected differently depending on design, eg pendulum, balance wheel, atomic clock, light clock, animal tickerthalamuses, etc etc. Therefore the standard aetherian law that says that an observer will see & measure a ticktock's absolute ticking as long as the observer is sitting in the same frame, is wrong.
This makes all science very complicated. The good old days are over. As we enter the more accurate more sensitive era we will find that ticking can no longer be relied upon.
But what is that entropy stuff re the atomic clock? Has that got something to do with elevation?
I dont know much about entropy except that it is a useless notion, & will never help anyone to get a Nobel. The same can be said about enthalpy. In fact i combine them to make enthaltropy, a completely useless word & theory.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 01:47:02
Ticking is aging & aging is ticking. Agreed. But the notion of time is superfluous.
Ticking is not complicated , all observers experience 1 light second per photon experienced light second .Actually , there is such a thing as time but not in accordance with present definition and semantics. The diagram is of the Einstein's famous light clock thought experiment that explains time dilation using length contraction . However this experimental thought is at error and my diagram demonstrates that time does not slow down or speed up for an observer in motion . However there is an actual real life experiment involving caesium clocks , these show a frequency dilation when the entropy is changed . This can be expresses delta S = delta t , where S is entropy and t is time .Ticking is aging & aging is ticking. Agreed. But the notion of time is superfluous.
Time is not an independent entity , it is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to aging. Meaning simply time is aging and aging has a rate of change that can be measured.
Re your comment that time does not slow down or speed up for an observer in motion. I think that this might fit exactly with what i think. Me myself being an aetherist i believe that a ticktock has an absolute ticking rate when sitting still in the absolute aether reference frame, ie where the aetherwind is zero kmps. And when there is a wind blowing throo the ticktock the ticktock ticks slower. But, if the observer is sitting next to the ticktock the observer will see that the ticktock has a ticking rate equal to the ticktock's absolute ticking rate, because the observer's ticking is affected equally to the ticktock's ticking. Which sounds to me to be virtually the same thing that u mention.
However i now have a problem. I used to think the above. But in recent weeks i have become aware that ticktocks are macro things & their ticking is affected differently depending on design, eg pendulum, balance wheel, atomic clock, light clock, animal tickerthalamuses, etc etc. Therefore the standard aetherian law that says that an observer will see & measure a ticktock's absolute ticking as long as the observer is sitting in the same frame, is wrong.
This makes all science very complicated. The good old days are over. As we enter the more accurate more sensitive era we will find that ticking can no longer be relied upon.
But what is that entropy stuff re the atomic clock? Has that got something to do with elevation?
I dont know much about entropy except that it is a useless notion, & will never help anyone to get a Nobel. The same can be said about enthalpy. In fact i combine them to make enthaltropy, a completely useless word & theory.
The ticking of aging is var(x)
You could age slower on Venus say if your clock ticked at half the rate .
Entropy is the number of ways a system can change , when a clock is at relative rest , it's entropy is pretty constant if the temp is constant and the v=0 .
Motion or a change of temp , energy levels, is change in entropy hence ΔS=Δt
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 01:59:00
Ticking is not complicated , all observers experience 1 light second per photon experienced light second .Yes then we agree, as i said, entropy is a useless notion.
The ticking of aging is var(x)
You could age slower on Venus say if your clock ticked at half the rate .
Entropy is the number of ways a system can change , when a clock is at relative rest , it's entropy is pretty constant if the temp is constant and the v=0 .
Motion or a change of temp , energy levels, is change in entropy hence ΔS=Δt
So if u change an atomic clock's speed or acceleration or position or angle or height or temperature, then its ticking changes. Will anyone get a Nobel for that? Were any clocks hurt in that experiment?
I can add that if u take out the batteries the ticking will change.
Noise, what about noise, that must have an effect.
Magnetism. Lightning.
What about water, what if u dropped the atomic clock in a swimming pool?
Thats the trouble with cheap atomic clocks. They are affected by entropy. U only get what u pay for.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 02:07:22
Ticking is not complicated , all observers experience 1 light second per photon experienced light second .Yes then we agree, as i said, entropy is a useless notion.
The ticking of aging is var(x)
You could age slower on Venus say if your clock ticked at half the rate .
