| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Mathematics Forum » MMX-LT-Einstein = discrepancy... |
|
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Spirit of Truth... |
 Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I stated this much earlier but in a different form.
It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.
I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.
In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.
The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!
Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.
Spirit of Truth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Spirit of Truth... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"doug" <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote in message
news:s82dnatcGbONa9PXnZ2dnUVZ_sVi4p2d at (no spam) posted.docknet...
[quote:f3ff0e5a48]
Spirit of Truth wrote:
I stated this much earlier but in a different form.
It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.
I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.
In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.
The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!
Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.
SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.
Spirit of Truth
[/quote:f3ff0e5a48]
Doug, time for you to grow up.
Spirit of Truth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Spirit of Truth wrote:
[quote:fd9031479a]I stated this much earlier but in a different form.
It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.
I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.
In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.
The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!
Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.
[/quote:fd9031479a]
SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.
[quote:fd9031479a]
Spirit of Truth
[/quote:fd9031479a] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Spirit of Truth wrote:
[quote:d9d2e0577e]"doug" <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote in message
news:s82dnatcGbONa9PXnZ2dnUVZ_sVi4p2d at (no spam) posted.docknet...
Spirit of Truth wrote:
I stated this much earlier but in a different form.
It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.
I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.
In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.
The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!
Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.
SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.
Spirit of Truth
Doug, time for you to grow up.
Spirit of Truth
[/quote:d9d2e0577e]
Your stupidity and dislike of relativity are not my
problems. You can keep looking like a fool here as
long as you want and anyone can comment on your ignorance.
[quote:d9d2e0577e]
[/quote:d9d2e0577e] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Spirit of Truth... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"doug" <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote in message
news:nPednZEcE5XW6dLXnZ2dnUVZ_jli4p2d at (no spam) posted.docknet...
[quote:2990fe94bb]
Spirit of Truth wrote:
"doug" <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote in message
news:s82dnatcGbONa9PXnZ2dnUVZ_sVi4p2d at (no spam) posted.docknet...
Spirit of Truth wrote:
I stated this much earlier but in a different form.
It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.
I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.
In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.
The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!
Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.
SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.
Spirit of Truth
Doug, time for you to grow up.
Spirit of Truth
Your stupidity and dislike of relativity are not my
problems. You can keep looking like a fool here as
long as you want and anyone can comment on your ignorance.
[/quote:2990fe94bb]
I told you to grow up. If you have any basic understanding of SR try to
confront the thread.
Spirit of Truth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Spirit of Truth... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"doug" <xx at (no spam) xx.com
[quote:9c7309793e]wrote in message news:S4CdnUCscIk6cNLXnZ2dnUVZ_i1i4p2d at (no spam) posted.docknet...
[/quote:9c7309793e]
*plonk*# for juvenile response.
Spirit of Truth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 4, 8:15 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
[quote:9476b3151d]In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and what
it predicts for various experiments.
[/quote:9476b3151d]
Yes, it is fair enough. After studying SR, relative simultaneity is a
direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform. This means the twins
paradox. This means any communication satellites and any
interferometers cannot have worked. The only scientific method is
thus to reject the Lorentz transform instead of creating a religion
covering up the nonsense of relative simultaneity. The real world
only satisfies absolute simultaneity. <shrug>
[quote:9476b3151d]Your mistakes and delusions are NOT relativity.
[/quote:9476b3151d]
You need to understand what relative simultaneity really means in
accordance with the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
[quote:9476b3151d]In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are related
by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any object [#]
moving with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame moves with
speed c in every other inertial frame. This applies to SPEED -- in other
inertial frames the direction can differ, but the speed does not.
[/quote:9476b3151d]
This is also true under the Voigt transform. <shrug>
[quote:9476b3151d]For the MMX, the application...
[/quote:9476b3151d]
The interferometer used in the MMX falsifies any conjecture predicting
the world behaves in relative simultaneity. Thus, the MMX actually
falsifies the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
You need to really understand instead of worshipping the Lorentz
transform. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Spirit of Truth wrote:
[quote:6d3b916d9b]"doug" <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote in message
news:nPednZEcE5XW6dLXnZ2dnUVZ_jli4p2d at (no spam) posted.docknet...
