|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
On Jul 7, 4:53 am, RedAcer wrote:
Good to see the experiment has been done in the lab with a simple experiment, with results as predicted by Einstein. NIST have an aluminium ion clock accurate to 1 second in 4 billion years. It's so accurate you could hold a clock in one hand and just wave one in the other and see the time dilation. The mutual time dilation can never be observed in any experiments. Whoever claims so is either lying or delusional. shrug They did their experiment at speeds between 0 and 40 m/s ! That would be under 10 parts per 10^15. It sounds like someone is confusing dream from reality. Speaking of which, this dream is merely a conjecture, and it fits very well into the mentality of the self- styled physicists inundated with Orwellian school of thought. The check marks appear in the post. shrug ** FAITH IS THEORY ** LYING IS TEACHING ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** PARADOX IS KOSHER (checked) ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** BULL**** IS TRUTH (checked) ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY (checked) ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS Not bad for getting three check marks with just a short post. shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
On 7/7/11 12:18 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The mutual time dilation can never be observed in any experiments. Whoever claims so is either lying or delusional.shrug Well Duh--Since when can one have more than one perspective simultaneously, Koobee! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
On 7/7/11 1:01 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/7/11 12:18 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: The mutual time dilation can never be observed in any experiments. Whoever claims so is either lying or delusional.shrug Well Duh--Since when can one have more than one perspective simultaneously, Koobee! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity However, PD correctly point out that "Mutual time dilation has been observed in J/psi production rates in hadron-hadron and nucleus-nucleus collisions in collider accelerators". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message ... On 7/7/11 1:01 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: On 7/7/11 12:18 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: Koobee Wublee wrote: The mutual time dilation can never be observed in any experiments. Whoever claims so is either lying or delusional.shrug Sam Wormley wrote: Well Duh--Since when can one have more than one perspective simultaneously, Koobee! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity Sam Wormley wrote: However, PD correctly point out that "Mutual time dilation has been observed in J/psi production rates in hadron-hadron and nucleus-nucleus collisions in collider accelerators". hanson wrote: What's the bi deal?... "mutual time dilation" has been "observed" & is being taken for serious for millennia. Look into the I-Ching, the Gita, the Torah, the Bible and the Koran... They all see something and then they BELIEVE that is is real, because they are fugged in their heads... ahahaha.... ---[ KW 1 : Sam 0 ]--- Thanks for the laughs though... maharaja... ahahahanson |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
On Jul 7, 12:50*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message ... On 7/7/11 1:01 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: On 7/7/11 12:18 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: Koobee Wublee wrote: The mutual time dilation can never be observed in any experiments. Whoever claims so is either lying or delusional.shrug Sam Wormley wrote: Well Duh--Since when can one have more than one perspective simultaneously, Koobee! See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity Sam Wormley wrote: * However, PD correctly point out that "Mutual time dilation has been * observed in J/psi production rates in hadron-hadron and * nucleus-nucleus collisions in collider accelerators". hanson wrote: What's the bi deal?... "mutual time dilation" has been "observed" & is being taken for serious for millennia. Look into the I-Ching, the Gita, the Torah, the Bible and the Koran... They all see something and then they BELIEVE that is is real, because they are fugged in their heads... ahahaha.... * * * ---[ KW 1 *: *Sam * 0 *]--- Thanks for the laughs though... maharaja... ahahahanson- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If lost time is not applicable to a high speed object passing another slower in space mutual time dilation cannot be corrected by the lost time concept. One will be younger than the other guaranteed. The fast in space distance clock will tick slower and will see the relatively still clock ticking faster. The two cannot see each the other as going slower than itself; only one can. Passing in space leaves no lost time to be utilized to make SR work. Lost time was Einsein's last bastion of SR theory; but it doesn't always apply so it is no correction to make SR work. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
Koobee-doo won't look at a simple explanation,
like assessing the angular momenta of atoms in clocks, "going relatovostocally." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
