| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"imi" |
| Date: |
11 Nov 2006 07:03:48 AM |
| Object: |
Time Dilation |
Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
I mean is it experimented scientifically?
Please let me know.
.
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 07:16:40 AM |
|
|
"imi" <imran.sheriff@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163250228.416761.15510@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
No.
|
| I mean is it experimented scientifically?
|
No.
| Please let me know.
I did, see above.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 07:57:11 AM |
|
|
"imi" <imran.sheriff@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1163250228.416761.15510@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
I mean is it experimented scientifically?
Please let me know.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#4.%20tests%20of%20time%20dilation
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 08:15:46 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:XEk5h.178837$sD3.2863227@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "imi" <imran.sheriff@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163250228.416761.15510@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
| >
| > I mean is it experimented scientifically?
| >
| > Please let me know.
|
| http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
--- By Tom Roberts, 2000.
What does that list of irrelevant crap have to do with the question:
"Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?" ?
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant"-
Tom Roberts, 2006
The same Tom Roberts, also a ***** like you.
[anip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 07:22:36 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (11 Nov 2006 05:03:48 -0800) it happened "imi"
<imran.sheriff@gmail.com> wrote in
<1163250228.416761.15510@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
I mean is it experimented scientifically?
Please let me know.
Here where I live we have summer and winter time, and time deletion happens
by one hour one each year.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 10:16:22 AM |
|
|
imi wrote:
Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
Proofs are for mathematical theorems--time dilation is predicted by
special and general relativity. Time dilation is measured all the
time. Compensation for time dilation is a requirement of GPS to achieve
reasonable accuracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 12:30:52 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
imi wrote:
Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
Proofs are for mathematical theorems--time dilation is predicted by
special and general relativity. Time dilation is measured all the
time.
<< Compensation for time dilation is a requirement of GPS to
achieve reasonable accuracy. >>
Do you have calculations using Doppler, Sagnac and nuclear resonance
corrections that are unreasonable?
<< Abstract
According to the classical propagation model, the Sagnac effect is
due to the movement of receiver during wave propagation. Based
on this, we derive the GPS (global positioning system) Sagnac
pseudorange correction, the Sagnac effect in interferometry, and
the Doppler frequency shift. Then, we examine these formulas with
the propagation experiments associated with the Sagnac effect,
particularly the reference frame of the receiver velocity and the
influences of earth's rotational and orbital motions. Thereby, it is
found that the propagation of electromagnetic wave in these
experiments is in accord with the classical model with the
propagation frame being stationary in an ECI
(earth-centered inertial) frame. >>
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1116673
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 01:16:47 PM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163269851.930429.274880@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sam Wormley wrote:
| > imi wrote:
| > > Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
| > >
| >
| > Proofs are for mathematical theorems--time dilation is predicted by
| > special and general relativity. Time dilation is measured all the
| > time.
|
| << Compensation for time dilation is a requirement of GPS to
| achieve reasonable accuracy. >>
|
| Do you have calculations using Doppler, Sagnac
[snippety snip]
Replace with irrelevancy for Sue, he usually does.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 02:12:04 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163269851.930429.274880@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sam Wormley wrote:
| > imi wrote:
| > > Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
| > >
| >
| > Proofs are for mathematical theorems--time dilation is predicted by
| > special and general relativity. Time dilation is measured all the
| > time.
|
| << Compensation for time dilation is a requirement of GPS to
| achieve reasonable accuracy. >>
|
| Do you have calculations using Doppler, Sagnac
[snippety snip]
Replace with irrelevancy for Sue, he usually does.
<< http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm >>
That looks great down to your wave illustration.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/stream.gif
You need a mis-wound helical antenna to do that and I don't
believe that is what you intend to illustrate.
Ask yourself (since you probably don't have any friends) >:-)
"If free space waves did that naturally, why would we bother
winding helical antenna?"
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=circular+polarization&btnG=Search+Images
Androcles misled on his web site:
<< A magnetic field which is not changing produces no electric field,
and an electric field that is not changing produces no magnetic field.
A magnetic field which is not changing IS the electirc field.
Magnetic force is just superposition of the Coulomb force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
If you feel the remaining word-salad makes a case for the photon
that ignores classical electromagnetism, then send it to the
King of Sweden and tell him what kind of salad dressing he
should have when you come to dinner.
<<The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Sue...
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 07:24:31 PM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163275924.797466.6190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:1163269851.930429.274880@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sam Wormley wrote:
| > | > imi wrote:
| > | > > Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
| > | > >
| > | >
| > | > Proofs are for mathematical theorems--time dilation is predicted
by
| > | > special and general relativity. Time dilation is measured all the
| > | > time.
| > |
| > | << Compensation for time dilation is a requirement of GPS to
| > | achieve reasonable accuracy. >>
| > |
| > | Do you have calculations using Doppler, Sagnac
| >
| > [snippety snip]
| > Replace with irrelevancy for Sue, he usually does.
| >
|
| << http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm >>
|
| That looks great down to your wave illustration.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/stream.gif
| You need a mis-wound helical antenna to do that and I don't
| believe that is what you intend to illustrate.
It was quite difficult to draw. Did I say it was an antenna?
| Ask yourself (since you probably don't have any friends) >:-)
| "If free space waves did that naturally, why would we bother
| winding helical antenna?"
The "wave" is fixed in space between source and receiver.
Only the energy moves. Kinda like a bumpy road with
a car going over it, except the photon makes its own bumps.
Horizontal bumps are 90 degree phase shifted from vertical
bumps as the energy alternates from magnetic to electric
and back again.
I cited
http://www.public.asu.edu/~laserweb/woodbury/journeys%20gif%20files/Wave1.gif
|
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=circular+polarization&btnG=Search+Images
|
Yeah, that's a good one:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/polcir.gif
|
| Androcles misled on his web site:
| << A magnetic field which is not changing produces no electric field,
| and an electric field that is not changing produces no magnetic field.
| >>
|
| A magnetic field which is not changing IS the electirc field.
Oh... I expect my fridge magnet batteries need replacing, then.
You should inform your power company that they can stop
turning the generators, the electric field is there without it.
Gawd, you are incredibly stupid.
| Magnetic force is just superposition of the Coulomb force.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
|
| If you feel the remaining word-salad makes a case for the photon
| that ignores classical electromagnetism, then send it to the
| King of Sweden and tell him what kind of salad dressing he
| should have when you come to dinner.
Is it too difficult for you to understand that energy travels across space
but there is only a single pulse?
In
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/polcir.gif
the red arrows appear ONE AT A TIME, sequentially.
It's just harder to draw a gif than a still.
I mean, surely you can understand I can turn a laser on and off
in a millisecond and a pulse will still reflect from the moon more
than two seconds later? If I make that pulse short enough, one cycle,
it's called a photon. Big photons are detected at Mt Paranel, but
big photons turn slowly. Little photons turn quickly and are stopped
by your retina, ensy - weensy photons go right through flesh but are
stopped by bones. Those that get through make x-ray photographs.
There is NO disagreement with classical electromagnetism, its just
that radio antenna radiate big fat photons constantly all day and
itsy bitsy atoms can only radiate one cycle before their battery needs
to be recharged, which you can do by warming them until they appear
to glow. Turn the light bulb off and they soon stop.