Spirit of Truth wrote:
"doug" <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote in message
news:s82dnatcGbONa9PXnZ2dnUVZ_sVi4p2d at (no spam) posted.docknet...
Spirit of Truth wrote:
I stated this much earlier but in a different form.
It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.
I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.
In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.
The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!
Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.
SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.
Spirit of Truth
Doug, time for you to grow up.
Spirit of Truth
Your stupidity and dislike of relativity are not my
problems. You can keep looking like a fool here as
long as you want and anyone can comment on your ignorance.
I told you to grow up. If you have any basic understanding of SR try to
confront the thread.
Spirit of Truth
[/quote:6d3b916d9b]
The problem is that you have no understanding of SR. You saying stupid
things like claiming SR has problems with the LT shows the depth
of your ignorance. You have the choice of remaining ignorant but
doing so willingly makes you stupid as well.
[quote:6d3b916d9b]
[/quote:6d3b916d9b] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MeAmI.org... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mmm wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[quote:9c69157480]On Jul 4, 8:15 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and what
it predicts for various experiments.
Yes, it is fair enough. After studying SR, relative simultaneity is a
direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform. This means the twins
paradox. This means any communication satellites and any
interferometers cannot have worked. The only scientific method is
thus to reject the Lorentz transform instead of creating a religion
covering up the nonsense of relative simultaneity. The real world
only satisfies absolute simultaneity. <shrug
Your mistakes and delusions are NOT relativity.
You need to understand what relative simultaneity really means in
accordance with the Lorentz transform. <shrug
In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are related
by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any object [#]
moving with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame moves with
speed c in every other inertial frame. This applies to SPEED -- in other
inertial frames the direction can differ, but the speed does not.
This is also true under the Voigt transform. <shrug
For the MMX, the application...
The interferometer used in the MMX falsifies any conjecture predicting
the world behaves in relative simultaneity. Thus, the MMX actually
falsifies the Lorentz transform. <shrug
You need to really understand instead of worshipping the Lorentz
transform. <shrug
Math Forum Discussionspredecessor of the MMX and concluded with the[/quote:9c69157480]
Voigt transform which ... You need to get some REAL physics books and
[quote:9c69157480]study them. ... Peter only did not recognize Christ three times.
How many times ... <shrug> Koobee-You get so confused by words and[/quote:9c69157480]
your perceived history. The physics and math work! ...http://
mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa%3FmessageID%3D6763375%26tstart%3D0 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Spirit of Truth... |
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"MeAmI.org" <MeAmI at (no spam) vzw.blackberry.net> wrote in message
news:d74995fd-fa74-461d-b70b-745b6be93ab2 at (no spam) d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Mmm wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[quote:414914c8d7]On Jul 4, 8:15 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and what
it predicts for various experiments.
Yes, it is fair enough. After studying SR, relative simultaneity is a
direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform. This means the twins
paradox. This means any communication satellites and any
interferometers cannot have worked. The only scientific method is
thus to reject the Lorentz transform instead of creating a religion
covering up the nonsense of relative simultaneity. The real world
only satisfies absolute simultaneity. <shrug
Your mistakes and delusions are NOT relativity.
You need to understand what relative simultaneity really means in
accordance with the Lorentz transform. <shrug
In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are related
by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any object [#]
moving with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame moves with
speed c in every other inertial frame. This applies to SPEED -- in other
inertial frames the direction can differ, but the speed does not.
This is also true under the Voigt transform. <shrug
For the MMX, the application...
The interferometer used in the MMX falsifies any conjecture predicting
the world behaves in relative simultaneity. Thus, the MMX actually
falsifies the Lorentz transform. <shrug
You need to really understand instead of worshipping the Lorentz
transform. <shrug
Math Forum Discussionspredecessor of the MMX and concluded with the[/quote:414914c8d7]
Voigt transform which ... You need to get some REAL physics books and
[quote:414914c8d7]study them. ... Peter only did not recognize Christ three times.
