Welcome toScience a GoGo'sDiscussion Forums
 Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away. Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use. So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated. The Forums General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction
 You are not logged in. [Log In] Science a GoGo's Home Page » Forums » General Discussion » Physics Forum » special relativity time dilation formula is false Register User    Forum List        Calendar         FAQ
 Who's Online 0 registered (), 58 Guests and 1 Spider online. Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
 Latest Posts Is there anybody out there? by True 01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
 True 1
 Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
 Topic Options
 #56009 - 06/09/16 01:53 PM special relativity time dilation formula is false paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 you cannot divide m/s by m/s and have a result in anythingother than m/s.1 m/s^2 / 10 m/s^2 = 0.01 m/syou certainly cannot end up with a result that is simplyan amount of time.the result would be given in m/syou can drop the m (meters) and only use the seconds.1 s^2 / 10 s^2 = 0.1 s^2or1 s / 100 s = .01 sso we have dropped the velocity from the equation.and we only kept the time.we now subtract the result of .01 s from the number 1so we must also drop the time from the equation in order tosubtract.1 - .01 = .99 we then find the square root of the number .99 ? 0.99498743710662 ?what could this number possibly represent?we have dropped the units of distance we have dropped the units of timeif we do associate this number with anything thenwe must associate this number with a velocity.we must give the result in m/s (distance / time)so the time dilation equation is an equation that isused to solve for velocity it is not used to solvefor time. _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 .
 #56010 - 06/09/16 04:50 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] Bill Megastar Registered: 12/31/10 Posts: 1858 Loc: Oklahoma, USA Originally Posted By: Paulyou cannot divide m/s by m/s and have a result in anythingother than m/s.Time for a basic math refresher. 10 M/S / 10 M/S = (10/10) * (M/S / M/S) = 1 * 1 = 1That is the correct math for the situation.Bill Gill _________________________ C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.C is the universal speed limit. Top
 #56011 - 06/09/16 07:27 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: Bill] paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 Quote:10 M/S / 10 M/S = (10/10) * (M/S / M/S) = 1 * 1 = 11 what?10 orange/peels / 10 orange/peels = (10/10) * (orange/peels / orange/peels) = 1 * 1 = 11 what?should we give the answer in units of oranges or peels?why would we only use 1 peel? 10 watts/second / 10 watts/second = (10/10) * (W/s/W/s) = 1 * 1 = 11 WHAT?should we give the answer in units of watts or seconds?why would we only use 1 second in the above?the above is exactly what the equation is doing except its using two separate quantities ofdistance and time vs energy and time.LOLin the equation what is being divided is the distancenot the time.the equation only uses the distance in the (m/s) the equation never touches time so how can it be consideredthat the equation delivers any amount of time as its resultor any number that can be associated with any amount of time?so any number that can be a result from the equation isa velocity.ie .999999999 m/s _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56012 - 06/09/16 09:48 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] samwik Megastar Registered: 10/10/06 Posts: 1164 Loc: Colorado Originally Posted By: paul ...we then find the square root of the number .99 ? 0.99498743710662 ?what could this number possibly represent?we have dropped the units of distance we have dropped the units of timeif we do associate this number with anything thenwe must associate this number with a velocity.we must give the result in m/s (distance / time)so the time dilation equation is an equation that isused to solve for velocity it is not used to solvefor time. No, velocity is not what the equation solves for.The number you are asking about is a ratio, I think, and as such it would be without units.Once you have the ratio, you multiply it by t (in seconds) to getthe answer, t prime, which will also be in seconds--the dilated time.~ _________________________ Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire. Top
 #56013 - 06/09/16 11:34 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 Quote:No, velocity is not what the equation solves for.just because the equation has a t' in front of itdoes not mean that it solves for t'the only element that actually undergoes any calculation is distance ie... Meterstime is never used or calculated.if time is never calculated then how could time be a resultof the calculation?just because the inventor of the equation says so?then lets try this equation out.time = sqrt (1-(1 kgm^2)/(10 kgm^2))there is no amount of time involved in the above equation.nor is time calculated in the above calculation. will the result of the above equation be an amount of time?the result of the above equation can only be given in unitsof kgm or mass and distanceand the result will always be less than 1 kgmbecause thats the intended purpose of the equation.thats why the 1-(?