Androcles
|
| <<The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
| particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
| photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
| which the prize decision rested only in connection with
| emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
| that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
| law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
| the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
| a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
| http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
|
| Sue...
|
|
|
| > Androcles
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
12 Nov 2006 05:18:32 AM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message news:jJu5h.156739$lT5.84679@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163275924.797466.6190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
|
| Androcles misled on his web site:
| << A magnetic field which is not changing produces no electric field,
| and an electric field that is not changing produces no magnetic field.
| >>
|
| A magnetic field which is not changing IS the electirc field.
Oh... I expect my fridge magnet batteries need replacing, then.
You should inform your power company that they can stop
turning the generators, the electric field is there without it.
Gawd, you are incredibly stupid.
but but but...
Just like yourself, Dennis is a retired "electronic engineer, professionally".
How can he possibly be incredibly stupid then?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
12 Nov 2006 06:27:06 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message news:jJu5h.156739$lT5.84679@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163275924.797466.6190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
|
| Androcles misled on his web site:
| << A magnetic field which is not changing produces no electric field,
| and an electric field that is not changing produces no magnetic field.
| >>
|
| A magnetic field which is not changing IS the electirc field.
Oh... I expect my fridge magnet batteries need replacing, then.
You should inform your power company that they can stop
turning the generators, the electric field is there without it.
Gawd, you are incredibly stupid.
but but but...
Just like yourself, Dennis is a retired "electronic engineer, professionally".
How can he possibly be incredibly stupid then?
Writing equations to justify causality violations and making fool's
wagers
is something everyone expects any self respecting village idiot to do,
just as a part of his employment.
The village idiot that keeps reminding the villagers of old gaffes
instead
of coming up with some new ones is usually considered a laggard
and soon replaced in his professional capacity.
Sue...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
12 Nov 2006 08:27:56 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163334426.649260.192540@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message
news:jJu5h.156739$lT5.84679@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > >
| > > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > > news:1163275924.797466.6190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > [snip]
| >
| > > |
| > > | Androcles misled on his web site:
| > > | << A magnetic field which is not changing produces no electric
field,
| > > | and an electric field that is not changing produces no magnetic
field.
| > > | >>
| > > |
| > > | A magnetic field which is not changing IS the electirc field.
| > >
| > > Oh... I expect my fridge magnet batteries need replacing, then.
| > > You should inform your power company that they can stop
| > > turning the generators, the electric field is there without it.
| > >
| > > Gawd, you are incredibly stupid.
| >
| > but but but...
| > Just like yourself, Dennis is a retired "electronic engineer,
professionally".
| > How can he possibly be incredibly stupid then?
|
| Writing equations to justify causality violations and making fool's
| wagers
| is something everyone expects any self respecting village idiot to do,
| just as a part of his employment.
|
| The village idiot that keeps reminding the villagers of old gaffes
| instead
| of coming up with some new ones is usually considered a laggard
| and soon replaced in his professional capacity.
|
| Sue...
Speaking of employment, Dork even got herself fired from his regular job.
He *says* she couldn't get along with the manager. You can be sure the
manager was only too pleased to rile his dumb arse and get rid of the
***** the easy way, make it quit. No law suits for unfair dismissal
that way.
Did you see the local village idiot's "twin paradox" web page?
The poor sap only knows how to draw in ASCII.
I'd point out the math errors, but it's a monument to its stupidity.
One simple and obvious immoortel fumble is:
"In order for the travelling twin to make *HIS* trip, *SHE* must be in frame
S'
while going away and in frame S" when coming back".
This AFTER he/she/it has "(Corrected a few typo's)".
He is obviously proud of its ability to display her crass stupidity.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
12 Nov 2006 06:02:25 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163275924.797466.6190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:1163269851.930429.274880@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sam Wormley wrote:
| > | > imi wrote:
| > | > > Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
| > | > >
| > | >
| > | > Proofs are for mathematical theorems--time dilation is predicted
by
| > | > special and general relativity. Time dilation is measured all the
| > | > time.
| > |
| > | << Compensation for time dilation is a requirement of GPS to
| > | achieve reasonable accuracy. >>
| > |
| > | Do you have calculations using Doppler, Sagnac
| >
| > [snippety snip]
| > Replace with irrelevancy for Sue, he usually does.
| >
|
| << http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm >>
|
| That looks great down to your wave illustration.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/stream.gif
| You need a mis-wound helical antenna to do that and I don't
| believe that is what you intend to illustrate.
It was quite difficult to draw. Did I say it was an antenna?
| Ask yourself (since you probably don't have any friends) >:-)
| "If free space waves did that naturally, why would we bother
| winding helical antenna?"
The "wave" is fixed in space between source and receiver.
Only the energy moves. Kinda like a bumpy road with
a car going over it, except the photon makes its own bumps.
Horizontal bumps are 90 degree phase shifted from vertical
bumps as the energy alternates from magnetic to electric
and back again.
I cited
http://www.public.asu.edu/~laserweb/woodbury/journeys%20gif%20files/Wave1.gif
Neal Woodbury
Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry
Arizona State University
Box 871604
Tempe, AZ 85287-1604 USA
http://www.public.asu.edu/~laserweb/woodbury/research.htm
"ASU Center for the Study of Early Events in Photosynthesis"
http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/default.html
A man obviously fond of helices. I won't be convinced 'till
I have a dentist or a an entomologist look over it.
|
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=circular+polarization&btnG=Search+Images
|
Yeah, that's a good one:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/polcir.gif
|
| Androcles misled on his web site:
| << A magnetic field which is not changing produces no electric field,
| and an electric field that is not changing produces no magnetic field.
| >>
|
| A magnetic field which is not changing IS the electirc field.
Oh... I expect my fridge magnet batteries need replacing, then.
You should inform your power company that they can stop
turning the generators, the electric field is there without it.
Gawd, you are incredibly stupid.
Then point out the error of my ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
| Magnetic force is just superposition of the Coulomb force.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
|
| If you feel the remaining word-salad makes a case for the photon
| that ignores classical electromagnetism, then send it to the
| King of Sweden and tell him what kind of salad dressing he
| should have when you come to dinner.
Is it too difficult for you to understand that energy travels across space
but there is only a single pulse?
What makes it a pulse?
What makes it single?
In
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/polcir.gif
the red arrows appear ONE AT A TIME, sequentially.
It's just harder to draw a gif than a still.
Read the caption. It is only indicating the E field.
I mean, surely you can understand I can turn a laser on and off
in a millisecond and a pulse will still reflect from the moon more
than two seconds later?
What does a laser have to do with it? It is the same
eletromagnetism that an amateur radio operator bounces
signals off the moon with.
If I make that pulse short enough, one cycle,
it's called a photon.
No... it is called a photon when it is the emission or absorbtion
of an atomic oscillator.
Big photons are detected at Mt Paranel, but
big photons turn slowly. Little photons turn quickly and are stopped
by your retina, ensy - weensy photons go right through flesh but are
stopped by bones. Those that get through make x-ray photographs.
There is NO disagreement with classical electromagnetism, its just
that radio antenna radiate big fat photons constantly all day and
itsy bitsy atoms can only radiate one cycle before their battery needs
to be recharged, which you can do by warming them until they appear
to glow. Turn the light bulb off and they soon stop.