Entropy is the number of ways a system can change , when a clock is at relative rest , it's entropy is pretty constant if the temp is constant and the v=0 .
Motion or a change of temp , energy levels, is change in entropy hence ΔS=Δt
So if u change an atomic clock's speed or acceleration or position or angle or height or temperature, then its ticking changes. Will anyone get a Nobel for that? Were any clocks hurt in that experiment?
I can add that if u take out the batteries the ticking will change.
Noise, what about noise, that must have an effect.
Magnetism. Lightning.
What about water, what if u dropped the atomic clock in a swimming pool?
Thats the trouble with cheap atomic clocks. They are affected by entropy. U only get what u pay for.
Yes , expensive clocks affected by change of entropy .
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 02:37:48
The better atomic clocks float. Optionally u can buy one that is guaranteed to at least 100 ft, ie much deeper than most pools.Yes , expensive clocks affected by change of entropy .Ticking is not complicated , all observers experience 1 light second per photon experienced light second .Yes then we agree, as i said, entropy is a useless notion.
The ticking of aging is var(x)
You could age slower on Venus say if your clock ticked at half the rate .
Entropy is the number of ways a system can change , when a clock is at relative rest , it's entropy is pretty constant if the temp is constant and the v=0 .
Motion or a change of temp , energy levels, is change in entropy hence ΔS=Δt
So if u change an atomic clock's speed or acceleration or position or angle or height or temperature, then its ticking changes. Will anyone get a Nobel for that? Were any clocks hurt in that experiment?
I can add that if u take out the batteries the ticking will change.
Noise, what about noise, that must have an effect.
Magnetism. Lightning.
What about water, what if u dropped the atomic clock in a swimming pool?
Thats the trouble with cheap atomic clocks. They are affected by entropy. U only get what u pay for.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 12:53:48
I guess all three of my theory argument threads were all affective arguments ?Why would you think that?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 16:54:11
Lack of opposing argument ! I think everyone knows if they try to oppose my correction of the error they walk right into it and it gives me chance to demonstrate the error in full . The diagram needs little words , it is plain to see .I guess all three of my theory argument threads were all affective arguments ?Why would you think that?
Perhaps you'd like another diagram .
ls1.jpg (23.65 kB . 550x270 - viewed 3962 times)Do you still insist time slows down ?
I've demonstrated it doesn't !
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 17:02:16
Perhaps you'd like another diagram .Not really,
but I'd like some actual explanation of what you mean.
What you have so far are nonsensical claims
It's impossible to mount a counterargument when there isn't a valid argument to counter.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 17:08:38
Perhaps you'd like another diagram .Not really,
but I'd like some actual explanation of what you mean.
What you have so far are nonsensical claims
It's impossible to mount a counterargument when there isn't a valid argument to counter.
Observer A , Alice is onboard a spaceship that is in motion .
Observer B , Bill is on Earth and relatively at rest .
Alice measures 1.33333 l.s per 1.33333 l.s
Bill measures 1.33333 l.s per 1.33333 l.s
Both observers experience 1.33333 l.s
Bill observes Alice's time to run at the same speed as his time .
added- I'll add vector analysis ::)
t =
+ 
= 1.33333 l.s t'=
= 1.33333 l.s Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 17:55:40
Observer A , Alice is onboard a spaceship that is in motion .
Observer B , Bill is on Earth and relatively at rest .
Alice measures 1.33333 l.s per 1.33333 l.s
Bill measures 1.33333 l.s per 1.33333 l.s
Both observers experience 1.33333 l.s
Bill observes Alice's time to run at the same speed as his time .
added- I'll add vector analysis
t = + = 1.33333 l.s
t'= = 1.33333 l.s
I'd like some actual explanation of what you mean.
What you have so far are nonsensical claims
It's impossible to mount a counterargument when there isn't a valid argument to counter.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 19:19:16
I've give the explanation , you know very well what I'm talking about , there is no time dilation .Observer A , Alice is onboard a spaceship that is in motion .
Observer B , Bill is on Earth and relatively at rest .
