From various sources I gather,
dt = "gamma" d"tau".
Where t is the coordinate time in the rest frame, "gamma"
is the Lorentz gamma factor and "tau" is the proper time.
Now, if "gamma" is constant, I think we can replace the "d"
by "D" (triangle which is flat at its bottom), i.e., we can
use finite difference instead of infinitesimal ones:
Dt = "gamma" D"tau".
I believe 0<="gamma"<=1, so, for an example, we can assume
"gamma" to be 0.5:
Dt = 0.5 D"tau",
which means just,
D"tau" = 2 Dt.
So, that would mean: For a moving thing the proper time
difference D"tau" (I assume: between two fixed events) is
/larger/ than the coordinate time difference.
But since falling muons live longer, the proper time distance
should be /smaller/, not larger!
What's wrong here? TIA!
From various sources I gather,
dt = "gamma" d"tau".
Where t is the coordinate time in the rest frame, "gamma"
is the Lorentz gamma factor and "tau" is the proper time.
Now, if "gamma" is constant, I think we can replace the "d"
by "D" (triangle which is flat at its bottom), i.e., we can
use finite difference instead of infinitesimal ones:
Dt = "gamma" D"tau".
I believe 0<="gamma"<=1, so, for an example, we can assume
"gamma" to be 0.5:
Dt = 0.5 D"tau",
which means just,
D"tau" = 2 Dt.
So, that would mean: For a moving thing the proper time
difference D"tau" (I assume: between two fixed events) is
/larger/ than the coordinate time difference.
But since falling muons live longer, the proper time distance
should be /smaller/, not larger!
What's wrong here? TIA!
From various sources I gather,
dt = "gamma" d"tau".
Where t is the coordinate time in the rest frame, "gamma"
is the Lorentz gamma factor and "tau" is the proper time.
Now, if "gamma" is constant, I think we can replace the "d"
by "D" (triangle which is flat at its bottom), i.e., we can
use finite difference instead of infinitesimal ones:
Dt = "gamma" D"tau".
I believe 0<="gamma"<=1, so, for an example, we can assume
"gamma" to be 0.5:
I believe 0<="gamma"<=1, so, for an example, we can assumeNo, gamma is 1 / sqrt(1 - v²) which is 1 when v = 0 and greater otherwise.
"gamma" to be 0.5:
On 2024-07-08 14:45:12 +0000, Stefan Ram said:
From various sources I gather,
dt = "gamma" d"tau".
The defining equation of proper duration is
dτ² = dt² - dx²
From various sources I gather,
dt = "gamma" d"tau".
Where t is the coordinate time in the rest frame, "gamma"
is the Lorentz gamma factor and "tau" is the proper time.
Now, if "gamma" is constant, I think we can replace the "d"
by "D" (triangle which is flat at its bottom), i.e., we can
use finite difference instead of infinitesimal ones:
Dt = "gamma" D"tau".
I believe 0<="gamma"<=1, so, for an example, we can assume
"gamma" to be 0.5:
Dt = 0.5 D"tau",
which means just,
D"tau" = 2 Dt.
So, that would mean: For a moving thing the proper time
difference D"tau" (I assume: between two fixed events) is
/larger/ than the coordinate time difference.
But since falling muons live longer, the proper time distance
should be /smaller/, not larger!
What's wrong here? TIA!
On 08-July-24 10:45 pm, Stefan Ram wrote:
From various sources I gather,
dt = "gamma" d"tau".
Where t is the coordinate time in the rest frame, "gamma"
is the Lorentz gamma factor and "tau" is the proper time.
Now, if "gamma" is constant, I think we can replace the "d"
by "D" (triangle which is flat at its bottom), i.e., we can
use finite difference instead of infinitesimal ones:
Dt = "gamma" D"tau".
I believe 0<="gamma"<=1, so, for an example, we can assume
"gamma" to be 0.5:
Dt = 0.5 D"tau",
which means just,
D"tau" = 2 Dt.
So, that would mean: For a moving thing the proper time
difference D"tau" (I assume: between two fixed events) is
/larger/ than the coordinate time difference.
But since falling muons live longer, the proper time distance
should be /smaller/, not larger!
What's wrong here? TIA!
"Time dilation" is a special case of the Lorentz transform,
Nope, Lorentz transform was invented for
an ether theory, which was free of The
Holiest Postulate.
Time dilation is just nonsensical, denying
itself concept of an insane, mumbling crazie.
"Time dilation" is a special case of the Lorentz transform, and due to continued lack of clarity on this point in popular science media, people
tie themselves in knots by trying to use time dilation in situations
that do not match the special case.
Apply the complete Lorentz transform to your problem, and any apparent contradictions will go away.
Sylvia.
Le 09/07/2024 à 07:59, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
Nope, Lorentz transform was invented for
an ether theory, which was free of The
Holiest Postulate.
Time dilation is just nonsensical, denying
itself concept of an insane, mumbling crazie.
Your response is excessive.
You should know the proverb: "If you don't tighten your guitar string,
it makes a deep and unpleasant sound; but if you tighten it too much, it breaks."
I have already said many times that there are irregularities, misunderstandings, and real paradoxes in this theory. It must therefore
be rectified. But throwing the baby out with the bath water is not right.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 07:00:27 |
Calls: | 7,826 |
Calls today: | 9 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,769,253 |
Posted today: | 1 |