Gamma demystified

On Aug 26, 9:49 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/26/11 8/26/11 - 9:22 AM, Aetherist wrote:

you seem to be saying
the rest frame's time (Proper Time) *must be related* to any
moving frame's time (Coordinate Time) as a function its speed
*assuming* c is finite, fixed, and constant. You then scale
c to one and solve for the relationship that makes this so?
Is this basically correct?

No.

The question of how time in one frame (coordinate system) relates to time in
another frame (coordinate system) is a question to be resolved by EXPERIMENTS,
not by any notion of what "must" occur or what assumptions one makes. The
experiments show that SR is an excellent model (within its domain, of course).
That means that time intervals measured in one inertial frame are related to
intervals measured in a different inertial frame by the Lorentz transform..

You were claiming that long ago until you were pointed out that SR has
thoroughly predicted the mutual time dilation due to it satisfying
relative simultaneity, and no experiments have definitely shown so
this unique prediction of SR. shrug

Well, back then, you could claim to be stupid and ignorant, but now
your tactics of playing dumb just does not work anymore. That is
unless you are an idiot. shrug

Thus, keeping on claiming the lies of SR predictions being supported
by experimentations is a con-man ploy. Come on. If you really think
SR is valid, why don’t you bring up an experiment that also supports
the mutual time dilation thingy. It cannot be that difficult, can
it? shrug

In the meantime, you ought to be arrested for crime against science on
spreading lies to promote the religious nature of SR and GR. shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Aug 26, 9:49 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/26/11 8/26/11 - 9:22 AM, Aetherist wrote:

you seem to be saying
the rest frame's time (Proper Time) *must be related* to any
moving frame's time (Coordinate Time) as a function its speed
*assuming* c is finite, fixed, and constant. You then scale
c to one and solve for the relationship that makes this so?
Is this basically correct?

No.

The question of how time in one frame (coordinate system) relates to time
in
another frame (coordinate system) is a question to be resolved by
EXPERIMENTS,
not by any notion of what "must" occur or what assumptions one makes. The
experiments show that SR is an excellent model (within its domain, of
course).
That means that time intervals measured in one inertial frame are related
to
intervals measured in a different inertial frame by the Lorentz transform.

You were claiming that long ago until you were pointed out that SR has
thoroughly predicted the mutual time dilation due to it satisfying
relative simultaneity, and no experiments have definitely shown so
this unique prediction of SR. shrug

___________________________________
That is both untrue and irrelevant. It is firstly untrue because this has
exactly been done. See for example
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...l#Twin_paradox,
or more simply note the fact that particles in countless cyclotrons around
the world decay exactly at the rate predicted by relativity when compared to
particles at rest. Your statement is irrelevant because the fact that a
certain part of a theory can or can't be experimentally tested says nothing.
Nobody could test whether an object in orbit around the earth was in zero G
when Newtown predicted it would. You complaining that we can't jump in a
spaceship at 0.9c to test SR is as specious as somebody in 1800 claiming
Newtownian gravity is wrong because nobody can go into space and measure
gravity. In fact its much worse; we can and have directly measured this
phenomenum on the atomic level independently in several areas and is used
every day in the operation of cyclotrons.


Well, back then, you could claim to be stupid and ignorant, but now
your tactics of playing dumb just does not work anymore. That is
unless you are an idiot. shrug

Thus, keeping on claiming the lies of SR predictions being supported
by experimentations is a con-man ploy. Come on. If you really think
SR is valid, why don’t you bring up an experiment that also supports
the mutual time dilation thingy. It cannot be that difficult, can
it? shrug

________________________________________
So, in 1800, could you have been able to claim that Newtownian gravity was
wrong because nobody had gone into outer space and measured the gravity?

How could it possibly be that just because a theory makes a prediction which
cannot be directly tested at the time, the theory is somehow thought to be
wrong?

Are their *any* experiments which *can* be conducted now where you think
relativity gives the wrong answer?

Even one?

Can you even think of an experiment which *can't* currently be tested where
you disagree with relativity's predictions? How about the Twin's paradox?
Will the travelling twin return younger as predicted by Relativity, the same
age, or older than the stay at home twin? Is SR's prediction correct?