Photons don't have a size.
You need to learn how a lens works so you'll stop mischaracterising
lasers.
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
Sue...
Androcles
|
| <<The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
| particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
| photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
| which the prize decision rested only in connection with
| emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
| that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
| law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
| the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
| a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
| http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
|
| Sue...
|
|
|
| > Androcles
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
12 Nov 2006 11:19:00 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163332945.749641.114330@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:1163275924.797466.6190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > | > news:1163269851.930429.274880@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Sam Wormley wrote:
| > | > | > imi wrote:
| > | > | > > Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
| > | > | > >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Proofs are for mathematical theorems--time dilation is
predicted
| > by
| > | > | > special and general relativity. Time dilation is measured all
the
| > | > | > time.
| > | > |
| > | > | << Compensation for time dilation is a requirement of GPS to
| > | > | achieve reasonable accuracy. >>
| > | > |
| > | > | Do you have calculations using Doppler, Sagnac
| > | >
| > | > [snippety snip]
| > | > Replace with irrelevancy for Sue, he usually does.
| > | >
| > |
| > | << http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm >>
| > |
| > | That looks great down to your wave illustration.
| > | http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/stream.gif
| > | You need a mis-wound helical antenna to do that and I don't
| > | believe that is what you intend to illustrate.
| >
| > It was quite difficult to draw. Did I say it was an antenna?
| >
| > | Ask yourself (since you probably don't have any friends) >:-)
| > | "If free space waves did that naturally, why would we bother
| > | winding helical antenna?"
| >
| > The "wave" is fixed in space between source and receiver.
| > Only the energy moves. Kinda like a bumpy road with
| > a car going over it, except the photon makes its own bumps.
| > Horizontal bumps are 90 degree phase shifted from vertical
| > bumps as the energy alternates from magnetic to electric
| > and back again.
| > I cited
| >
http://www.public.asu.edu/~laserweb/woodbury/journeys%20gif%20files/Wave1.gif
|
| Neal Woodbury
| Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry
| Arizona State University
| Box 871604
| Tempe, AZ 85287-1604 USA
| http://www.public.asu.edu/~laserweb/woodbury/research.htm
|
| "ASU Center for the Study of Early Events in Photosynthesis"
| http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/default.html
|
| A man obviously fond of helices. I won't be convinced 'till
| I have a dentist or a an entomologist look over it.
|
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| >
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=circular+polarization&btnG=Search+Images
| > |
| >
| > Yeah, that's a good one:
| > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/polcir.gif
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Androcles misled on his web site:
| > | << A magnetic field which is not changing produces no electric field,
| > | and an electric field that is not changing produces no magnetic field.
| > | >>
| > |
| > | A magnetic field which is not changing IS the electirc field.
| >
| > Oh... I expect my fridge magnet batteries need replacing, then.
| > You should inform your power company that they can stop
| > turning the generators, the electric field is there without it.
| >
| > Gawd, you are incredibly stupid.
|
| Then point out the error of my ways.
I did. Start with E = -dB/dt.
That's posh math for saying that you get an electric field
only when the magnetic field is changing.
All it really means is that the E and B fields are phase
shifted 90 degrees. A sine wave of sin(wt+pi/2) is a cosine
wave cos(wt).
The changing part happens when the generator turns.
Then we go to toffee-nosed math and say
curl E = -@B/@t
where "curl" means it fell over sideways and '@' instead of 'd'
says it is a partial derivative.
You've got the pictures including a gif.
Both the E-field and the B-field exist independently, pith ball and
comb, fridge magnet, but that's DC, not AC.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
| Time-independent Maxwell equations
| Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
That's another error of your ways. You continue to spout
things without understanding the basics first, and it shows.
This is an oscillator. Really!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/oscillator.JPG
Kick it off and it will spin just like a flywheel, and gradually slow down
just like a flywheel, too.
| >
| > | Magnetic force is just superposition of the Coulomb force.
| > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
| > |
| > | If you feel the remaining word-salad makes a case for the photon
| > | that ignores classical electromagnetism, then send it to the
| > | King of Sweden and tell him what kind of salad dressing he
| > | should have when you come to dinner.
| >
| > Is it too difficult for you to understand that energy travels across
space
| > but there is only a single pulse?
|
| What makes it a pulse?
A bump, a jolt of energy hits the atom. The electron can be knocked
out completely, ionising the atom. That's what happens when a cathode
is heated at the small end of your TV tube. The atom doesn't like
being alone, another electron falls back in, but that's a CHANGE in the
electric field between the POLES of the nucleus and the electron.
A CHANGING electric field produces a magnetic field, Gauss said so.
Because energy is conserved, it radiates. But now we are done, the photon
is on its way.
The electron is living comfortably at home, no more radiation until
it gets bumped again. We continually bump radio antennae, of course,
and use that flywheel to maintain a smooth flow.
When the photon arrives, another atom gets bumped.
Off goes the electron, jumps to the next atom and we have a
current in a photocell, it it bumps your skin and vibrates it,
warming you up.
| What makes it single?
Whene it divorced the atom is wasn't a good catholic.
No preacher or priest will marry it.
|
| > In
| > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/polcir.gif
| > the red arrows appear ONE AT A TIME, sequentially.
| > It's just harder to draw a gif than a still.
|
| Read the caption. It is only indicating the E field.
Ignore the caption, there are two sine waves set at 90 degrees, one
magnetic and one electric, and they are 90 degrees out of phase as well.
Imagine a rifle barrel.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/RifleB.JPG
The spud pellet spins, right?
Now imagine the rifle barrel spinning when the pellet is fired.
That's circular polarization.
|
| > I mean, surely you can understand I can turn a laser on and off
| > in a millisecond and a pulse will still reflect from the moon more
| > than two seconds later?
|
| What does a laser have to do with it? It is the same
| eletromagnetism that an amateur radio operator bounces
| signals off the moon with.
Ok. I happened to choose that as an example, that's all.
|
|
| > If I make that pulse short enough, one cycle,
| > it's called a photon.
|
| No... it is called a photon when it is the emission or absorbtion
| of an atomic oscillator.
No, it's called photon throughout its flight.
|
| > Big photons are detected at Mt Paranel, but
| > big photons turn slowly. Little photons turn quickly and are stopped
| > by your retina, ensy - weensy photons go right through flesh but are
| > stopped by bones. Those that get through make x-ray photographs.
| > There is NO disagreement with classical electromagnetism, its just
| > that radio antenna radiate big fat photons constantly all day and
| > itsy bitsy atoms can only radiate one cycle before their battery needs
| > to be recharged, which you can do by warming them until they appear
| > to glow. Turn the light bulb off and they soon stop.
|
| Photons don't have a size.
No... Of course they do, your eyeball cannot detect big or small photons.
| You need to learn how a lens works so you'll stop mischaracterising
| lasers.
No... You need to stop being so fuckin' stupid!
Androcles
| http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
|
| Sue...
|
| > Androcles
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | <<The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
| > | particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
| > | photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
| > | which the prize decision rested only in connection with
| > | emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
| > | that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
| > | law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
| > | the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
| > | a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
| > | http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
| > |
| > | Sue...
