Type: Posts; User: Tach; Keyword(s):
I asked for math, what is the expression for proper time?
...and the math that expresses this is?
Incorrect. The difference has a different equation, can you show it , please?
You did exactly what I predicted you will do: understand nothing and keep on trolling.
Interestingly enough, Fednis48 came back, so he had to absorb more data. Will he continue to...
The answer is pretty simple:
1. You made an inference that is easily provable to be false given the very large number of tests that constrain OWLS anisotropy.
2. The Minguzzi "paper" is an...
You cannot "concede" because you can never understand what this experiment is all about and because you make your living trolling websites.
Now the experiment constrains OWLS...
It is clear that you do not understand that this was a real experiment, conducted by real scientists. Show some respect, ok?
Suffice to say, that unlike you, Fednis48...
The authors are real scientists, not some hacks, they aren't "manipulating" anything. You need to get those bees from under your bonnet and stop disparaging stuff that you clearly do...
Yes, they are not exempt from being sloppy with words. Do you understand the difference between time dilation and elapsed proper time? Can you present it, briefly , like in two lines of math? What is...
"The one-way experiment, performed at the GRAAL facility of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in Grenoble, reported results on the light speed anisotropy by Compton...
I see, you don't know what the paper is all about.
I see, you have no clue what the RMS papers say about the "preferred" frame.
Thanks for playing, RealityCheck.
What makes you say that, RealityCheck? What is your understanding of the paper? Rather than wasting time with endless trolling, perhaps you can explain to the audience what do you understand from the...
No, it isn't, obviously you don't know the difference. The former is accumulated time, the latter is time ratios.
I don't do physics via wiki cherry picking.
No. Cranks don't get "carte blanche". The "preferred frame" has a precisely defined meaning in the test theories, so it is to be used in the very specific way described in such theories.
I've never done it, so retract.
The term introduced by M&S in their papers is "preferential", this is the more correct term.
Point to the post(s) or retract.
Point at the post(s). If you cannot, you will need to retract.
I do not remember you using the CMB frame. What post in your previous incarnation as RealityCheck did you use the CMB frame? Can you point out the post(s)?
The question does...
The use of the CMB frame is standard in both test theories of SR : RMS and SME. So, contrary to your protestations, the paper is perfectly mainstream. You can find this approach in...
Wiki is not the standard for doing physics and cherry picking quotes from wiki is even less. Total elapsed proper time and time dilation are two different concepts, the twins paradox uses the former...
This paper was published. In a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal. You are not competent to pass judgement on it, period.
But most of them make no sense whatsoever in terms of physics or they are outright mistakes. I think that doesn't come from lack of proofreading.
He's pointing out the mistakes in your posts. Like these:
The twins paradox has nothing to do with time dilation, nor with "difference in their relative velocity". As an aside, are you writing...
Nah, I simply demonstrated that you couldn't write the appropriate math describing your own "experiment".
Besides, you are wrong, contrary to your claims, I produced the correct math description...
The answer depends on the character and the attitude of the person asking the question. I even gave you a few answers without commenting.
You are welcome!