Talk-Polywell.org

Then derive for me DIRECTLY from the Lorentz transformation equations what happens during this so-called "shifting between frames". I am not interested in your wrong interpretation of Minkowki's mathematics. Sure: The LT says it all. For simplicity set c = 1, so v < 1. As soon as somebody states "p...

Here is the mistake in your argument (bold above). Your argument rests on "at that instant in time" being defined independently of frame. You are wrong since it is not a mistake. Do you agree that after the clocks have coincided and both set to zero time that when clock K shows a time t, clock Kp i...

So: time dilation is symmetric twins paradox is not symmetric when one twin stays in frame, and other twin chnages frame because we must add time-shift on frame change to time dilation. Time shift is always more important than time dilation, and has opposite effect. Time shift is clearly asymmetric...

Time dilation (LT) is symmetric and each clock sees the other clock's pulses slower on both inbound and outbound journeys Doppler shift is symmetric, on inbound journey both clocks receive pulses faster and on outbound journey both clocks receive pulses slower. The EFFECT of doppler shift is asymme...

Johan, something is preventing you from understanding what I write. I understanf perfectly well what you are writing and I also understand perfectly well that it is utter nonsense. "time dilation" is a relative phenomena. When applied to two different inertial frames, where clocks can only ever be ...

Observed and actual times are linked by LT, There is only one time-formula that applies when a clock is moving relative to another clock and that is the time dilation formula and it has nothing to do with a special notion of local time derived from Minkowski Space. And the time dilation formula is ...

Johan, With a clock that remains in orbit, it accumulates offset. So if one were to take the ground clock to the clock in orbit, and compare them side by side, the total error to the point of comparison would be that of the SR and GR components. The GR correction is an actual correction since the c...

Johan, you have not answered my point about the experimental data, Do you know about experimental data where a clock was sent away and returned without any gravity changes along the way? I do not know of such data which can be clear on this issue. You have attempted to muddy the water, I am just po...

(1) There are two effects: "real" slowdown due to rate different (time dilation) and "apparent slowdown due to difference between frames. In SR you ONLY have the latter (2) the difference between real and apparent cannot be larger than light time between sat and earth, which is bounded and small Th...

The hole in Johan's argument here is that light time from satellite to earth is short (< 0.1s I guess) and fixed (because it stays in the ame position each orbit), whereas the observed time relative to earth clock is slower by a constant rate. This is irrelevant to the argument of instantaneous tim...

So based on what we know, I'm gathering the following (correct if wrong). 2 Clocks sync'd at beginning of day, A being GPS satellite, B being atomic clock on earth. What do you mean by synched? I suppose that you mean that the clock on the sattelite is set to show the exact same time within the sat...

My understanding of GPS Satellites is that due to GR, the clocks on the satellites tend to be ahead ~45 microseconds than atomic clocks on the surface of the Earth. Correct. Due to SR, the tick of each second on the satellite clock is slowed by ~7 microseconds, No! The tick of the clock on the satt...

I know previously that you have proposed a gravity free clock test. And I am on board with that idea. Thanks. But I also have to ask how you consider the current applied theory regarding the two clock component accounting functions regarding SR and GR. Given that there aer now and have been many cl...

Are you stating that as time dilation occurs at relativistic speeds, the length traveled also increases in proportion? The two are obviously related since the Lorentz transformation is derived from a comparison of (delta)x=c*(delta)t and (delta)xp=c*(delta)tp (see for example Einstein's book "Relat...

You might wish to read the longer version in Tom Van Flandern's paper. TvF did not agree with conventional SR theory, so he was hardly a conformist. But he was a clear thinker. I am nearly 70 years old and have taught physics for 50 years, also the dogmatic nonsense that you still believe in. There...