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | > Androcles
| > |
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
12 Nov 2006 07:18:06 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
[...]
Is it too difficult for you to understand that energy travels across space
but there is only a single pulse?
In
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/polcir.gif
the red arrows appear ONE AT A TIME, sequentially.
It's just harder to draw a gif than a still.
I mean, surely you can understand I can turn a laser on and off
in a millisecond and a pulse will still reflect from the moon more
than two seconds later? If I make that pulse short enough, one cycle,
it's called a photon. Big photons are detected at Mt Paranel, but
big photons turn slowly. Little photons turn quickly and are stopped
by your retina, ensy - weensy photons go right through flesh but are
stopped by bones. Those that get through make x-ray photographs.
There is NO disagreement with classical electromagnetism, its just
that radio antenna radiate big fat photons constantly all day and
itsy bitsy atoms can only radiate one cycle before their battery needs
to be recharged, which you can do by warming them until they appear
to glow. Turn the light bulb off and they soon stop.
Androcles
---What Androcles misses from the big picture---
Many light transaction are not even the result of atomic emission
and absorbtion. But atomic oscillators absorb and emit unit chunks
of energy as light. Because they are units, we can count them and
apply statistical techniques in many case where field techniques
are intractable.
But to use the statistical techniques, we must insist on *our* time,
not the light's time. QM and QED takes care of all the clocks
that have to be adjusted, but on paper ONLY!
The contrived notion of time allows everything from instantanous
propagation to forever propagation.
Androcles knows that nature pays no attention to papers
nor web pages nor any contrivances contained therein,
because he has stated as much in many of his own postings.
But his prejudice about some binary star system causes him to
post absurditites like they were burned in his subconsious and
he just can't help himself.
Sue...
|
| <<The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
| particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
| photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
| which the prize decision rested only in connection with
| emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
| that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
| law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
| the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
| a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
| http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
|
| Sue...
|
|
|
| > Androcles
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
12 Nov 2006 11:19:01 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163337486.633652.152190@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| [...]
ok,
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 02:15:27 PM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1163275924.797466.6190@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163269851.930429.274880@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sam Wormley wrote:
| > imi wrote:
| > > Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
| > >
| >
| > Proofs are for mathematical theorems--time dilation is predicted by
| > special and general relativity. Time dilation is measured all the
| > time.
|
| << Compensation for time dilation is a requirement of GPS to
| achieve reasonable accuracy. >>
|
| Do you have calculations using Doppler, Sagnac
[snippety snip]
Replace with irrelevancy for Sue, he usually does.
<< http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm >>
That looks great down to your wave illustration.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/stream.gif
You need a mis-wound helical antenna to do that and I don't
believe that is what you intend to illustrate.
Ask yourself (since you probably don't have any friends) >:-)
"If free space waves did that naturally, why would we bother
winding helical antenna?"
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=circular+polarization&btnG=Search+Images
Androcles misled on his web site:
<< A magnetic field which is not changing produces no electric field,
and an electric field that is not changing produces no magnetic field.
A magnetic field which is not changing IS the electirc field.
Magnetic force is just superposition of the Coulomb force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
If you feel the remaining word-salad makes a case for the photon
that ignores classical electromagnetism, then send it to the
King of Sweden and tell him what kind of salad dressing he
should have when you come to dinner.
<<The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Sue...
Androcles
Come on Farto, show Dennis that you were a better
"electronic engineer, professionally" than he was.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 08:16:55 AM |
|
|
imi wrote:
Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
I mean is it experimented scientifically?
Please let me know.
*Time dilation* is not a legitimate term in same sense
that you might use the terms Faraday rotation or
Cherenkov radiation. Einstein's relativity uses the
same term in describing unrelated phenomena
and something ambiguous can't qualify for scientific
proof.
The twins *fable* is an example where you can't
connect two different interpretations of the term.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
-----
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 08:21:51 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1163254614.980318.14940@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[snippety snip]
Saturday, 11 November 2006
FA Cup
Shrewsbury 0-0 Hereford
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, 10 November 2006
FA Cup
Cheltenham 0-0 Scunthorpe
Principality Building Society Welsh Premier League
Aberystwyth 4-2 Carmarthen
Rhyl 2-2 Newi Cefn Druids
Eircom League Premier Division
Bohemians 1-1 Bray
Cork 1-0 Shelbourne
St Patricks 0-1 Derry City
UCD 3-1 Longford Town
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, 08 November 2006
International Match
Saudi Arabia 2-1 Jordan
Carling Cup
Birmingham 0-1 Liverpool
Chelsea 4-0 Aston Villa
Everton 0-1 Arsenal
Tottenham 3-1 Port Vale (After Extra Time)
CIS Insurance Cup
Hibernian 1-0 Hearts
Rangers 0-2 St Johnstone
FA Trophy
Bromley 0-1 Tooting & Mitcham
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 07 November 2006
Carling Cup
Chesterfield 3-3 Charlton (Charlton win 4-3 on penalties)
Notts County 0-1 Wycombe
Southend 1-0 Man Utd
Watford 2-2 Newcastle (Newcastle win 5-4 on penalties)
Coca-Cola Football League Two
Bury 1-0 Wrexham
CIS Insurance Cup
Celtic 1-1 Falkirk (Falkirk win 5-4 on penalties)
Kilmarnock 3-2 Motherwell
FA Trophy
Bath 4-0 Sittingbourne
Chasetown 1-1 Kidsgrove Ath (Chasetown win 4-3 on penalties)
Clitheroe 1-0 Halesowen
Didcot Town 3-1 Chippenham
Rushall Olympic 2-0 Willenhall Town
Walton Casuals 2-2 Enfield (Enfield won 5-4 on penalties)
Wealdstone 3-0 Leighton
Winchester City 1-2 Northwood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, 06 November 2006
The Coca-Cola Football League Championship
Stoke 1-0 Coventry
Bank of Scotland Scottish Premier League
Inverness CT 1-1 Aberdeen
Eircom League Premier Division
St Patricks 0-1 Cork
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, 05 November 2006
Barclays Premiership
Aston Villa 2-0 Blackburn
Tottenham 2-1 Chelsea
West Ham 1-0 Arsenal
Nationwide Conference
York 1-0 Altrincham
Bank of Scotland Scottish Premier League
Dundee Utd 2-1 Rangers
FA Trophy
Enfield 1-1 Walton Casuals
Maidstone Utd 2-3 Ashford Town (Middx)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christophe de Dinechin" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 09:43:28 AM |
|
|
imi wrote:
Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
I mean is it experimented scientifically?
Please let me know.
Yes, it is proven. If you own a GPS, its accuracy depends on the fact
that the theory of relativity was taken into account. See
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html.
I believe that underlying your question, there is: I just can't grok
it. So let me try to explain it intuitively, let me know how it works
for you.
Consider someone in a car, who lets droplets of paint on the floor
precisely every meter. You know that if you put a 1-meter rod parallel
to the road, you will see that it aligns with the droplets.
Now, let's assume that there is another road, at an angle of 60 degrees
with the first one. Now, two cars leave droplets, separated by one
meter, each parallel to its own road. Now, walk along two droplets on
one road, and you will see that relative to the other road, you
advanced only one droplet. If you know enough math, you will convince
yourself that this is because cos(60deg) = 0.5. So the droplets on the
other road appear "contacted" by a factor 0.5, which is the cosine of
the angle between the two roads...
