0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: HalcBy definition, the rate of change of distance between the player and the ball is the ball's speed relative to the player. If you get a different speed, you're specifying against a different frame than the one in which the player is stationary.Yes the resultant speed of the ball is vectorial total of the speeds of the player and the ball according to ground. We use two speeds. SR uses only one of speeds by considering Galilean relativity principle. Whereas, even if the source (the player) has uniform motion; we cannot use the player as an inertial frame.
By definition, the rate of change of distance between the player and the ball is the ball's speed relative to the player. If you get a different speed, you're specifying against a different frame than the one in which the player is stationary.
How can you not know these simple things?
Yes the resultant speed of the ball is vectorial total of the speeds of the player and the ball according to ground. We use two speeds. SR uses only one of speeds by considering Galilean relativity principle. Whereas, even if the source (the player) has uniform motion; we cannot use the player as an inertial frame.
I take this back. You seem to not know the definitions of the most simple terms and your description of physics is a couple centuries out of date. Take a middle school physics class which may not cover the differences between Newton and Einstein, but it at least gets you a glossary of the terms.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 02/09/2019 12:13:49But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.Like what?
But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.
Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.
Quote from: not HalcYes the resultant speed of the ball is vectorial total of the speeds of the player and the ball according to ground. We use two speeds. SR uses only one of speeds by considering Galilean relativity principle. Whereas, even if the source (the player) has uniform motion; we cannot use the player as an inertial frame....Your other discourses are irrelevant.
Im not sure how J.K.R would put it in the story though. F&G just come up, Oy, Harry We have these special sweets that will put you back in time? She needs the trio to find them probably.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/09/2019 13:41:01Quote from: xersanozgen on 02/09/2019 12:13:49But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.Like what?Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 08/09/2019 20:49:43Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/09/2019 13:41:01Quote from: xersanozgen on 02/09/2019 12:13:49But the inferences of this opinion include mystical/fantatic results.Like what?Like "time dilation", "FitzGerald contraction", time travel, "twin paradox", etc.Those are real.Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.Do you realise that you are arguing against reality?
I interested light kinematics and realized a cosmological analysis (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E). The defects of SR was emerged like a byproduct of this study.I wanted to share this new ideas/arguments/clues* on this topic for naked scientists. Naked scientists may examine them; they may want to discuss or ignore. Other messages (by not internalizing and not aiming the arguments) are like polemic and they are not useful.A new idea can be significant; if it explained with arguments and reasons. You may interest or not. No problem for me.* They have technical analysis. So, the claims are not just claims.
So are you arguing that time dilation is not an observable phenomenon or what?
For example, a moving train has a clock at back wall; we can see it from peron. 1- If the train moving away from us we will see that the clock's tempo works slower altough the clock works normal.
2- If the train stops at far place we will see the clock that it works normal but delayed3-If the train come up us we will see that the clock works faster altough it works normal.4- When the train come to peron we will see the train's clock and our watch are equal.
Why do you call real, observable phenomena like time dilation " mystical/fantatic results."?
This (#4) is the only quantized statement, and SR does not predict it. The experiment was first performed in 1971 (Hafele–Keating) and the two clocks were not equal, as predicted by relativity, and thus falsifies your not-even-Newtonian assertions. The experiment is performed every day these days.
Quote from: HalcSR does not predict it. The experiment was first performed in 1971 (Hafele–Keating) and the two clocks were not equal, as predicted by relativity, and thus falsifies your not-even-Newtonian assertions. Atomic clocks are directly effected by gravity. Yes they are quite sensitive. But, even if they are not move, their tempo change because of gravity. So, this quality is not link to SR and GR. The boiling degree of water varies with height.Similarly, Atomic clocks' tempo changes with altitude.
SR does not predict it. The experiment was first performed in 1971 (Hafele–Keating) and the two clocks were not equal, as predicted by relativity, and thus falsifies your not-even-Newtonian assertions.
The boiling degree of water varies with height.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 12/09/2019 11:56:16The boiling degree of water varies with height.That's because of air pressure, not gravity.