/?) is there.so no. the equation t'=tsqrt(1-(v2/c2) does not deliverany number as its result that could possibly be associatedwith any amount of time.the only possible association that the number could beassociated with is units of distance (meters). _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56014 - 06/09/16 11:48 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] samwik Megastar Registered: 10/10/06 Posts: 1164 Loc: Colorado Originally Posted By: pauljust because the equation has a t' in front of itdoes not mean that it solves for t'...just stunning."in front of it?!?" Paul, by definition, an equation involves the stuff on both sides of the "equals sign" doesn't it? There is no place that is "in front of" the equation. The equation is about the relationship between t' and t, which are both "time" measured in seconds.~ ? _________________________ Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire. Top
 #56015 - 06/10/16 12:15 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 Quote:The number you are asking about is a ratio, I think, and as such it would be without units.yes , it is a ratio , it is a ratio of distance since each expression v and c are expressed in units ofm/s (meters per second).then the ratio is a ratio of meters per second.50 m/s only has 1 second attached to it.squaring that 50 m/s does not affect the numberthat is associated with time (1 second)it only affects the number that is associated with distance (50).finding the square root of 2500 does not affect the timeeither , it only affects the distance and 50 meter distance iswhere the 2500 came from.and the speed of light only has 1 second attached to it.so the ratio cannot be time as the time units remain thesame throughout the equation so the ratio is a ratioof distance.solve for the ratio of time in the following equationratio t = 1m/sec / 10m/sec ?now solve for the ratio of distance in the following equationratio d = 1m/sec / 10m/sec ? _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56016 - 06/10/16 12:25 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 Quote:The equation is about the relationship between t' and t, which are both "time" measured in seconds.if the equation is about the relationship between t' and t then why is it that t' or t is never used in any calculation that is performed while calculating distances in the equation.all calculations are performed on the distances of v and c the only relationship that is being examined in the equation is the relationship between the v distance and the c distance in a single second.and you can only have 1 second in 1 second. _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56017 - 06/10/16 04:36 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] samwik Megastar Registered: 10/10/06 Posts: 1164 Loc: Colorado Originally Posted By: paulQuote:The equation is about the relationship between t' and t,which are both "time" measured in seconds.if the equation is about the relationship between t' and t then why is it that t' or t is never used in any calculation that is performed while calculating distances in the equation....just because you've separated velocity into distance and time, in your mind,it doesn't mean that time isn't included in the equation--in those terms, v and c.Originally Posted By: paulall calculations are performed on the distances of v and c the only relationship that is being examined in the equation is the relationship between the v distance and the c distance in a single second....with "time" being the same for each.I was taught, if "calculations are performed" on two different ratios--with numerators (such as v and c describe),then the denominators (t in this case) should be the same.How would you perform calculations on two ratios, if their denominators were different? ~ _________________________ Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire. Top
 #56018 - 06/10/16 05:09 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false Orac Megastar Registered: 05/20/11 Posts: 2819 Loc: Currently Illinois, USA Now this is a classic thread This has to go to the maths hall of fame, not quite as funny as asking what Obamas last name is, but getting close I think you have just worked out the depth of problem to explain it to him Samwik. I think I would just ignore it and run away really not worth the effort. Remedial education is not something you can easily do on the internet ... run away now Guys you know 't' is something you have instead of coffee ... right. Therefore I put it to you, 't' can't be in any equation but it has to be in a cup ... so you are all wrong. The answer to the equation is clearly a cup, otherwise you can't have 't'.Sorry it was the best I could do without going down the fundamentalist education line, which might be a little bit close. Edited by Orac (06/10/16 07:06 AM) _________________________ I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you. Top
