What? Maybe you still don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying no time of any kind ever dilates no matter the frame. And what about mass variation with velocity?
I have got a better one: x = 1/2 a t^2; v = at and x = vt; put the second equation in the third and you get x = a t^2 so that 1/2 at^2 = a t^2. From this you get 1/2 = 1. perform the inverse of this equation so you get 2 = 1; now you can prove the following: 2^n = 1 for any number n: Proof by induction for n = 1 we already proved that 2 = 1; suppose that it is true for some n, we must prove that this is correct for n+1. Now, 2^(n+1) = 2^n*2 = 2^n*2 = 2^n*1 = 2^n = 1; So that by induction, we have shown that 2^n = 1 for any n. If 2^n = 1 we have 1/2^n = 1/1 = 1; Now since 2 = 1 + 1 = 1; this mean that 1 = 0. Now, we can write any real number as a sum of powers of 2. But we have shown that any power of 2 = 1, which itself equals 0, so that any number is equal to a finite or infinite number of zeros which is 0. So any number is in fact equal to 0. But since 1 = 0; any number is equal to 1. So that of course, as you have written; D=1
If time does not dilate, does the frame contract? About mass variation: constant velocity and constant mass, means what? If the velocity changes, what does that mean (hint - it's called acceleration, (d/dt)^2 something , so you now have a "square" of some kind)
Neither occurs. Cesium atoms somehow oscillate slower at higher energies leading to clock retardation. Dunno what your implying. I have not yet been able to pinpoint the cause of relativistic mass increase phenomena and I only have a hunch about its cause.
Well, using "somehow" won't get you many marks in a test, will it? If atoms oscillate slower, why isn't "cesium time" contracted then? I do too, I have a hunch that relativistic mass increases, are directly proportional to relative velocity. There's even an equation, about 100 years old, that tells you this, and appears to be a more than satisfactory explanation - because it goes deeper than you first think - when you're still allowed to think I mean...
Oh really? Then perhaps you should give me the exact mechanism for time dilation and we'll see how many marks you score. And no I'm not talking about the lorentz transformation formula, I'm asking about the exact mechanism. So is that an explanation? The SR explanation is garbage but obviously you are free to think otherwise.
You aren't prepared to offer an explanation of why cesium atoms have retarded time, except that you think you need to ask about an 'exact' mechanism? Do you have an idea of what a cesium atom is, and why it "keeps time" in the first place, why we have atomic clocks, say?
Hahaha. I'm hardly as guilty as mainstream or you perhaps who believes in some dogma without knowing the exact mechanism behind it. I actually have an explanation but that would take hours of mine to explain to you and quite frankly I'm not feeling inclined at the moment.
You never know, there might be someone out there who is just tingling with antici-pation. Maybe you should think about whittling down the number of hours though, so they don't fall asleep?
Dear Lixluke: You are utterly incorrect, and I hope this will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in Physics education. If you can admit your error, you will have contributed constructively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate physicists are needed to get you to change your mind? LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos, New Mexico.
I actually find this quite amusing. I'm surprised you haven't posted this in the thread about the Monty Hall problem yet, considering this quote is lifted from a letter sent into vos Savant after she ran the original article about the Monty Hall problem. I think the guy that sent it in had a PhD in mathematics/probability.
Dear Alephnull: You are utterly incorrect, and I hope this will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in clandestine education. If you can admit your error, you will have contributed constructively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate spies are needed to get you to change your mind? LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos, New Mexico.