Here is the kicker. Relativity is exactly the same thing, except that
the road is time, and for mathematical reasons that I will explain
below, the cosine, instead of being smaller than 1, is always greater
than 1. So instead of seeing the droplets on the other road closer,
they appear more distant. Einstein called this cos greater than 1
"gamma".
When you move in space relative to me, this means the path you follow
gets slanted relative to mine (since your x(t) changes over time,
something like x(t) = v * t for a constant speed v). So the path in
space-time becomes slanted, and there is a dilatation between your time
line and mine. If, to replace droplets, you emit a pulse of light every
second, I will see them separated by more than a second. But just like
for the roads, it's completely symmetrical. That is, if I emit a pulse
of light every second, you will _also_ see them separated by more than
1 second.
Here is the twins paradox explained in that context. If you go from one
point to another, you know that the shortest path is a straight line.
If another road is not straight, it will be longer by something that is
the integral of 1/cos(theta) where theta is the angle between the
non-straight and the straight road. So in space, that integral is
always greater than 1. But with time, it is always smaller than 1. In
time, the longest path between two points is the straight line. So if
one twin stays on earth, following a relatively straight line in
space-time, and another starts zig-zagging in space-time, the traveling
twin will travel a smaller distance along time. He will age less.
Now for the math justifying it. If the path of the other road is
specified by coordinates x(s), y(s), where s is some parameter. Let's
chose a displacement primarily along y, for reasons that will appear
shortly. WIth a little drawing and a little math, you can probably
convince yourself that the cosine of the angle between the two is dy/ds
/ sqrt((dx/ds)^2+(dy/ds)^2). If you divide numerator and denominator by
dy/ds, you get 1/sqrt(1+(dx/dy)^2). Now, the magic trick is to replace
dy with i * c * dt, where i^2=-1, and you obtain the gamma of Lorentz's
transform. The sine is i * beta * gamma in Einstein's notation.
Now, the good question is: why would the time be "imaginary" like that.
Mathematicians prefer to say that space time has a signature + + + -,
meaning that the distance is computed by ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-(c.dt)^2,
instead of with only additions as for space alone. It's just experiment
that forces us to use this kind of distance. I think I have an answer
for why it is so, but it's for another thread :-)
Hope this helps
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 10:28:32 AM |
|
|
"Christophe de Dinechin" <christophe@dinechin.org> wrote in message
news:1163259808.137690.308150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| imi wrote:
| > Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
| >
| > I mean is it experimented scientifically?
| >
| > Please let me know.
|
| Yes, it is proven.
Nonsense!
If you own a GPS, its accuracy depends on the fact
| that the theory of relativity was taken into account.
More nonsense.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
See
| http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html.
Abject nonsense. The punk that wrote that page is never going to be
an engineer.
|
| I believe that underlying your question, there is: I just can't grok
| it.
I grok it very well.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
It's you that doesn't grok it.
| So let me try to explain it intuitively, let me know how it works
| for you.
|
| Consider someone in a car, who lets droplets of paint on the floor
| precisely every meter. You know that if you put a 1-meter rod parallel
| to the road, you will see that it aligns with the droplets.
|
| Now, let's assume that there is another road, at an angle of 60 degrees
| with the first one. Now, two cars leave droplets, separated by one
| meter, each parallel to its own road. Now, walk along two droplets on
| one road, and you will see that relative to the other road, you
| advanced only one droplet. If you know enough math, you will convince
| yourself that this is because cos(60deg) = 0.5. So the droplets on the
| other road appear "contacted" by a factor 0.5, which is the cosine of
| the angle between the two roads...
Yeah, so?
| Here is the kicker. Relativity is exactly the same thing, except that
| the road is time,
Then go downhill instead of uphill and grok yourself a time machine.
Sci-fi:
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
More sci-fi:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Kicker kicked.
| and for mathematical reasons that I will explain
| below, the cosine, instead of being smaller than 1, is always greater
| than 1.
HAHAHAHA!
| So instead of seeing the droplets on the other road closer,
| they appear more distant. Einstein called this cos greater than 1
| "gamma".
No he didn't, he called it "beta".
|
| When you move in space relative to me, this means the path you follow
| gets slanted relative to mine
HAHAHA!
(since your x(t) changes over time,
| something like x(t) = v * t for a constant speed v).
Well well.... v = dx/dt, but c = 0/0.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
| So the path in
| space-time
Space-time huh?
How about time-mass and mass-space? Do they have slants too?
| becomes slanted, and there is a dilatation between your time
| line and mine.
Oh really...
| If, to replace droplets, you emit a pulse of light every
| second, I will see them separated by more than a second. But just like
| for the roads, it's completely symmetrical. That is, if I emit a pulse
| of light every second, you will _also_ see them separated by more than
| 1 second.
Nope. Slope is y/x. Time doesn't have three axes.
It could, of course. There are six axes in spacetime.
x² + y² + z² = c²t² Einstein
xi² + eta² + zeta² = c²tau² Einstein
tau_x = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
tau_y = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
tau_z = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
| Here is the twins paradox explained in that context. If you go from one
| point to another, you know that the shortest path is a straight line.
Here is the twin paradox exposed:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/TwinParadox.htm
| If another road is not straight, it will be longer by something that is
| the integral of 1/cos(theta) where theta is the angle between the
| non-straight and the straight road. So in space, that integral is
| always greater than 1. But with time, it is always smaller than 1. In
| time, the longest path between two points is the straight line. So if
| one twin stays on earth, following a relatively straight line in
| space-time, and another starts zig-zagging in space-time, the traveling
| twin will travel a smaller distance along time. He will age less.
|
| Now for the math justifying it. If the path of the other road is
| specified by coordinates x(s), y(s), where s is some parameter. Let's
| chose a displacement primarily along y, for reasons that will appear
| shortly. WIth a little drawing and a little math, you can probably
| convince yourself that the cosine of the angle between the two is dy/ds
| / sqrt((dx/ds)^2+(dy/ds)^2). If you divide numerator and denominator by
| dy/ds, you get 1/sqrt(1+(dx/dy)^2). Now, the magic trick is to replace
| dy with i * c * dt, where i^2=-1, and you obtain the gamma of Lorentz's
| transform. The sine is i * beta * gamma in Einstein's notation.
|
| Now, the good question is: why would the time be "imaginary" like that.
The good answer is: It isn't.
| Mathematicians prefer
Name one.
| to say that space time has a signature + + + -,
| meaning that the distance is computed by ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-(c.dt)^2,
| instead of with only additions as for space alone. It's just experiment
| that forces us to use this kind of distance. I think I have an answer
| for why it is so, but it's for another thread :-)
|
|
| Hope this helps
As much help as a tit on a bull with you providing the *****.
Mathematicians wouldn't buy your crap in a million dilated years.
Only fuckwit relativists would make such a claim.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 11:06:18 AM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_e> wrote in message news:QSm5h.192656$3D1.34635@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Christophe de Dinechin" <christophe@dinechin.org> wrote in message
news:1163259808.137690.308150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
| Hope this helps
As much help as a tit on a bull with you providing the *****.