How many times ... <shrug> Koobee-You get so confused by words and[/quote:414914c8d7]
your perceived history. The physics and math work! ...http://
mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa%3FmessageID%3D6763375%26tstart%3D0
Lack of simultaneity is nonsense. Look at these links:
Andromeda paradox in here:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity%2C_time_dilation_and_length_contraction
Captain Kirk in here:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node77.html
Spirit of Truth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Gisse... |
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 4, 9:02pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
[quote:1e55f00e34]You need to really understand instead of worshipping the Lorentz
transform. <shrug
[/quote:1e55f00e34]
So where did you learn to understand? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike... |
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 5, 1:41pm, Eric Gisse <jowr... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:c3654795b3]On Jul 4, 9:02pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You need to really understand instead of worshipping the Lorentz
transform. <shrug
So where did you learn to understand?
[/quote:c3654795b3]
When he got his Ph.D little crank. He knows you believe that the
Newtonian gravity equation is an Euler ODE and his is laughing hard
now:
Eric Gisse about the Newtonian gravity equation solution: " Your
problem bores me - walking to the toilet and peeing takes longer, and
required the same amount of mental horsepower. If I look over to my
right, I can see several books that have the Euler equation solved."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd24a9cdf16c4daf?hl=en
hahahahahahahahahaha |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Roberts... |
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[quote:a31141a3ea]relative simultaneity is a
direct manifestation of the Lorentz transform.
[/quote:a31141a3ea]
Yes.
[quote:a31141a3ea]This means the twins
paradox.
[/quote:a31141a3ea]
Yes. Note that in the world we inhabit the twin's "paradox" DOES OCCUR.
So any theory (or personal prejudice like yours) that lacks it is WRONG.
Bailey et al., Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive
and negative muons in a circular orbit, Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg
301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 179 (1979). They stored
muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with
measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly
relativistic twin scenario (v ~0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are
the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few
microseconds.
C. Alley, Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic
Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses, in Quantum Optics,
Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and
Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum
Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pg 363427. They flew atomic clocks
in airplanes that remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which
flew to Greenland and back.
Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol.
177 pg 166170 (1972) (experiment). They flew atomic clocks on
commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared
the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an
earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO
clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR
predictions to well within their experimental resolution and
uncertainties (which total about 25 ns). By using four cesium-beam
atomic clocks they greatly reduced their systematic errors due to clock
drift.
It is even possible for a guy with an interest in accurate timekeeping
to display the variation in clocks rates on a family vacation:
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/index.htm
[quote:a31141a3ea]This means any communication satellites and any
interferometers cannot have worked.
[/quote:a31141a3ea]
That is simply not true. But they do work somewhat differently than your
personal prejudice says.
This, of course, includes the GPS, which is a MUCH better test of the
variation in clock rates.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#GPS
NONE of the experiments referenced above actually test
simultaneity or lack thereof, they measure variations in
clock rates. But if clock rates vary, and simultaneity is
defined by synchronized clocks, then simultaneity must
vary too. Variation with altitude is predicted by GR, not
SR, but it also refutes "absolute simultaneity".
Please note that the only practical way humans can establish
simultaneity over a region of space and time is by using multiple
synchronized clocks (e.g. UTC, GPS time). In particular, your personal
notion of what "now" means in a distant part of the universe is just
that -- a figment of your imagination; that is not science.
[quote:a31141a3ea]The real world
only satisfies absolute simultaneity.
[/quote:a31141a3ea]
Your ASSERTIONS and PERSONAL PREJUDICES are not science.
Spirit of Truth wrote:
[quote:a31141a3ea]Lack of simultaneity is nonsense.
[/quote:a31141a3ea]
No, it is not. It's just that it is different from your personal
prejudice. The world does not care what you or Koobee have concocted in
your minds. Real experiments show that both of your personal prejudices
are WRONG.
Tom Roberts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MeAmI.org... |
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
MeAmI.org wrote:
Mike wrote:
[quote:7f78aae080]On Jul 5, 1:41 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:02 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You need to really understand instead of worshipping the Lorentz
transform. <shrug
So where did you learn to understand?
