The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

I need time dilation help please?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Avatar for AlbertXY
AlbertXY
OP
2
Original post by Kyx
It is a thought experiment. It is like shcrodinger's cat. There wasn't actually a cat, it gets the idea across.



Exactly , imagination is not real, we do not observe beams of light we observe a quanta whole, light is dimensionless propagating through space.
Original post by AlbertXY
You think a student is a troll for questioning the integrity of the knowledge been presented to him?


You should read the original translation of relativity by einstein: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Relativity-Special-General-Albert-Einstein/dp/1891396307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460122841&sr=8-1&keywords=relativity. Very logical and easy to understand and basically proves it in a matter of a couple of pages.
Reply 42
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by AlbertXY
Exactly , imagination is not real, we do not observe beams of light we observe a quanta whole, light is dimensionless propagating through space.


The fact is beams of light ARE possible, and we are using one for the purpose of this experiment
Original post by AlbertXY
You think a student is a troll for questioning the integrity of the knowledge been presented to him?


You're not just 'questionng the integrity of the knowledge presented' though, are you? You're trying to convince everyone that what you're saying is correct, being rude and obnoxious when people disagree, failing to explain yourself clearly and, perhaps most irritatingly, talking authoritatively about things when you self-confessedly don't actually know what you are saying! k=0, anyone?

Given that most of this thread is you trying to 'explain' things to others, the student analogy works rather more effectively against you than for you!
****ing hell this is painful to read...

The grammar is awful and most of it is either wrong or doesn't make sense.

Except your point that a caesium atom is not time. You seem to be onto something remarkable there.
Reply 45
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by Alexion
****ing hell this is painful to read...

The grammar is awful and most of it is either wrong or doesn't make sense.

Except your point that a caesium atom is not time. You seem to be onto something remarkable there.


:rofl:
Reply 46
Avatar for AlbertXY
AlbertXY
OP
2
Original post by Kyx
Do you know what that means? :wink:


Yes of course I do, between two bodies is a rate of exchange, this rate is constant, (gravity) , and the entropy of E swaps from one body to an other depending of equilibrium state of the body, an object in an inertia accelerating reference frame is under the constant force of gravity at rest mass equal to rest mass and newtons of force. The rate of the Caesium atom is the rate of exchange of entropy, something that gains loses to retain equilibrium, what you mistake for a time dilation is a timing dilation , by accelerating the clock you are effectively de-accelerating the inertia accelerated reference frame extraction of entropy.
Reply 47
Avatar for AlbertXY
AlbertXY
OP
2
Original post by Kyx
:rofl:



The Caesium atom has no relationship to time, quite ironic really.
Reply 48
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by AlbertXY
Yes of course I do, between two bodies is a rate of exchange, this rate is constant, (gravity) , and the entropy of E swaps from one body to an other depending of equilibrium state of the body, an object in an inertia accelerating reference frame is under the constant force of gravity at rest mass equal to rest mass and newtons of force. The rate of the Caesium atom is the rate of exchange of entropy, something that gains loses to retain equilibrium, what you mistake for a time dilation is a timing dilation , by accelerating the clock you are effectively de-accelerating the inertia accelerated reference frame extraction of entropy.


Firstly, do you agree with the point I made earlier? About the light appearing to move diagonally?

And do you also agree that the speed of light is the same for EVERY observer?
Reply 49
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by AlbertXY
The Caesium atom has no relationship to time, quite ironic really.


I never said it did
Reply 50
Avatar for AlbertXY
AlbertXY
OP
2
Original post by Kyx
He thinks you are a troll due to the fact that you do not seem to accept the evidence before you :wink:


Accept or forced discipline?


I am pointing out errors, please show where the errors are not errors?
Reply 51
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by AlbertXY
Accept or forced discipline?


I am pointing out errors, please show where the errors are not errors?


Everything said by me, or @spartan
Reply 52
Avatar for AlbertXY
AlbertXY
OP
2
Original post by Kyx
I never said it did


I never said you did, so ironically the main piece of evidence for time dilation is not even related to time. So apparently it is of the imagination and there is not an actual time dilation of any degree.

Simultaneity is apparently imagination with no fact.
Reply 53
Avatar for AlbertXY
AlbertXY
OP
2
Original post by Kyx
Everything said by me, or @spartan


You have only quoted back present information which I have deemed in error, pointed out the errors.


Please point out where my explanation of error is wrong in any sense?
Reply 54
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by AlbertXY
I never said you did, so ironically the main piece of evidence for time dilation is not even related to time. So apparently it is of the imagination and there is not an actual time dilation of any degree.

Simultaneity is apparently imagination with no fact.


You never answered this:

Original post by Kyx
Firstly, do you agree with the point I made earlier? About the light appearing to move diagonally?

And do you also agree that the speed of light is the same for EVERY observer?
Time dilation exists. Stop pretending it doesn't.
Reply 56
Avatar for Kyx
Kyx
6
Original post by AlbertXY
You have only quoted back present information which I have deemed in error, pointed out the errors.


Please point out where my explanation of error is wrong in any sense?


Original post by Kyx
You never answered this:


Firstly, do you agree with the above statements?
Reply 57
Avatar for AlbertXY
AlbertXY
OP
2
Original post by Kyx
Firstly, do you agree with the point I made earlier? About the light appearing to move diagonally?


no it does not move diagonally which can be easily proven and i have already shown.

And do you also agree that the speed of light is the same for EVERY observer?



NO, it can be measured differently on a different planet by present standards contradiction.
Reply 58
Avatar for AlbertXY
AlbertXY
OP
2
Original post by Kyx
The fact is beams of light ARE possible, and we are using one for the purpose of this experiment


The fact is a beam of light needs a medium such as smoke to be seen, the fact is beams of light is observe effect, the light off the sun is isotropic and it is a fact it is not opaque.
Original post by AlbertXY
no it does not move diagonally which can be easily proven and i have already shown.




NO, it can be measured differently on a different planet by present standards contradiction.


Am going to unfollow this thread as your lack of abililty to think about basic concepts bewilders me, but good luck disproving all of the work on relativity for the past 100 or so years anyway :smile:

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you