Mathematicians wouldn't buy your crap in a million dilated years.
Only fuckwit relativists would make such a claim.
Androcles.
Androfart's Glenlivet Nose Seems To Have Detected A New Victim.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 12:30:06 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:eqn5h.179091$mw2.2715739@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[anip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christophe de Dinechin" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 02:01:39 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"Christophe de Dinechin" <christophe@dinechin.org> wrote in message
news:1163259808.137690.308150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| imi wrote:
| > Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
| >
| > I mean is it experimented scientifically?
| >
| > Please let me know.
|
| Yes, it is proven.
Nonsense!
Your opinion. But wrong.
If you own a GPS, its accuracy depends on the fact
| that the theory of relativity was taken into account.
More nonsense.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
That page is about differential GPS. That technique was used back when
the US military was scrambling the signal, to remove the systematic
offset they introduced. This has nothing to do with the base
computation, which *does* require relativistic adjustments.
See | http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html.
Abject nonsense. The punk that wrote that page is never going to be
an engineer.
How do you know that? I am an engineer, and what is written there makes
sense to me. What you write does not. Also, my own statement is
confirmed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Relativity.
| I believe that underlying your question, there is: I just can't grok
| it.
I grok it very well.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
The page you referred me to contains, among other, "Herr Idiot
Einstein" and calls him a half-arsed halfwit. I'm interested in
physics, not in insults. I'm not going to respond to any other post of
yours that contains insults to anybody.
My personal opinion is that the page you referred us to does not make a
very good job at proving you groked relativity (or anything for that
matter). Maybe you meant that you found an error in Einstein's
reasoning that is big enough to warrant insults. I have yet to
understand what you think the error is. That it is obvious time is the
same for everybody?
It's you that doesn't grok it.
Unless I'm mistaken, I was replying to someone called 'imi', not to
you. Imi could have felt offended (though this was certainly not my
intent). But why do you act as if that was a personal offense to
"Sorcerer"?
| Now, let's assume that there is another road, at an angle of 60 degrees
| with the first one. Now, two cars leave droplets, separated by one
| meter, each parallel to its own road. Now, walk along two droplets on
| one road, and you will see that relative to the other road, you
| advanced only one droplet. If you know enough math, you will convince
| yourself that this is because cos(60deg) =3D 0.5. So the droplets on the
| other road appear "contacted" by a factor 0.5, which is the cosine of
| the angle between the two roads...
Yeah, so?
So: the fact that the two roads are not parallel induces a
"contraction". Einstein's time dilatation is the observation that time
lines for observers that move relative to one another are not parallel,
so two observers do not measure time along the same axis.
| Here is the kicker. Relativity is exactly the same thing, except that
| the road is time,
Then go downhill instead of uphill and grok yourself a time machine.
No, going downhill would correspond to changing the direction of the
other road so that instead of being "60 degrees to my left", it's "60
degrees to my right". The cosine is the same in both cases. You won't
go backwards in time that way.
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and a=
ny
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves alo=
ng
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
Wells was quite a genius, wasn't he? Writing something like that about
10 years before special relativity proved it.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
I did not understand why you associated that to sci-fi. Or is this an
attempt to belittle Einstein?
More sci-fi:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
You are so right. At the time, it took balls to write something like
that and believe that the future would be built on it. Only proves Alan
Kay's point: "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Kicker kicked.
Boy, do I feel put back to my place there.
| and for mathematical reasons that I will explain
| below, the cosine, instead of being smaller than 1, is always greater
| than 1.
HAHAHAHA!
Not sure why the notion of "hyperbolic cosine" makes you laugh. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_cosine
| So instead of seeing the droplets on the other road closer,
| they appear more distant. Einstein called this cos greater than 1
| "gamma".
No he didn't, he called it "beta".
Wrong again. Gamma in Einstein's notation is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and the
formulation below shows that it's the same formula as for the cosine
when replacing y with ict. As I mentioned, the sine is i * beta *
gamma.
| When you move in space relative to me, this means the path you follow
| gets slanted relative to mine
HAHAHA!
Good point. I like your thinking.
(since your x(t) changes over time,
| something like x(t) =3D v * t for a constant speed v).
Well well.... v =3D dx/dt, but c =3D 0/0.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
Another brilliant proof. Einstein must have been an idiot, he did not
even know how to create a GIF file. Or did I miss your point?
| So the path in space-time
Space-time huh?
How about time-mass and mass-space? Do they have slants too?
Well, when I identify physical events in an experiment, I usually use
terms like "I was at 2:00 AM on Friday at the intersection of Inverness
and Wolfe road on the surface of Earth". That's a space-time definition
of the event. Of course, I can also write time-mass or mass-space
diagrams. But that would not work very well.
Instead, Einstein observed that laws of physics are apparently
invariant when you move or change direction. So he suggested that we
should represent all physical quantities with mathematical objects that
followed the same kind of transformation, aka "tensors". Hence, he
looked for a form for energy and mass that would fit the bill, and
found that energy and momentum could be combined into such a tensor,
provided you replaced the expression "1/2 mv^2" for kinetic energy with
"gamma mc^2".
Problem was: this was too big by a factor mc^2, the value we usually
measure is instead really close to "(gamma-1) mc^2" at least for small
speeds. So Einstein said: we are only measuring the difference in
energy, but there must be something even when we don't move, this
"mc^2" factor that remains. That's how he got the famous "E=3Dmc^2"
equation. And how we came to know that we could extract energy from
matter.
Now, you probably think that there is no experimental proof that the
atomic bomb works either, right? Instead of just being wrong, that
would be stupidly wrong, because these atomic bombs and nuclear power
plants that could not possibly explode were built with your tax
dollars. Wake up: either it's THEY LIED TO YOU, bunch of idiots who
just believed Einstein was a genius and still believe they get energy
out of these snake oil nuclear powerplants! Or Einstein had something
with this "E=3Dmc^2", and nuclear powerplants actually work.
You do as you want, but I'm actually choosing to believe that it's not
a bunch of hamsters in little cages producing electricity behind these
big walls just to hide the well proven fact that Einstein was an
idiot...
| becomes slanted, and there is a dilatation between your time
| line and mine.
Oh really...
Yes, really.
| If, to replace droplets, you emit a pulse of light every
| second, I will see them separated by more than a second. But just like
| for the roads, it's completely symmetrical. That is, if I emit a pulse
| of light every second, you will _also_ see them separated by more than
| 1 second.
Nope. Slope is y/x.
I do not understand what you mean, what slope you refer to.
Time doesn't have three axes.
It could, of course. There are six axes in spacetime.
Well, at least for me, I have trouble choosing how I move along time.