Alice measures 1.33333 l.s per 1.33333 l.s
Bill measures 1.33333 l.s per 1.33333 l.s
Both observers experience 1.33333 l.s
Bill observes Alice's time to run at the same speed as his time .
added- I'll add vector analysis
t = + = 1.33333 l.s
t'= = 1.33333 l.sI'd like some actual explanation of what you mean.
What you have so far are nonsensical claims
It's impossible to mount a counterargument when there isn't a valid argument to counter.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 19:32:56
there is no time dilation .Except, it's known that there is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 21:08:49
Except that's not a time dilation is it , that experiment reveals a change in entropy causes a change in frequency . It is a change in the rate of aging , not a change in the rate of time .there is no time dilation .Except, it's known that there is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
ΔS = Δt where time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to aging .
There is many different scenarios I can demonstrate this to be true .
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/03/2019 21:26:12
The Hafele Keating fraud has been sunk.there is no time dilation .Except, it's known that there is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
In any case the HKX concerns the ticking of atomic clocks, it has nothing to do with time. Time does not exist.
Aetherists dont need time, ticking does the trick.
But i aint sure about Einsteinologists, praps they do need a thing they call time (i aint sure). But praps they too would be happy to simply replace time with ticking, eg giving ticking dilation not time dilation. It doesnt of course matter much because all Einsteinian stuff is complete krapp.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 21:52:21
The Hafele Keating fraud has been sunk.I think this site has rules about libel .
Anyway, in the real world, time dilation is real.
It is, for example, the reasons why GPS works.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 22:24:46
That would be a timing synchronisation issue not a time dilation . Don't get me wrong the light clock thought experiment was still a brilliant thought in that it calculated tri coordinates for the GPS systems , credit to Einstein where it's due . But bless him , he was incorrect about time slowing down and if you like we can go through the light clock thought experiment step by step and I'll demonstrate .The Hafele Keating fraud has been sunk.I think this site has rules about libel .
Anyway, in the real world, time dilation is real.
It is, for example, the reasons why GPS works.
Let us start with the relative stationary light clock , we will call this clock (a) and will say it measures 1 light second per tick .
Now we know light travels 299792458 meters in one second so we'll say that the y axis of the stationary clock is distance=299792458 meters . We will name this vector dy and for the first tick we will say v=+y , the light traveling from the lower to the upper of the vector the next tick travelling in the opposite direction v=-y .
light s.jpg (16.71 kB . 759x402 - viewed 3923 times)Is there anything you disagree with in this part ?
added- I'll add the light clock in relative motion and I've put the correct time and distance based on a 45° reflection .
Now the first diagram has done 1 tick and a 1/3rd of tick by time the moving clock registers it's first tick .
The time is equal .
moving clock.jpg (31.54 kB . 759x402 - viewed 3915 times)Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2019 22:43:40
we will call this clock (a) and will say it measures 1 light second per tick .A light second is a measure of distance rather than time.
You really need to learn the basics.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2019 23:08:22
Interesting , Einstein uses a light second also in the thought experiment , you really need to learn some physics . A light second is the distance a photon travels in one second which is 299792458 m /s , it makes an accurate light clock that is a measure of time .we will call this clock (a) and will say it measures 1 light second per tick .A light second is a measure of distance rather than time.
You really need to learn the basics.
Want to try again ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 13:57:42
A light second is the distance a photon travels in one second which is 299792458 m /sNo
That's a speed, not a distance (you can tell- it's in metres per second).
So once again you are wrong.
A light second is a distance.
It's not a time- so it isn't how fast a clock ticks so this
it measures 1 light second per tick .is wrong and it's not a speed so this
A light second is the distance a photon travels in one second which is 299792458 m /s ,is wrong too.
You really need to learn some physics .
Want to try again ?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 14:35:12
Then on what you've just said , you have just shown the light clock thought experiment is invalid to begin with because Einstein also uses a light second in the light clock though experiment .A light second is the distance a photon travels in one second which is 299792458 m /sNo
That's a speed, not a distance (you can tell- it's in metres per second).
So once again you are wrong.
A light second is a distance.
It's not a time- so it isn't how fast a clock ticks so thisit measures 1 light second per tick .is wrong and it's not a speed so thisA light second is the distance a photon travels in one second which is 299792458 m /s ,is wrong too.
You really need to learn some physics .