 #56019 - 06/10/16 10:29 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 Quote:just because you've separated velocity into distance and time, in your mindvelocity is already separated into units of distance and time and you can clearly see the separation when you look at an amount of velocity such as 50 m/sthe m/s represents meters per second.the m represents metersthe s represents a single second the 50 represents the distanceso its not in my mind where the separation occurred butin the written definition of velocity.Originally Posted By: wiki velocity pageThe velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time.Quote:...just because you've separated velocity into distance and time, in your mind,it doesn't mean that time isn't included in the equation--in those terms, v and c.I never said that time was not "included" in the equation I said that the time that is in the equation is never calculated.and "time" is never calculated in the equation , the only elementsin the entire process where calculations are performed are the two distance elements (the two elements that canexperience a rate of change).the time element does not experience a change.so time does not change and cannot change according to theequation.and all the squaring and rooting around in the equation has absolutely no effect on the single second time element.the only things that change in the equation are the numbersthat are associated with distance.at no time during the calculation is there a single changethat occurs or can occur to the single second that is includedinto the equation.orac.here is my reply to you. _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56020 - 06/10/16 08:08 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] samwik Megastar Registered: 10/10/06 Posts: 1164 Loc: Colorado Originally Posted By: Orac...you have just worked out the depth of problem....Thanks Orac!Paul, if I understood Orac correctly, he was right about how my reply “worked out the depth of [the] problem,” relativity; unless he just meant the problem with algebraic skills. That’s because I (in composing my reply) had noticed that by confronting the logic (and meaning) of the equation’s calculations, the manifestation of relativity operating became more obvious—since the process of “relativity,”and its consequence, quite quickly become almost undeniably apparent—like a mathematical slap in the face.Maybe that could be said more simply.The implications of “relativity” become more obvious when you observe the consequences (and meaning)of performing those calculations ...for “time dilation” ...correctly. But I suppose if one decided to deny relativity, then how those “calculations are performed” must also be denied.===And Paul, either way, with or without “t” in the denominators, of v and c,there is still the t (time in seconds) in front of the square root sign. Time is still used to calculate the dilated time.It is just an equation relating time to dilated time, by comparing one velocity with another—the speed of light—in a certain reference frame. And one of those velocities is constant in all reference frames, so for comparing the effect of other different velocities, the "constant velocity" makes a good common denominator. So the idea that this might also be done by looking only at “distances” (without the time)involved with those two different speeds, shouldn’t be surprising. And the idea that you could simply compare the distances (without time),to calculate the dilated time, might give you another insight into the nature of “relativity.”Why again don’t you think the equation is true?~ _________________________ Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire. Top
 #56021 - 06/11/16 12:17 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 Quote:And Paul, either way, with or without “t” in the denominators, of v and c,there is still the t (time in seconds) in front of the square root sign. Time is still used to calculate the dilated time. v2/c2 results in units of (distance) and (meters)/(seconds)ie...1 m/s ^2 / 10 m/s ^2 = .01 m/s ^2you then subtract the result that is given in (distance) and the rate of change over time (m/s) from the 1 that causesthe result to always be lower than 11 - .01 = .99 this leads us to your point below.Quote:there is still the t (time in seconds) in front of the square root sign. the square root of .99 is 0.99498743710662 so the current calculation is 0.99498743710662 m/sit is a amount of velocity it has not been convertedinto an amount of time.its not simply a number nor does it only have unitsof time attached to it.remember this:The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time. in other words if you multiply 2 apples x 2 oranges you still only have 2 apples and 2 oranges.you dont have 4 apples or 4 oranges.you cannot convert apples into oranges.and you cannot convert velocity into time.by multiplying the 1 second in the calculationthat you pointed to times the currenttotal in the calculation of 0.99498743710662 m/s1 s * 0.99498743710662 m/s = 0.99498743710662 m/sthe above is not what the equation would have us expectto be possible , the equation expects us to simply believethat the result will be converted into time.but you cant multiply an amount of time by an amount of velocity and have the result given in an amount of time.1 second * 1000 m/s is not equal to 1000 secondsso nothing changed !!! time has not yet been changednor has velocity been converted into time.the result is not an amount of time.the result of the equation is still a velocity.and since 1 second * 1 second = 1 second the time never changed it is still 1 second.now if the 1 second were 2 seconds then thats anotherstory all together because the 2 seconds would thenbe multiplied by the distance in the 0.99498743710662 m/sand the result would become 1.98997487421324 m/sonce again you cant multiply an amount of time by anamount of velocity and have the result given in an amount of time.or at least I cant.Quote:Why again don’t you think the equation is true?because I can (think).trying to work with this 1 inch x 2 