But more power to you if you can move along three different axes in
your own time. So, tell me, how does it feel?
x=C2=B2 + y=C2=B2 + z=C2=B2 =3D c=C2=B2t=C2=B2 Einstein
xi=C2=B2 + eta=C2=B2 + zeta=C2=B2 =3D c=C2=B2tau=C2=B2 Einstein
tau_x =3D (t-vx/c=C2=B2)/sqrt(1-v=C2=B2/c=C2=B2) Einstein
tau_y =3D (t-uy/c=C2=B2)/sqrt(1-u=C2=B2/c=C2=B2) Androcles
tau_z =3D (t-wz/c=C2=B2)/sqrt(1-w=C2=B2/c=C2=B2) Androcles
xi =3D (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v=C2=B2/c=C2=B2) Einstein
eta =3D (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u=C2=B2/c=C2=B2) Androcles
zeta=3D (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w=C2=B2/c=C2=B2) Androcles
Is that somehow supposed to prove that there are six axes in
space-time? Could you elaborate on the "proof"? I did not exactly grok
it.
| Here is the twins paradox explained in that context. If you go from one
| point to another, you know that the shortest path is a straight line.
Here is the twin paradox exposed:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/TwinParadox.htm
A few insults inadvertently crept on this page as well, this time to
John Baez, who I very much doubt deserved them. Could you spend a
little time cleaning it up, you know, removing the parts about the
"raving, ranting, lunatic schoolteacher", which I'm pretty sure were
not intentional.
Well, you are right to point out that any such representation has a
problem with 45 degree angles. But do you agree that the two paths
followed by Terrence and Stella don't have the same length on the
figures? Or did you find a way to measure the paths so that they both
have the same length?
| Now, the good question is: why would the time be "imaginary" like that.
The good answer is: It isn't.
I'll take that as a request to clarify. Why would the results matching
physical experiments be obtained by replacing y not with t but with
ict?
| Mathematicians prefer
Name one.
I should not need to if you knew anything about that field. But whoever
wrote the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
agrees with what I wrote:
Formally, Minkowski space is a four-dimensional real vector space
equipped with a nondegenerate, symmetric bilinear form with signature
(=E2=88=92,+,+,+).
| to say that space time has a signature + + + -,
| meaning that the distance is computed by ds^2=3Ddx^2+dy^2+dz^2-(c.dt)^2,
| instead of with only additions as for space alone. It's just experiment
| that forces us to use this kind of distance. I think I have an answer
| for why it is so, but it's for another thread :-)
|
|
| Hope this helps
As much help as a tit on a bull with you providing the *****.
So that means yes, right? I'm not sure, I'm apparently not from the
same planet as you, and I have some trouble with the colorful imagery
you are using.
Mathematicians wouldn't buy your crap in a million dilated years.
Name one.
Only fuckwit relativists would make such a claim.
What claim? That I hope it helps? Sorry, but only I am allowed to make
the claim that I hope something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation |
11 Nov 2006 05:56:16 PM |
|
|
"Christophe de Dinechin" <christophe@dinechin.org> wrote in message
news:1163275299.539648.189310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorcerer wrote:
"Christophe de Dinechin" <christophe@dinechin.org> wrote in message
news:1163259808.137690.308150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| imi wrote:
| > Is Time Dilation scientifically proved?
| >
| > I mean is it experimented scientifically?
| >
| > Please let me know.
|
| Yes, it is proven.
Nonsense!
| Your opinion. But wrong.
Hey, You have the burden of proof, dipshit.
If you own a GPS, its accuracy depends on the fact
| that the theory of relativity was taken into account.
More nonsense.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
| That page is about differential GPS.
I wrote it, don't tell me what it's about.
Differential GPS was *added* to straighten out Roberts' arse.
In case you don't know who Roberts is, he's the dimwit that
is responsible for much of the Relativity FAQ pages.
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WpbYg.14819$6S3.6439@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > I've been forced to modify my page on how GPS works,[...]
|
| I see there are two different systems that have been known as
| "differential GPS". -- yack yack -- Sorry for the confusion.
-- Tom Roberts.
| That technique was used back when
| the US military was scrambling the signal, to remove the systematic
| offset they introduced. This has nothing to do with the base
| computation, which *does* require relativistic adjustments.
Baloney, dimwit. WAAS is being introduced to replace
it. GPS is not and never will be good enough for the FAA.
See | http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html.
Abject nonsense. The punk that wrote that page is never going to be
an engineer.
| How do you know that? I am an engineer, and what is written there makes
| sense to me. What you write does not. Also, my own statement is
| confirmed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Relativity.
Your opinion, and wrong! Besides, you can't be an engineer, you are too
stupid.
Wackypedia is written by shitheads just like you, especially Schaefer
and Hillman that don't have the balls to discuss it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Der_alte_Hexenmeister&redirect=no
| I believe that underlying your question, there is: I just can't grok
| it.
I grok it very well.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
| The page you referred me to contains, among other, "Herr Idiot
| Einstein" and calls him a half-arsed halfwit.
Correct.
| I'm interested in
| physics, not in insults.
It has physics, the insults come free.
| I'm not going to respond to any other post of
| yours that contains insults to anybody.
Aww.. did I hurt your delicate schoolgirl sensibilities that
you learned in finishing school training to be debutante?
*****, then, chicken!
| My personal opinion
I'm interested in physics, not in personal opinions.
[snip personal opinion]
It's you that doesn't grok it.
| Unless I'm mistaken, I was replying to someone called 'imi', not to
| you.
You made the mistake of providing your personal opinion which
is misleading *****, and you did not use private email.
That means I read it and I can open up my guns, so quit whining,
this is the big boys forum.
| Imi could have felt offended (though this was certainly not my
| intent). But why do you act as if that was a personal offense to
| "Sorcerer"?
I'm interested in physics, not in diplomacy, *****.
| Now, let's assume that there is another road, at an angle of 60 degrees
| with the first one. Now, two cars leave droplets, separated by one
| meter, each parallel to its own road. Now, walk along two droplets on
| one road, and you will see that relative to the other road, you
| advanced only one droplet. If you know enough math, you will convince
| yourself that this is because cos(60deg) = 0.5. So the droplets on the
| other road appear "contacted" by a factor 0.5, which is the cosine of
| the angle between the two roads...
Yeah, so?
| So: the fact that the two roads are not parallel induces a
| "contraction".
A fact? Contracted roads? What fact are you babbling about?
I got tell ya, I don't know many roads that are parallel. A railroad,
maybe. Perhaps you were dripping sweat on the ties, but railroad
ties are still the same distance apart even on inclines, although
a 30 degree funicular railway is more realistic than a 60 degree incline.
sin(30) = 0.5.
| Einstein's time dilatation is the observation that time
| lines for observers that move relative to one another are not parallel,
| so two observers do not measure time along the same axis.
Observation? You've never observed time dilation, who are you kidding?
| Here is the kicker. Relativity is exactly the same thing, except that
| the road is time,
Then go downhill instead of uphill and grok yourself a time machine.
No, going downhill would correspond
No?
Going downhill is going backwards in time by your analogy.
to changing the direction of the
other road so that instead of being "60 degrees to my left", it's "60
degrees to my right". The cosine is the same in both cases. You won't
go backwards in time that way.
Cos(90) = 0.
Cos (0) = 1
Cos (-90) = -1
Cos ( +/- 180) = 0
Cosine is NEVER greater than 1, *****.
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and
any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves
along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
| Wells was quite a genius, wasn't he?
Don't be so stupid.
He was a sci-fi writer, not a mathematician or an engineer.
He wrote for fun and to make money.
| Writing something like that about
| 10 years before special relativity proved it.
You don't understand fiction, do you?
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
| I did not understand why you associated that to sci-fi. Or is this an
| attempt to belittle Einstein?