I wouldn't suggest that any of this is correct without the need of mathematics to be present. *IF* an observer could go as fast as light, they would find themselves in a very unique situation. Firstly they would see the universe "darken" this is because the observation of moving particles would change in spectrum (A Red Shift) *IF* you could proceed to go faster the spectrum would shift even further, so far in fact that the observer would see the universe lose complete substance. In essence the universe filled full of matter, frequency and energy would become a very fine stretched energy level, if any monitorable level at all. (It would become space) When it reaches the point of being space, then there is no way to speed up or slow down, since there is nothing to gain friction from because you've reached a universal zero-rest point. Now this is where the analogy for time travel fails, as the universe when you reach this point doesn't suddenly flip into reverse. In fact it stays space, because when you reach this point there is nothing to reverse, so you get stuck with just space. This "Null Space" wouldn't have a passage of time, other than of course the observer being the time keeper. If you sent a second observer to find the first it's likely they would end up in a separate "Null Space", these "Null Spaces" would likely be separated purely by their Universal Frame of Reference (The movement and spin of our galaxy, our solar systems movement within it and of course our planets overall position) It is therefore hypothetical that various mathematical formula's could be deduced to allow the manipulation of separate observers to all be sent at different times but in different directions to compensate for the Universal Frame of Reference. This would allow the usage of these "Null Spaces" in creating a 0-dimension where all dimensions start and end up travelling through the zero axis point. (This of course is the core of generating a Singularity where you send multiple packets to collide at the same point since Time[T] isn't a factor, to generate the equivalent of a Big Bang.) I would go into greater details, however currently it's a difficult topic to make digestible to others and I lack the formality to generate a proper paper for submission, so I can only touch on it like the tip of an iceberg.
Not that I know of. most are perfectly happy with the magic of relativity. As for the no of hours, they don't deserve any explanations if they can't stay awake for the whole story.
Yeah, that's why we call them 'Einstein transformations' and not 'Lorentz transformations'..... That doesn't mean those things are required for a space to have Lorentz transformations as a symmetry. Evidence? Lorentz transformations were seen as the transformations under which Maxwell's equations are invariant. Maxwell's equations imply the speed of electromagnetic propagation is c and thus Lorentz transformations don't change that. In any textbook you'll find a derivation of Lorentz transformations under the two postulate assumptions of SR so your claim they are contradictory is false. And your claim Einstein 'stole' them is wrong. Using someone else's results as part of your work isn't stealing, provided you reference them. Everyone uses other people's work, that's what science is about. Its fine provided you reference the people whose work you are using. Newton said "If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants", showing he used other people's work to help with his work. Lorentz, Poincare, Fitzgerald, those people contributed things which eventually became part of special relativity. Eiinstein put them all together into a single framework. To claim that is 'stealing' is to show you have no understanding of how science is done. This is false, as the derivation of the transformations from the postulates of SR explicitly demonstrates. Read the opening chapters in any special relativity book. The derivation of the Lorentz transforms are there. They are probably on Wikipedia. And you didn't respond to what I said. Do you accept that the quantitative predictions of SR are accurate, matching experiments?
But Einstein did not reference Lorentz in his 1905 paper if I remember correctly. His 1905 paper contained no footnotes or references or so I've heard.
He wasn't aware of Lorentz' result at the time, and he does refer to the equation, by naming it "the Lorentz equation" in his 1905 paper. The effect was known about, Einstein explained it independently
His paper mentions Lorentz, though not in the context of what we now call Lorentz equations. The work of Lorentz and Fitzgerald was well known and Einstein couldn't have claimed it for his own even if he wanted to. The fact we call them Lorentz transforms suggests your claim isn't correct and its clear that you didn't even check Einstein's papers before making your claim. Or any introductory textbook on special relativity for the derivation of the transformations, because if you had you'd have seen they can be derived without any requirement of a prefered frame. And you ignored my question, twice. Do you accept that the quantitative predictions of SR are experimentally verified to a high accuracy? Irrespective of whether you agree with its conceptual explainations, do you admit/accept that its numerical predictions for phenomena are accurate? If not, provide an explicit example where SR fails and link to a paper published in a reputable journal which examines the experimental results in question and the predictions of SR for them. Linking to some hack who just says "I don't like SR!" isn't justifying your claims.
Hmmm... I heard SR fails with acceleration. To handle it you have to use GR as well. Is this true? As for ignoring you, you didn't make clear you were asking me something. Can I have what you're smoking?? I don't remember giving you a link.
