Electricity ?

[Polymath257]

Dang! Do you mean you've got to be able to understand something to be a genius. That's a new one on me! Mother never told me that when she told me I was a genius.

Clearly, she was a smart woman!

 

[james blunt]

Yep. I gave a presentation on this when I was 12. It is the *beginning* of relativity, not the endpoint.




But in the video, there is no length contraction in the y-direction. Look up the Fitzgerald contraction and how it works.

When you do, you might also look up Lorentz transformations. They are relevant here also.

The only parlor trick here is that you have convinced yourself of nonsense.

No it is a parlour trick, Have the spaceships touching, no space between them , no contraction, it is a parlour trick, both spaceships are travelling along x, x does not alter in length , it is a parlour trick . You have all been fooled by the trick .

 

[james blunt]

Look, parlour trick revealed ,

 

[james blunt]

I feel this is appropriate

Alias Einstein and Lorentz

 

[Polymath257]

No it is a parlour trick, Have the spaceships touching, no space between them , no contraction, it is a parlour trick, both spaceships are travelling along x, x does not alter in length , it is a parlour trick . You have all been fooled by the trick .

Which again only shows you don't understand what was being said. The light was only used as a way of motivating an explanation of the length contraction. The truer way to get there is to use the Lorentz transformations. Since those transformations are derived from symmetries in the Maxwell equations, you might want to look at them also.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I

Nobody discusses my ideas, they would rather say I am delusional in response. Science is always telling me I am wrong, you could not imagine how confusing this can be, my mind knows I am right, science tells me I am wrong, I have my own paradox to deal with.

If you're mind tells you you're right and scientific evidence says you're wrong, there are known efficacious methods for helping you resolve the paradox. Have you spoken to your doctor about these ideas?

 

[james blunt]

I

scientific evidence says you're wrong,

I never said science evidence says I am wrong, to the contrary , science evidence agrees with me.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I never said science evidence says I am wrong, to the contrary , science evidence agrees with me.

Great. Show us the evidence?

 

[james blunt]

Great. Show us the evidence?

I have already shown and provided the dimensional analysis of time dilation and shown the analysis . This data analysis revealing flaws in the concept.

t = t' as shown .

 

[Polymath257]

I have already shown and provided the dimensional analysis of time dilation and shown the analysis . This data analysis revealing flaws in the concept.

t = t' as shown .

That isn't evidence. It isn't even speculation.

Show us actual, physical evidence. Not just a brain burp.

 

[james blunt]

That isn't evidence. It isn't even speculation.

Show us actual, physical evidence. Not just a brain burp.

Really my evidence is not evidence?

Then can you provide evidence of time dilation without using the same though experiment and length contraction?

I am using the same evidence you use to prove it , to disprove it.

 

[Polymath257]

Really my evidence is not evidence?

Then can you provide evidence of time dilation without using the same though experiment and length contraction?

I am using the same evidence you use to prove it , to disprove it.

Thought experiments are not evidence.

Yes, time dilation is shown via the decays of muons made in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. These muons move at relativistic speeds, so can reach the ground before they decay. Without the time dilation, they wouldn't.

We can also look at the decay times of other particles in accelerators, which get these particles up to relativistic speeds. The actual measurements of decay times agree with the computations based on relativity.

We have actually measured time dilations for slower speeds by taking atomic clocks up into airplanes. Two atomic clocks that are initially synchronized will be out of sync after the flight due to time dilation effects.

Also, GPS signals need to take into account time dilation to get the timing signals correct.

These are actual, physically observed effects. Not just thought experiments.

And a real experiment will trump a thought experiment any day of the week.

 

[james blunt]

Thought experiments are not evidence.

Yes, time dilation is shown via the decays of muons made in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. These muons move at relativistic speeds, so can reach the ground before they decay. Without the time dilation, they wouldn't.

We can also look at the decay times of other particles in accelerators, which get these particles up to relativistic speeds. The actual measurements of decay times agree with the computations based on relativity.

We have actually measured time dilations for slower speeds by taking atomic clocks up into airplanes. Two atomic clocks that are initially synchronized will be out of sync after the flight due to time dilation effects.

Also, GPS signals need to take into account time dilation to get the timing signals correct.

These are actual, physically observed effects. Not just thought experiments.

And a real experiment will trump a thought experiment any day of the week.

So you are providing broken clocks has evidence?

Without the Lorentz contractions there is no support for your subjective claims. You now have to show a length contraction , good luck with that .

 

[Polymath257]

So you are providing broken clocks has evidence?

Without the Lorentz contractions there is no support for your subjective claims. You now have to show a length contraction , good luck with that .

Nope. They are NOT broken. That is the whole point. They operate perfectly well in all locations. But they differ in their results because of time dilation.

Length contraction can be shown by the detailed amount of a Doppler shift: the length contraction adds a bit to the wavelength change.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I have already shown and provided the dimensional analysis of time dilation and shown the analysis . This data analysis revealing flaws in the concept.

t = t' as shown .

As @Polymath said, idle musings are not evidence. Show us your experimental, replicable evidence, otherwise what you have is not scientific.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Really my evidence is not evidence?

Then can you provide evidence of time dilation without using the same though experiment and length contraction?

I am using the same evidence you use to prove it , to disprove it.

Time dilation has been observed in replicable, practical experiments, sorry.

 

[james blunt]

Time dilation has been observed in replicable, practical experiments, sorry.

I know : ,

Look at the education we just give to anyone reading the thread.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I know : ,

Look at the education we just give to anyone reading the thread.

Well then you just completely contradicted your earlier point.

 

[james blunt]

Well then you just completely contradicted your earlier point.

Well... what can I say....

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well... what can I say....

Maybe stop saying stuff and get back to us when you have actual experimental evidence to support your claims?