Einstein's own words. He gave no credit, cited no papers and provided
no data in "Electrodynamics". All he did was push his own crackpot
theory, the idea for which he stole from Wells when he was a teenager.
He may be your hero, but you are not rational. Einstein's relativity is
sci-fi.
More sci-fi:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| You are so right.
I know I am.
| At the time, it took balls to write something like
| that and believe that the future would be built on it.
I never said he didn't have balls. He was quite the philanderer.
| Only proves Alan
| Kay's point: "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Arthur C Clarke did a better job than Einstein.
Kicker kicked.
| Boy, do I feel put back to my place there.
As you should be.
| and for mathematical reasons that I will explain
| below, the cosine, instead of being smaller than 1, is always greater
| than 1.
HAHAHAHA!
| Not sure why the notion of "hyperbolic cosine" makes you laugh. See
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_cosine
That's because you don't read.
Here it is again, the derivation of the cuckoo malformations:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
You really think trains move by peristalsis?
Oh wait, you can't read it, it'll hurt your delicate schoolgirl
sensibilities that
you learned in finishing school training to be debutante.
Keeping time:
Every satellite orbit is perturbed by the presence of the Moon and Sun, the
two bodies responsible for Earth's tides.
It is a strange fact, always overlooked by the brainless relativist, that
satellites have no initial idea where they are and hence cannot inform a
receiver until they find out where they are.
Anyone with common sense would realize that a GPS satellite could (and does)
find it's position from precisely located ground stations specifically
designed to inform the satellite where it is at any time. To extrapolate to
the next position prior to transmission a strange device called a "computer"
is carried by each satellite, and the computer has a "clock" which works by
"counting" ticks from an oscillator. The basic oscillator is a caesium atom
(Satellites carry caesium clocks) which emits seconds for 9,192,631,770
"ticks". See: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
Ticks are used by the computer to perform "digital" calculations.
Hence GR advocates are saying gravity causes a caesium atom to emit fewer
ticks (=smaller seconds) at sea level than a caesium atom at higher
altitude.
The Master Control facility of the GPS system is located at Schriever Air
Force Base (formerly Falcon AFB) in Colorado,
70 miles from downtown Mile High City (formerly and informally known as
Denver), where caesium atoms are given special military training in how to
breathe in phase with caesium atoms at sea level.
To do this a pipe is connected from Mile High City to the Johnson Space
Centre in Houston Texas, 833.43 miles away and one mile lower. The atom then
breathes in and out down the pipe whilst an instructor atom at the other end
of the pipe breathes out and in. In this way the pressure in the pipe has to
remain constant. Atoms which fail this training are not selected for space
flight. The next stage of their training is to learn the mathematics of
General Relativity and to breathe at a rate more suitable in airless
conditions at altitude.
Only when this training is completed does the caesium atom go to the
employment office in Houston (they slide down the pipe) for a full medical
check-up and astroatom training in a satellite simulator. After that they
are shipped to Cape Canaveral-by-sea and launched, piloting their own
satellite.
Because the British United Long-Lived Caesium Atomic Clock Association
(BULLCACA) is asking for biohazard money where one atom has to breathe the
expelled air of another, the astroatoms are "working to rule" (a funny
British term for go-slow) and are breathing at the standard rate of
9,192,631,770 breaths per second. Some of them failed their GRE (General
Relativity Education) tests anyway, caesium atoms are only slightly more
intelligent than relativists.
| So instead of seeing the droplets on the other road closer,
| they appear more distant. Einstein called this cos greater than 1
| "gamma".
No he didn't, he called it "beta".
| Wrong again.
You certainly are.
"so that the transformation equations which have been found become
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
where
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif
| Gamma in Einstein's notation is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
Wrong again.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif
| and the
| formulation below shows that it's the same formula as for the cosine
| when replacing y with ict. As I mentioned, the sine is i * beta *
| gamma.
You are a total bullshitter who doesn't know the greek alphabet.
| When you move in space relative to me, this means the path you follow
| gets slanted relative to mine
HAHAHA!
| Good point. I like your thinking.
(since your x(t) changes over time,
| something like x(t) = v * t for a constant speed v).
Well well.... v = dx/dt, but c = 0/0.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
| Another brilliant proof. Einstein must have been an idiot, he did not
| even know how to create a GIF file. Or did I miss your point?
Probably. You *are* pretty thick, not knowing beta from gamma.
| So the path in space-time
Space-time huh?
How about time-mass and mass-space? Do they have slants too?
| Well, when I identify physical events in an experiment, I usually use
| terms like "I was at 2:00 AM on Friday at the intersection of Inverness
| and Wolfe road on the surface of Earth". That's a space-time definition
| of the event. Of course, I can also write time-mass or mass-space
| diagrams. But that would not work very well.
Why not?
"You weighed 180 lbs at the intersection of Inverness
and Wolfe road on the surface of Earth".
That's a mass - space definition of an event, your mass will change
by gamma when you move. That works very well. Sci-fi sells.
| Instead, Einstein observed that laws of physics are apparently
| invariant when you move or change direction.
What are these mysterious "laws of physics"?
| So he suggested that we
| should represent all physical quantities with mathematical objects that
| followed the same kind of transformation, aka "tensors".
What's the tensor for this "law of physics"?
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Hint:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RotationMatrix.html
| Hence, he
| looked for a form for energy and mass that would fit the bill, and
| found that energy and momentum could be combined into such a tensor,
| provided you replaced the expression "1/2 mv^2" for kinetic energy with
| "gamma mc^2".
There is no "gamma". It's idiocy. Unless trains move my peristalsis
and c = 0/0.
| Problem was: this was too big by a factor mc^2, the value we usually
| measure is instead really close to "(gamma-1) mc^2" at least for small
| speeds. So Einstein said: we are only measuring the difference in
| energy, but there must be something even when we don't move, this
| "mc^2" factor that remains. That's how he got the famous "E=mc^2"
| equation. And how we came to know that we could extract energy from
| matter.
<yawn>
E = mv^2 for any firecracker.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Ene.gif
| Now, you probably think that there is no experimental proof that the
| atomic bomb works either, right?
Now, you probably think that there is no experimental proof you were born
between your mother's legs, right?
You fucking arrogant moron.
| Instead of just being wrong, that
| would be stupidly wrong, because these atomic bombs and nuclear power
| plants that could not possibly explode were built with your tax
| dollars. Wake up: either it's THEY LIED TO YOU, bunch of idiots who
| just believed Einstein was a genius and still believe they get energy
| out of these snake oil nuclear powerplants! Or Einstein had something
| with this "E=mc^2", and nuclear powerplants actually work.
| You do as you want, but I'm actually choosing to believe that it's not
| a bunch of hamsters in little cages producing electricity behind these
| big walls just to hide the well proven fact that Einstein was an
| idiot...
Einstein was not invited to the Manhattan Project, so to hide
his embarrassment he cried "pacifist". Your hero was a wanker.
| becomes slanted, and there is a dilatation between your time
| line and mine.
Oh really...
| Yes, really.
Proof?
| If, to replace droplets, you emit a pulse of light every
| second, I will see them separated by more than a second. But just like
| for the roads, it's completely symmetrical. That is, if I emit a | | | | |