When he got his Ph.D little crank. He knows you believe that the
Newtonian gravity equation is an Euler ODE and his is laughing hard
now:
Eric Gisse about the Newtonian gravity equation solution: " Your
problem bores me - walking to the toilet and peeing takes longer, and
required the same amount of mental horsepower. If I look over to my
right, I can see several books that have the Euler equation solved."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd24a9cdf16c4daf?hl=en
hahahahahahahahahaha
[/quote:7f78aae080]
Fools rush in. It is good to spend more time trying to understand than
standing in rididule of what we do not. --Musatov
1.1 Fields and Particlesna Chernikov, “A homogeneous static
gravitational field and the principle of ...... A. Mukherjee, iv
Musatov, hc Pauli and av Radyushkin, “Power-law wave ...
http://theor.jinr.ru/Report/2002/Fields_Particles.pdf
'68 Comeback Special (телевизионный концерт) Elvis Presley's
'68 ...... Graphviz Graphviz Graveworm Graveworm Gravitation (аниме и
манга) Gravitation ..... V975 Motorola V980 Motorola V980 Motte and
bailey Motte-and-bailey Motu ...... Виктор Эльпидифорович Victor
Borisov-Musatov Борисов Borisov Борисов ...... Уорфа Sapir–Whorf
hypothesis Гипотеза Эйлера Euler's conjecture Гипофиз ...
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/group/smart/data/wikipedia/phrase_table/wikipedia_phrasetable/ru-en.ff
www.news2mail.com: sci.math -- Mathematical discussions and pursuits.
Subscribe the Messages from the Usenetgroup and get them in your local
mailbox.
http://test.h69703.serverkompetenz.net/msg/today/sci/math.html
www.news2mail.com: sci.math -- Mathematical discussions and pursuits.
Wolfram Alpha's response on "Who is Euler?" Re: Is relativity
ILLOGICAL? Re: Cantor's argument is erroneous; Re: RELATIVITY:
SQUAREPEG - ROUNDHOLE ...
http://www.news2mail.de/msg/Wed/sci/math.html
48551 === Subject: Definition of Linear Transformation I was
going ...--Martin Musatov] === Subject: Re: A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS
BUSTED: posting-account=rIfu6QoAAAD5nXG3h9QEE0J3dZn1U45R Gecko/
2009051019 Gentoo Firefox/3.0.10 ...
http://grahamkendall.net/Math/Math%2520Newsgroups/mm-4884.txt
ICMS소장학술지 - 논문검색 - 전자학술지목록 - MSC - 원문복사서비스 ...304, A generalization of
Euler's hypergeometric transformation(39-57 Page) .... 349, A Higher
Level Bailey Lemma: Proof and Application(327-349 Page) ...
http://basilo.kaist.ac.kr/mathnet/thesis_author.php%3Fauthor%3DS.%2BS.%2B%2BHong
Journals of the American Physical Society -see [Bailey,J.E., Phys.
Rev. E 56, 7147 (1997)]. Macfarlane, Roger M. ...... V. Mergel, R.
Dörner, M. Achler, Kh. Khayyat, S. Lencinas, J. Euler, O.
Jagutzki, ... Techniques for detecting gravitational waves with a
spherical antenna ...... I.V. Musatov and A.V. Radyushkin Transverse
momentum and Sudakov effects in ...
http://publish.aps.org/annualindex/1997/authM.html
--
MMMusatov
http://MeAmI.org
"We like truth!"
P.S. "Captcha": "lonec" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Koobee Wublee... |
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
It is absolutely impossible trying to convince you that simultaneity
must be absolute without placing myself in your mental environment.
Throughout your life, you have been bombarded with the quantity of
spacetime according to the following equations.
ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j
In doing so, the equation above actually supports absolute environment
and absolute simultaneity. All mathematics based on this equation may
mislead you into believing in relative simultaneity. However, a more
realistic representation of space and time (not spacetime) is the
following totally based on the Lorentz transform --- thus, you cannot
deny its validity. Therefore, you can give the Lorentz transform a
curved metric, and then you will arrive at the following equation.
g_uv dq^u dq^v = g_ij dq^i dq^j
In doing so, the proper time is not the local time. There is nothing
physical tangible about the proper time. Proper time (thus spacetime)
is not reality but a mathematical construct that does not accurately
reflect anything real. <shrug>
Hope this helps. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:09 pm
|
|