inch reply box is really hard to do.so I make lots of mistakes that I have to correct.it takes me awhile to make a decent reply.but I think I get my point across most of the timeeven if it never sinks in. _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56022 - 06/11/16 10:54 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] samwik Megastar Registered: 10/10/06 Posts: 1164 Loc: Colorado Originally Posted By: paulso nothing changed !!! time has not yet been changednor has velocity been converted into time.I can see nothing has changed, but I think I see several places where you are going awry.First:Originally Posted By: paulby multiplying the 1 second in the calculationthat you pointed to, times the currenttotal in the calculation of 0.99498743710662 m/s1 s * 0.99498743710662 m/s = 0.99498743710662 m/sOkay, this indicates a major misconception.It (t) is not another "1 second" or "1 s" in front of the square root sign.It (t) is whatever certain length of time you might want to calculate (the time dilation of), such as the duration of a trip at near light speed.And by using that "certain length of time" (say t = 2 years, for example) and multiplying by the square root of that ratio [m/s divided by m/s], you find the solution, getting the result for t' (t prime) ...the dilated time.===Assuming the equation is correct....So, if the square root of all that stuff turned out to be one half,then t' would be one year (of the traveler's perspective)...for a (t equals) two year trip (from Earth's perspective).Orac?!? Do I have those perspectives correct? Please feel free to correct anything, since I'm just figuring this out as I go along ...from a chemistry/biology science background. But I think I still recall algebra well enough.===But whatever, Paul, let's see if you can come up with a new 'exclusion principle' for this second point about the units, such as meter per second or (seconds * some distance in meters), which should just be basic algebra and was already pointed out, once or twice, in various ways. But humor me here.But first one other point about the units: ...where you say:Originally Posted By: paul1 second * 1000 m/s is not equal to 1000 seconds....the result is not an amount of time....that is correct! The answer wouldn't be (in units of) time:It would be 1000 meters, a distance. Just look at the units, and at which units cancel and what is remaining.If it were 2 seconds * 1000 m/s, you'd get 2000 meters, right?So, about these units.... Here's where I'm hoping you'll humor me a bit.Here is my "test" for you: Are these two lines below the same? In other words:Is the second line equal to the first line, but just stated differently?50 meters/second (divided by) 200 meters/second =50 meters/second (multiplied by) 1 second/200 meters ?~ p.s. "It's a trap!" ....No, not really; it's just basic algebra....or do you consider that fantasy science too? _________________________ Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire. Top
 #56023 - 06/11/16 02:38 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 Quote:Okay, this indicates a major misconception.It (t) is not another "1 second" or "1 s" in front of the square root sign.It (t) is whatever certain length of time you might want to calculate (the time dilation of), such as the duration of a trip at near light speed. this entire thread has been focused on an amount of 1 second of time.so if you want to you can multiply the results x any amount of seconds you choosebut for now lets stick to 1 second for the time element (t). we are examining the results in a time frame of 1 second.Quote:But first one other point about the units: ...where you sayQuote: 1 second * 1000 m/s is not equal to 1000 seconds....the result is not an amount of time. ...that is correct! The answer wouldn't be (in units of) timeIt would be 1000 meters, a distance. Just look at the units, and at which units cancel and what is remaining.exactly ! because you cannot multiply an amount of time (1 second) by a velocity (1000 m/s)and have the result given only in units of time.so when the equation divides v^2 by c^2 the results of that calculation are given in m/s the equation then (for design purposes) subtracts the result given in m/s from the number 1which always gives its result as a number lower than 1.even so the result given after the calculation is still given in m/sthe number 1 in the equation is not a unit of time , its simply the number 1 and has no viable reason to be in the equation other than to falsely lower the resultof the previous calculation.and finding the square root of the result given in m/s does not convert the resultinto an amount of time either.so the square root of the result would also be given in m/snow back to your point...and mine1 second * 1000 m/s is not equal to 1000 secondstime * distance is not equal to time alone...so when the equation multiplies t (1 second) by the result of all of the previous calculationsthere is no change in the number or the units given or assigned to that number.because any number multiplied by 1 remains the same.1 * 1 orange = 1 orange1s * 1 orange/s = 1 orangethe orange does not become time in either of the aboveequations so the orange is still an orange. and multiplying 1 by any velocity also does not convertthe units of velocity into units of time. so after the final calculation (multiplication) the number is still in units of m/s and should not be given or assigned as an amount or a unit of time alone.the final calculation should be given in units of m/sso the end product of the equation t' ( time dilation )would be given in units of m/sLOL _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56026 - 06/12/16 01:56 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] samwik Megastar Registered: 10/10/06 Posts: 1164 Loc: Colorado Paul, as usual, you logic seems to work for only about 1 second.===Do you think this is some sort of "designer math" question:50 meters/second (divided by) 200 meters/second =50 meters/second (multiplied by) 1 second/200 meters ?Do you think it is true, or not? It should be easy, since it's all in "1 second" speak.~ _________________________ Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire. Top