On Aug 27, 1:11 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

You [Tom Roberts] were claiming that long ago until you
were pointed out that SR has thoroughly predicted the mutual
time dilation due to it satisfying relative simultaneity,
and no experiments have definitely shown so this unique
prediction of SR. shrug

That is both untrue and irrelevant. It is firstly untrue because this has
exactly been done. See for example
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...l#Twin_paradox
or more simply note the fact that particles in countless cyclotrons around
the world decay exactly at the rate predicted by relativity when compared to
particles at rest.

Peter Webb is a liar once again. In the article, there is no
experimental verification to the symmetrically mutual time dilation
uniquely predicted by SR. shrug

Your statement is irrelevant because the fact that a
certain part of a theory can or can't be experimentally tested says nothing.
Nobody could test whether an object in orbit around the earth was in zero G
when Newtown predicted it would.

Bull****! Mutual time dilation can be tested. shrug

You complaining that we can't jump in a
spaceship at 0.9c to test SR is as specious as somebody in 1800 claiming
Newtownian gravity is wrong because nobody can go into space and measure
gravity. In fact its much worse; we can and have directly measured this
phenomenum on the atomic level independently in several areas and is used
every day in the operation of cyclotrons.

You don’t have to go at 0.9c. shrug

Well, back then, you could claim to be stupid and ignorant,
but now your tactics of playing dumb just does not work
anymore. That is unless you are an idiot. shrug

Thus, keeping on claiming the lies of SR predictions being
supported by experimentations is a con-man ploy. Come on.
If you really think SR is valid, why don’t you bring up an
experiment that also supports the mutual time dilation thingy.
It cannot be that difficult, can it? shrug

Yes, unless it has been done before but the result did not fit the
idiotic prediction of SR. shrug

So, in 1800, could you have been able to claim that Newtownian gravity was
wrong because nobody had gone into outer space and measured the gravity?

No. shrug

How could it possibly be that just because a theory makes a prediction which
cannot be directly tested at the time, the theory is somehow thought to be
wrong?

Idiot! shrug

Are their *any* experiments which *can* be conducted now where you think
relativity gives the wrong answer?
Yes, for example this one. shrug

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...l#Twin_paradox

Even one?

Lots. shrug

Can you even think of an experiment which *can't* currently be tested where
you disagree with relativity's predictions? How about the Twin's paradox?
Will the travelling twin return younger as predicted by Relativity, the same
age, or older than the stay at home twin? Is SR's prediction correct?

SR predicts both each twin will be younger than the other one. Which
experiment shows just that? shrug

On 8/27/11 11:12 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Peter Webb is a liar once again. In the article, there is no
experimental verification to the symmetrically mutual time dilation
uniquely predicted by SR.shrug

Saathoff, G., Karpuk, S., Eisenbarth, U., Huber, G., Krohn, S., Horta,
R.M., Reinhardt, S., Schwalm, D., Wolf, A., and Gwinner, G., “Improved
Test of Time Dilation in Special Relativity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91,
190403, (2003).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14611572

Abstract
An improved test of time dilation in special relativity has been
performed using laser spectroscopy on fast ions at the heavy-ion
storage-ring TSR in Heidelberg. The Doppler-shifted frequencies of a
two-level transition in 7Li+ ions at v=0.064c have been measured in the
*forward and backward direction* to an accuracy of Deltanu/nu=1 x 10(-9)
using collinear saturation spectroscopy. The result confirms the
relativistic Doppler formula and sets a new limit of 2.2 x 10(-7) for
deviations from the time dilation factor gamma(SR)=(1-v2/c2)(-1/2).

Einstein Dingleberry "Sam Wormley" wrote:



Koobee Wublee wrote:
Peter Webb is a liar once again. In the article, there is no
experimental verification to the symmetrically mutual time dilation
uniquely predicted by SR.shrug

hanson wrote:
KW, listen. Einstein Dingleberry Webb does NOT lie
consciously. Webb is not right in his head. Webb believes
that his being so slow on the uptake, is a manifestation of
time dilation.

Einstein Dingleberry "Sam Wormley", adressing KW,
cited and wrote:

.... some crap from 2003 that was done by a set of grad
students, poor sods, who needed to parrots to their
drummer in order to graduate. snip crap

Androcles wrote:
The babbling bull****ting wormlet doesn't understand
mathematics. There is everything wrong (with) special
relativity!

hanson wrote:
Androcles is quite right, but maybe Sam is not
bull****ting. It appears more likely that Sam too,
like Webb, is just too slow on the uptake to see
that:
====== SR is short for STUPID RANT and ======
===== GR is just a GULLIBLE RECITATION ====

there is no such a thing as "mutual time dilation,"
other than both parties accelerating & decelerating
as much in the same quantum of time, trivially,
relative to the "home planet."