Want to try again ?
I've provided the correct analysis and math showing no time dilation , both Alice and Bill have experienced 1.33333 l.s of time as experienced by the photon .
Want to try again ?
Want to answer how much time the photon experiences in the stationary clock and the moving clock ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 15:46:27
Then on what you've just said , you have just shown the light clock thought experiment is invalid to begin with because Einstein also uses a light second in the light clock though experiment .No.
His thought experiment is valid because he uses it correctly.
You should try it.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 21:30:08
Want to answer how much time the photon experiences in the stationary clock and the moving clock ?Want to answer how much time the photon experiences in the stationary clock and the moving clock ?
The math shows I am correct !
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 21:52:37
Want to answer how much time the photon experiences in the stationary clock and the moving clock ?Photons don't experience anything.
They travel at c and time stops for them.
The math shows I am correct !
You don't seem to have done any maths.
In any event, if you have, you seem to have made an error- because you get the wrong answer.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2019 22:03:44
Photons don't experience anything.They travel at c and time stops for them.
So you are saying that while photons are traversing
, time stops ? How preposterous , a photon ages the same as everything else and time does not stop just because a photon travels at c. If a body travelled at the near speed of c , it is said time would almost stop , but that is also preposterous .
What you are suggesting in defense is the error and thoughts I've shown at error .
I've provided the vector analysis Mr Chemist , would you like to try and show falsity or error ?
I'll rephrase the question as you like to make those political type avoidances .
How much time passes while the photon travels 1 and 1/3rd ticks on the stationary clock and how much time passes while the photon travels one tick in the moving clock , relative to the photon ?
I'll give you a hint MR C , 1 and 1/3rd ticks distance is an equal distance of the 1 tick .
Post by: mad aetherist on 25/03/2019 01:05:38
Thats an interesting question-topic.Want to answer how much time the photon experiences in the stationary clock and the moving clock ?Photons don't experience anything. They travel at c and time stops for them.
In a sense nothing on its own experiences time or ticking.
Time or ticking is always a relative thing, for everything (ie for photons & for humans).
Travel at c is a relative thing, speed & velocity are always relative.
For a photon c is of course relative to the (stationary) aether. A photon propagates at c kmps in the aether.
But this c is slowed to c' in the aether due to the presence of mass (Einstein was correct). Here a photon would somehow feel that its usual happy propagation of c kmps throo the aether was being slowed by feedback from photaenos emanating from the main helical body of the photon, the photaenos themselves being slowed due to interference with other photaenos fighting for the use of the aether. The photon would sense that things werent right, due to the relative speed throo the aether not being right.
Time of course cant stop, because there is no such thing as time, unless u count it as being the present instant (of time), which is a universal instant (but still not a real time in the usual sense).
Post by: guest39538 on 25/03/2019 16:34:00
Time of course cant stop, because there is no such thing as time, unless u count it as being the present instant (of time), which is a universal instant (but still not a real time in the usual sense).You got that right .
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2019 18:47:52
How preposterous , a photon ages the same as everything else and time does not stop just because a photon travels at c. If a body travelled at the near speed of c , it is said time would almost stop , but that is also preposterous .
Much of modern physics is preposterous, but true.
I've provided the vector analysis Mr ChemistNo
You have provided some squiggles on a screen>
We are still waiting for you to provide any evidence that your squiggles make sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/03/2019 02:52:18
How preposterous , a photon ages the same as everything else and time does not stop just because a photon travels at c. If a body travelled at the near speed of c , it is said time would almost stop , but that is also preposterous .
Much of modern physics is preposterous, but true.I've provided the vector analysis Mr ChemistNo
You have provided some squiggles on a screen>
We are still waiting for you to provide any evidence that your squiggles make sense.
Δv = ΔΗ
= Δf::)
Post by: seeker3 on 28/03/2019 03:02:25
Put same atomic clocks in the sun, earth, mars, flying air plan, for 1 day.
Each clock will have a different reading.
Which time is dilated? which clock has correct time?
Time dilation is a misinterpretation of timer's moving rate/reading affected by gravity/acceleration/force upon it.
Time is not a thing, time has no location, cannot be touched, what is dilating what? How?