 #56027 - 06/12/16 08:22 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false Orac Megastar Registered: 05/20/11 Posts: 2819 Loc: Currently Illinois, USA I admire your tenacity samwik .. good luck _________________________ I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you. Top
 #56029 - 06/12/16 07:45 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 Quote: ..that is correct! The answer wouldn't be (in units of) time:It would be 1000 meters, a distance. Just look at the units, and at which units cancel and what is remaining.If it were 2 seconds * 1000 m/s, you'd get 2000 meters, right?So, about these units.... Here's where I'm hoping you'll humor me a bit.Here is my "test" for you: Are these two lines below the same? In other words:Is the second line equal to the first line, but just stated differently?50 meters/second (divided by) 200 meters/second =50 meters/second (multiplied by) 1 second/200 meters ?Im not sure what you expect to gain from this but here we go.Quote:1 second * 1000 m/s is not equal to 1000 seconds....the result is not an amount of time. the reason that the result is 1000 meters in the above equationis because there is an amount of 1000 meters distance in 1000 m/s meters PER secondQuote:If it were 2 seconds * 1000 m/s, you'd get 2000 meters, right? right!the purpose of the equation is to solve for the distance that wouldbe traveled over a time period of 2 seconds at a velcity of 1000 m/snow for your equation and the line of text below it.the equation itself Quote:50 meters/second (divided by) 200 meters/second = the equation has 3 elements on each side of the division symbol.these are the number of meters (50 and 200)these numbers are given in units of (meters for distance) and (seconds for time) written as meters / second (meters per second)the two units meters and seconds represent the two elements of distance and time.both sides of the equation have these elements attached to the number that represents the amount of distance.in order to show what the numbers represent.(50 meters per second) and (200 meters per second)the purpose of the equation is to solve for the difference in the rate of changeof position over an amount of time between the two sides of the equation andby solving the equation you can find the difference in the rate of change of position over an amount of time!!!as in the below solved equation.we know that in the equation we are discussing t'=t*sqrt(1-(v2)/(c2)the division that you are questioning and the result that I have given is between v2 and c2 and by dividing v2 by c2 we get the ratio between the two (v2/c2) so to stay closer to the OP I willemphasize the ratio through an explaination of the result of the below equation.50 meters/second (divided by) 200 meters/second = a ratio of .25 to 1 of 200 meters/second.meaning that there is a .25 to 1 ratio between 50 m/s and 200 m/syou can check this by multiplying 200 m/s times the .25 to 1 ratio between 50 m/s and 200 m/s.so the difference in the rate of change or the ratio between the rate of change between 50 meters and 200 meters in a time period of 1 second is a ratio of .25 to 1 of 200 meters /second the next line of text is a line of text and is not a proper equation.50 meters/second (multiplied by) 1 second/200 meters ?however were I to correct your error in assembling the equation by inserting a (EQUAL) or (IS EQUAL TO) or (EQUALITY) symbol (=) then the two sides of the equation have the same meaning meters per second is the same as seconds per meterie ...200 meters/second (meters per second) means that an objects rate of change of position over a distance of 200 meters occurrs in a time peroid of 1 second.200 meters per second = 1 second per 200 meters1 second/200 meters (seconds per 200 meters) means that in a time period of 1 secondan object experiences a rate of change of position of 200 meters.1 second per 200 meters = 200 meters per secondtherefore to solve the line of text or the improper equation that you postedthrough making it a proper equation by inserting the equals sign (=)50 meters/second (multiplied by) 1 second/200 meters = for example:suppose you needed to know the total board length produced in meters and total production time in seconds for 250 machines 50 of the machines produce (50) 1 meter long boards each second and the other 200 machines produce (200) 1 meter long boards each second. LOL^250 meters/second (multiplied by) 1 second/200 meters = 10,000 meters per second.if we simply cancel out meters and seconds on both sides of the equationwe get 50 * 200 = 10,000 and thats it ... no units attached.it has no value other than being a number that is derived through themultiplication of 2 other numbers that have no units attached to them.it is a number