• Time Dilation effect must be understood and explained under the premise

    From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 4 15:40:01 2023
    Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
    Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective
    physical phenomena.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Thu May 4 16:27:30 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
    Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect,

    Out of two clocks, if I bring one to "over there" and bring it back, the *values* of the two clocks will (generally) differ.
    This is coined "Time Dilation effect ". True Values that differ is not a psychological effect. That 0 <> 1 is not a psychological effect.
    SR predicts the above mentioned values; the calculations and value obtained is not a psychological effect.
    That is the use of models as used in physics: to make predictions (values) of actual experiments. Actual values, empirics, are not psychological effects.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to rotchm on Thu May 4 16:46:49 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:27:32 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 6:40:03 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:
    Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect,
    Out of two clocks, if I bring one to "over there" and bring it back, the *values* of the two clocks will (generally) differ.
    This is coined "Time Dilation effect ". True Values that differ is not a psychological effect. That 0 <> 1 is not a psychological effect.
    SR predicts the above mentioned values; the calculations and value obtained is not a psychological effect.
    That is the use of models as used in physics: to make predictions (values) of actual experiments. Actual values, empirics, are not psychological effects.

    Dear rotchm

    Yes. Two clocks will differ and must differ, I agree. Why they differ? because any clock is just physical device whose movement affect by air pressure, by temperature, by radiation, by noise , by stableness of the base.

    But Two clocks will not differ by Lorentz Transfer, because motion is relative. Two frame are equal . Motion can not dilate two clock physically. if motion dilate two clock physical at same extend, that means two clock still run at same pace.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view Chapter Six

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Thu May 4 18:04:15 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 3:40:03 PM UTC-7, Jack Liu wrote:
    Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect, not a permanent physical effect, FOR OTHERS.
    Correspondingly, all the velocity superposition formulas, moving mass, and mass-energy conversions derived from the Lorentz transformation must be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective, and cannot be regarded as objective
    physical phenomena.

    What slows down rate but force strength and speed in space...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Thu May 4 18:46:55 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 7:46:51 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:

    ... Actual values, empirics, are not psychological effects.

    Yes. Two clocks will differ and must differ, I agree.

    *generally* differ. There are scenarios where they can be the same. But that's irrelevant to the topic.

    Why they differ?

    It doesn't matter why. I can claim that it's little fairies that set everything up that way just to fool us.
    We have a model that with its calculations, predict values; that is what is important, that is physics.

    because any clock is just physical device whose movement affect by air pressure, by temperature,
    by radiation, by noise , by stableness of the base.

    Those effects can be eliminated via various means. And your point here is irrelevant to the discussion.

    But Two clocks will not differ by Lorentz Transfer,

    Yes they do. You are denying the results of actual experiments now; you are a reality denier.

    Motion can not dilate two clock physically.

    Irrelevant to the discussion. Try to stay on topic.

    When you use relativity to analyze an experiment, it correctly predicts the results displayed by the instruments.
    This is an empirical fact.
    How, or why, or what causes this, is irrelevant.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to rotchm on Thu May 4 19:21:02 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 8:46:57 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 7:46:51 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:

    ... Actual values, empirics, are not psychological effects.
    Yes. Two clocks will differ and must differ, I agree.
    *generally* differ. There are scenarios where they can be the same. But that's irrelevant to the topic.


    To rotchm

    I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
    BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's perspective B's clock is dilated while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.

    Which one is in still and which in is in motion between A and B IS relative. You have to keep this in your mind about empirical fact.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Thu May 4 19:28:53 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:04 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:

    I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
    BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's perspective B's clock is dilated

    No.

    while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.

    No.

    Those are not empirical facts, and relativity does not predict that what you said.

    In this scenario I presented to you, basically the classic twin paradox scenario, as clock B reunites with clock A,
    Both agree there that their values differ, that B < A (and by the LT factor). This is an empirical fact, and predicted by relativity.

    There is no word "dilated" in there. That word is meaningless and you should keep clear from it in your conversations.
    2<3 does not mean that 2 is dilated, DuH!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to rotchm on Thu May 4 20:10:47 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:28:55 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:04 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:

    I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
    BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's perspective B's clock is dilated
    No.
    while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.
    No.

    Those are not empirical facts, and relativity does not predict that what you said.

    In this scenario I presented to you, basically the classic twin paradox scenario, as clock B reunites with clock A,
    Both agree there that their values differ, that B < A (and by the LT factor). This is an empirical fact, and predicted by relativity.

    There is no word "dilated" in there. That word is meaningless and you should keep clear from it in your conversations.
    2<3 does not mean that 2 is dilated, DuH!


    To rotchm

    Thanks for you reply.
    I have one more question:
    Why is B<A? or why is not A<B?

    In my opinion A=B . A and B are equal.
    BTW I don't like the word. They want to use it.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Thu May 4 22:28:00 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:10:49 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:

    I have one more question:
    Why is B<A? or why is not ...

    Because that is what the calcs (ST, LT) say.

    In my opinion A=B .

    Stick to the calculations and empirics, and not your opinions.

    BTW I don't like the word. They want to use it.