All things happening is at now, all existence is at now, time is forever ongoing now, all past became now, all future will become now.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/03/2019 06:00:56
Which time is dilated?
Depends on your reference frame.
which clock has correct time?
All of the clocks are equally correct.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/03/2019 13:01:34
All the clocks would be equally incorrect ...Which time is dilated?
Depends on your reference frame.which clock has correct time?
All of the clocks are equally correct.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2019 20:09:54
You have provided some squiggles on a screen>
We are still waiting for you to provide any evidence that your squiggles make sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/03/2019 20:38:22
I've provided my math analysis of this ; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experimentYou have provided some squiggles on a screen>
We are still waiting for you to provide any evidence that your squiggles make sense.
Where's your time dilation ?
Δf = ΔH = Δv
H=
:-\
Exothermic ::)
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2019 21:55:13
I've provided my math analysis of thisNo.
You have provided squiggles again.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/03/2019 22:08:02
No,, you have an inability to do math . The maths is correct .I've provided my math analysis of thisNo.
You have provided squiggles again.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/03/2019 22:11:28
You don't seem to have done any maths.Reply 31 does not agree with reply 36.
In any event, if you have, you seem to have made an error- because you get the wrong answer.
So one of them must be wrong.
It's obvious that you can't do maths.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/03/2019 22:15:44
No, I have provided the evidence that the light clock thought experiment is at error and I have also provided math analysis of the Hafele–Keating experiment and shown there is no time dilation it is a change in enthalpy .You don't seem to have done any maths.
In any event, if you have, you seem to have made an error- because you get the wrong answer.
I've killed time dilation ...
Post by: guest39538 on 28/03/2019 22:17:00
I got there in the end Mr C ...it took me a while to get it correct . Post 31 I missed out a part . I also missed out the time function in post 36 .You don't seem to have done any maths.Reply 31 does not agree with reply 36.
In any event, if you have, you seem to have made an error- because you get the wrong answer.
So one of them must be wrong.
It's obvious that you can't do maths.
H =
Post by: Yahya A.Sharif on 29/03/2019 14:00:18
Both observers experience the exact same amount of light seconds . :or1=r2 no change in distance with respect to time no speed or speed equals zero.
Time dilation and length contraction are interchangeable they don't occur in case the speed is zero.None of them occur in case the object is at stationary.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/03/2019 14:09:52
I don't quite understand what you said in your post , the light beam in a moving clock travels a greater angular distance than the light beam linearity in the stationary clock . By time the moving clock registers one tick , the stationary clock as measured 1 1/3rd ticks based on a 45° angular trajectory of the light in the moving clock .Both observers experience the exact same amount of light seconds . :or1=r2 no change in distance with respect to time no speed or speed equals zero.
Time dilation and length contraction are interchangeable they don't occur in case the speed is zero.None of them occur in case the object is at stationary.
t=(+y)+(-y) stationary clock
t' = (+x)+(+y) incline angular on the moving clock
Both distances are equal and both observers , observe 1.3s relative to the light beam .
The only way you get a dilation is if you make the error of not accounting for the (-y), 0.3s in the stationary clock .
t=+y is an error , the correction is t = (+y)+(-y)
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2019 18:44:51
I have provided the evidence thatNo.
You have provided squiggles.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/03/2019 23:16:00
I quit , forum days over . cya .I have provided the evidence thatNo.
You have provided squiggles.
Post by: The Spoon on 29/03/2019 23:23:30
Wish I had run a sweepstake on you claiming to quit once again... Your standard MO along with playing the victim, calling others trolls despite claiming to be 'the king of trolls' etc... Just tedious.I quit , forum days over . cya .I have provided the evidence thatNo.
You have provided squiggles.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/03/2019 02:35:54
They will still just be squiggles when you come back.I quit , forum days over . cya .I have provided the evidence thatNo.
You have provided squiggles.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/03/2019 06:08:39
Well they will have to stay squiggles because I've now lost interest . I'm going to find a new past time and find myself some conspiracy forums to go on , they seem rather fun and I'm pretty sure I could contribute . Might start a flat moon trend or something similar. ::)They will still just be squiggles when you come back.I quit , forum days over . cya .I have provided the evidence thatNo.
You have provided squiggles.