Sam Wormley wrote in
:

On 8/27/11 11:12 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Peter Webb is a liar once again. In the article, there is no
experimental verification to the symmetrically mutual time dilation
uniquely predicted by SR.shrug

Saathoff, G., Karpuk, S., Eisenbarth, U., Huber, G., Krohn, S., Horta,
R.M., Reinhardt, S., Schwalm, D., Wolf, A., and Gwinner, G., “Improved
Test of Time Dilation in Special Relativity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91,
190403, (2003).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14611572

Abstract
An improved test of time dilation in special relativity has been
performed using laser spectroscopy on fast ions at the heavy-ion
storage-ring TSR in Heidelberg. The Doppler-shifted frequencies of a
two-level transition in 7Li+ ions at v=0.064c have been measured in the
*forward and backward direction* to an accuracy of Deltanu/nu=1 x 10(-9)
using collinear saturation spectroscopy. The result confirms the
relativistic Doppler formula and sets a new limit of 2.2 x 10(-7) for
deviations from the time dilation factor gamma(SR)=(1-v2/c2)(-1/2).



Oh I remember reading that. Interesting article.

Too bad koobywooby won't even consider reading it.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Mutual time dilation can be tested.

Explain how, please. Be specific, and do not require unobtanium or instruments
impossible with current technology.


Tom Roberts

On Aug 27, 2:20 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Mutual time dilation can be tested.

Explain how, please. Be specific, and do not require unobtanium or instruments
impossible with current technology.

Michelson deeply believed in the Aether and successfully came up with
ingenious experimentations attempting to prove the existence of the
Aether. The null results of the MMX gave confusions. He has no doubt
that if Michelson were warned about the confused results, he would
have taken up the challenge to prove the validity of known science
anyway. shrug

Similarly, you are also an experimental physicist who believes in the
nonsense of relative simultaneity just because there is no other
avenue that your shallow mind can think of. You should be challenging
yourself to come up with experimentations to justify your belief just
like Michelson did. Instead of Michelson’s conviction, you are afraid
of going through and find out what you believe in would be proven
wrong. Well, you are not alone. All self-styled physicists face the
same dilemma since deep down they knew this is a hopeless endeavor of
supporting SR. shrug

If you are really interested in proving the validity of this mutual
time dilation thingy, you should be the one who is given the life time
chance of proving what you believe is valid, but be warned, which you
may have already known and expected, that the results would be
unpleasant for you. Michelson’s result was a schocker for him, and
these null results would cause a major remodeling of physics. You and
He just disagree on what the results would be. Now, your result is
expected to disprove SR. This would be an unwelcomed awakening just
like Shawn Connery’s character in Zardoz (1974) who found out who
found out the truth after reading the Wizard of Oz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zardoz

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Aug 27, 2:20 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Mutual time dilation can be tested.

Explain how, please. Be specific, and do not require unobtanium or
instruments
impossible with current technology.

Michelson deeply believed in the Aether and successfully came up with
ingenious experimentations attempting to prove the existence of the
Aether. The null results of the MMX gave confusions. He has no doubt
that if Michelson were warned about the confused results, he would
have taken up the challenge to prove the validity of known science
anyway. shrug

____________________________________
Are you going to answer the question? You claimed there was an experimental
test of mutual time dilation which would show it was wrong.

When asked to describe it, we get the same crank bull**** as ever. There is
no experimental prediction of Relativity which you consider incorrect, and
that includes the "Twin Paradox".

You don't understand relativity; you don't have an alternate theory, you
can't point to a single prediction of SR which you believe incorrect, and
you are apparently completely ignorant of both physics and the scientific
method.

You have nothing to say, which is why your posts say nothing other than you
are a crank.

HTH


Peter Webb


SNIP crank rant

This would be an unwelcomed awakening just
like Shawn Connery’s character in Zardoz (1974) who found out who
found out the truth after reading the Wizard of Oz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zardoz

___________________________________
Sorry, had to leave the above bit in. When asked to describe a physics
experiment, you talk about a movie you once saw which has nothing to do with
physics. This inability to stay on topic is a common sign of a brain injury,
and an almost universal indicator of being an internet crank. Have you in
fact suffered some form of brain injury, perhaps as a result of trauma or
meningitis?