    [Dilated]

    Not all of they want to use it. It's not because some use it at you have to. I repeat to you, do not use that word in your conversations. And, do not listen to what they say, listen to what the math says.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Jack Liu on Thu May 4 22:53:13 2023
    On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 00:40:03 UTC+2, Jack Liu wrote:
    Time Dilation effect derived from the Lorentz Transformation in SR is a temporary psychological effect

    There is no such effect. Anyone can check
    GPS, the serious clocks keep measuring t'=t,
    just like they always did. Physicists have
    only gedanken something is different.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 5 05:57:29 2023
    Le 05/05/2023 à 04:28, rotchm a écrit :
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:04 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:

    I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
    BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's
    perspective B's clock is dilated

    No.

    while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.

    No.

    Those are not empirical facts, and relativity does not predict that what you said.

    In this scenario I presented to you, basically the classic twin paradox scenario, as clock B reunites with clock A,
    Both agree there that their values differ, that B < A (and by the LT factor). This is an empirical fact, and predicted by relativity.

    There is no word "dilated" in there. That word is meaningless and you should keep clear from it in your conversations.
    2<3 does not mean that 2 is dilated, DuH!

    I am very surprised by human stupidity in general.

    It's not that I'm surprised that the quasi-generality of speakers
    understand nothing at all about the theory of relativity; no, no, what surprises me is that when someone who has understood things and tries to explain them logically and clearly everyone laughs.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 5 06:08:08 2023
    Le 05/05/2023 à 04:21, Jack Liu a écrit :
    I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
    BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's perspective B's clock is dilated while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.

    Which one is in still and which in is in motion between A and B IS relative. You
    have to keep this in your mind about empirical fact.

    Jack

    That is not exactly correct.

    I understand why, as soon as we talk about relativity, everyone goes
    crazy, and why the terms used are confusing.

    In fact it is not the CLOCKS whose times mutually dilate.

    If so, the theory would be absurd.

    But stop (I beg you) playing the monkey.

    It is obviously impossible for two clocks to beat reciprocally, and continuously beat faster than the other. It's absurd in the sense that
    when they meet, one of them is younger than the other.

    It's absurd!!!

    It is therefore not the clocks which reciprocally beat faster than the
    other, it is their bathmotropian, that is to say their chronotropy, that
    is to say their internal measurement of time.

    That's not what the clocks tell each other.

    I beg you to understand this.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu May 4 23:39:23 2023
    On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 07:57:31 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 05/05/2023 à 04:28, rotchm a écrit :
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:21:04 PM UTC-4, Jack Liu wrote:

    I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
    BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's >> perspective B's clock is dilated

    No.

    while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.

    No.

    Those are not empirical facts, and relativity does not predict that what you
    said.

    In this scenario I presented to you, basically the classic twin paradox scenario, as clock B reunites with clock A,
    Both agree there that their values differ, that B < A (and by the LT factor).
    This is an empirical fact, and predicted by relativity.

    There is no word "dilated" in there. That word is meaningless and you should
    keep clear from it in your conversations.
    2<3 does not mean that 2 is dilated, DuH!
    I am very surprised by human stupidity in general.

    It's not that I'm surprised that the quasi-generality of speakers
    understand nothing at all about the theory of relativity; no, no, what surprises me is that when someone who has understood things and tries to explain them logically and clearly everyone laughs.

    There are good reason why science has organized
    things this way, but if I explained them to you you would
    laugh.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jack Liu@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri May 5 08:02:17 2023
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:08:11 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 05/05/2023 à 04:21, Jack Liu a écrit :
    I agree with you that that is an empirical fact.
    BUT you did notice that there are two folders of empirical fact: in A's perspective B's clock is dilated while in B's perspective A's clock is dilated.

    Which one is in still and which in is in motion between A and B IS relative. You
    have to keep this in your mind about empirical fact.

    Jack
    That is not exactly correct.

    I understand why, as soon as we talk about relativity, everyone goes
    crazy, and why the terms used are confusing.

    In fact it is not the CLOCKS whose times mutually dilate.

    If so, the theory would be absurd.

    But stop (I beg you) playing the monkey.

    It is obviously impossible for two clocks to beat reciprocally, and continuously beat faster than the other. It's absurd in the sense that
    when they meet, one of them is younger than the other.

    It's absurd!!!

    It is therefore not the clocks which reciprocally beat faster than the other, it is their bathmotropian, that is to say their chronotropy, that
    is to say their internal measurement of time.

    That's not what the clocks tell each other.

    I beg you to understand this.

    R.H.



    Dear R.H

    Thanks for your message.
    I think I understand you.
    I agree with you that physically two clocks could not dilate same time.
    I agree with you SR is absurd for two way time dilation, unless they can be understood and explained under the premise of subjective perspective as the title of this posting suggested.

    Jack

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri May 5 12:53:40 2023
    On 5/5/2023 2:08 AM, Richard Hachel wrote:

    It is therefore not the clocks which reciprocally beat faster than the
    other, it is their bathmotropian, that is to say their chronotropy, that
    is to say their internal measurement of time.

    That's not what the clocks tell each other.

    I beg you to understand this.

    Once again, you stand a better chance of people understanding you if you
    don't insist on using made-up nonsense words (or French).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)