On Jul 7, 1:18*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 7, 4:53 am, RedAcer wrote: Good to see the experiment has been done in the lab with a simple experiment, with results as predicted by Einstein. NIST have an aluminium ion clock accurate to 1 second in 4 billion years. It's so accurate you could hold a clock in one hand and just wave one in the other and see the time dilation. The mutual time dilation can never be observed in any experiments. Whoever claims so is either lying or delusional. *shrug They did their experiment at speeds between 0 and 40 m/s ! That would be under 10 parts per 10^15. *It sounds like someone is confusing dream from reality. *Speaking of which, this dream is merely a conjecture, and it fits very well into the mentality of the self- styled physicists inundated with Orwellian school of thought. *The check marks appear in the post. *shrug ** * * * *FAITH IS THEORY ** * * * *LYING IS TEACHING ** * * * NITWIT IS GENIUS ** * * * OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** * * *PARADOX IS KOSHER * * *(checked) ** * * *FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** * * BULL**** IS TRUTH * * * (checked) ** * *BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** * *MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** * *IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** * CONJECTURE IS REALITY * * (checked) ** * PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** *MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS Not bad for getting three check marks with just a short post. *shrug xxein: "and there should be no asymmetric results between them." Not according to SR or GR. Whatchugot to show or prove differently? Put up or shut up. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
On Jul 7, 4:08*pm, wrote:
On Jul 7, 12:50*pm, "hanson" wrote: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message .. . On 7/7/11 1:01 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: On 7/7/11 12:18 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: Koobee Wublee wrote: The mutual time dilation can never be observed in any experiments. Whoever claims so is either lying or delusional.shrug Sam Wormley wrote: Well Duh--Since when can one have more than one perspective simultaneously, Koobee! See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity Sam Wormley wrote: * However, PD correctly point out that "Mutual time dilation has been * observed in J/psi production rates in hadron-hadron and * nucleus-nucleus collisions in collider accelerators". hanson wrote: What's the bi deal?... "mutual time dilation" has been "observed" & is being taken for serious for millennia. Look into the I-Ching, the Gita, the Torah, the Bible and the Koran... They all see something and then they BELIEVE that is is real, because they are fugged in their heads... ahahaha.... * * * ---[ KW 1 *: *Sam * 0 *]--- Thanks for the laughs though... maharaja... ahahahanson- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If lost time is not applicable to a high speed object passing another slower in space mutual time dilation cannot be corrected by the lost time concept. One will be younger than the other guaranteed. The fast in space distance clock will tick slower and will see the relatively still clock ticking faster. The two cannot see each the other as going slower than itself; only one can. Passing in space leaves no lost time to be utilized to make SR work. Lost time was Einsein's last bastion of SR theory; but it doesn't always apply so it is no correction to make SR work.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - xxein: "will tick slower and will see the relatively still clock ticking faster." "Relatively" and still a clock? What is that? I'll tell you. It's simply the Dopler effect. (1+-v/c)/timerate (Lorentz). Oh! Something affects timerate, huh? Hmm. A relative velocity? Velocity in what? How would you begin to measure that? Oh. You can't? But welcome to the world of simply guesses for what we observe. Are you observing this "still clock"? What makes you think it's still? Just because it appears unmoving? Compared to what? Just you? If the physic could be as/so simple as that. You have no basis for any conclusion. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" wrote: Koobee-doo won't look at a simple explanation, like assessing the angular momenta of atoms in clocks, "going relatovostocally." - hanson wrote: Brian, then show Koobee so, and how, with equations and calculations, not just with your usual buzz wording that makes you appear to be: Spine less Brian Quincy Hutchings" QncyMI at netscape.net is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity, who asked: ||||Brian wrote:||| "do I have to kiss the dingleberries?" Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head", rasterspace", "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil in "1treePetrifiedForestLane" & is no longer able to realize what's going on and so: ||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?" ||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards" ||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the ||| Brian says: patent office. ||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv ||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes ||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
twin paradox experiment done in lab
thank you for broaching the "nettikett" of
"not top-posting." I don't need to get into the mere quadratic equations of relativity,with such a simple qualitative description that some folks refuse to bother with. the real problem is "spacetime" and "rocks o'light," which tend to obscure these simple matters. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 111 | November 25th 10 01:41 PM |
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY? | Androcles[_33_] | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | November 2nd 10 05:12 PM |
2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 16 | January 8th 09 06:39 PM |
The twin paradox revisited | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | July 10th 07 08:19 PM |
Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. | Der alte Hexenmeister | Astronomy Misc | 40 | January 12th 06 03:00 AM |