of unknown origin unless you associate it with the units that it was formed from.Im not certain why this seemed to be important to you however.but your question was is it true...if you were talking about the line of text then yes it is truethat the line of text is truly a line of text. _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56032 - 06/12/16 10:01 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] samwik Megastar Registered: 10/10/06 Posts: 1164 Loc: Colorado Originally Posted By: paulthe next line of text is a line of text and is not a proper equation.50 meters/second (multiplied by) 1 second/200 meters ?however were I to correct your error in assembling the equation by inserting a (EQUAL) or (IS EQUAL TO) or (EQUALITY) symbol (=) then the two sides of the equation have the same meaning meters per second is the same as seconds per meterie ... ...here is where I can see you misinterpreted what I was asking about. My apologies for trying to draw this out longer, but I think the way I formatted the text (and the equation) may have been misleading. I can see it looks like I was aksing for the answer to two different equations, with one on each line of the reply; and with an 'equals sign' at the end of the first, but with a 'question mark' at the end of the second line.But actually, there is only one equation, with one "side" of the equation being the first line (before the = sign), and the other "side" of the equation being the second line, following after the 'equal sign' and before the question mark, which is just the end of the sentence.I'm not asking for a solution to the equation, but I just wanted to know if you thought the equation was true. I think this is an equality:50 meters/second (divided by) 200 meters/second = 50 meters/second (multiplied by) 1 second/200 meters.Do you think that single equation is a true equality, algebraically; is the single equation true, or do you think it is false?Again, sorry for the confusion and repeating so much.~ _________________________ Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire. Top
 #56033 - 06/12/16 10:38 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 I didnt see that it was supposed to be in a single line.what you have is50 m/s / 200 m/s = 50 m/s * 1 s / 200 mis the ratio between 50 m/s and 200 m/s or.25 to 1 equal tothe multiplication between 50 m/s and 1 s/200 meters or 10000 m/s the two sides are not equalthe results of the equation would be false but the equation itself is useable in a sense.I dont concern myself with algebra I never have , I only use math on spreadsheets andin computer programs.so to me the equation is false , it can only be used to deliberately find a wrong number.oh !!! I get it now.you mean its like t'=t*sqrt(1-(v2)/(c2)is used to deliberately find a wrong number for a specific purpose. Edited by paul (06/12/16 10:48 PM) _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56034 - 06/12/16 11:52 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] samwik Megastar Registered: 10/10/06 Posts: 1164 Loc: Colorado Originally Posted By: paulI dont concern myself with algebra I never have , I only use math on spreadsheets andin computer programs."Ye shall know them by their fruits."Before rejecting something outright, you might first seek some insight, and then make a choice about your concerns. [...ruminating on 'home schooling' possibilities and possible circumstances] ===As I said in the other thread, "Paul, it is always nice to see what and how you think."It's always nice to know where one stands, however frightening the perspective might be.But now I think I can see why you can't conceive that this "time dilation formula" is true.~ _________________________ Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire. Top
 #56040 - 06/13/16 10:55 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] Bill Megastar Registered: 12/31/10 Posts: 1858 Loc: Oklahoma, USA Originally Posted By: Pauland I have to assign variables to the numbers that I use toperform the calculations other wise all I end up with isa number.as inv = 5c = 100t = 1t1 = 0when I press the calculate buttonv=v*vc=c*ct=v/ct=sqrt(t)t=1-tt1=1*tt1 is then output to a textbox.I'm afraid I am confused with what you are doing. I see that you are reusing all of your variables, and that confuses me.Why don't you define some intermediate variables to make sure that you aren't changing something that shouldn't be changed. For example:v = 5c = 100t= 1a = v*vb = c*cd= a/be = 1 - df = sqrt(e)t1 = t * fThat is an accurate representation of the relativistic time contraction formula, setting aside that in the formula C is a constant equal to approximately 300 million meters/second. And of course I would probably combine those all into one long formula, rather than doing it one step at a time. But if you aren't comfortable using shorthand then this way will give a correct answer.Maybe you really should refresh your memory of algebra.Bill Gill _________________________ C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.C is the universal speed limit. Top
 #56041 - 06/14/16 02:12 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: Bill] paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 I find its easier to do it the way I posted.theres not as many variables to keep track of.and its easier to do an initial build of a equationone line at a time.but sure you could do the equation like this. dim v=5:c=100:t=1:t1=0:v1=0:v2=0v1 = 1-(v*v)/(c*c):v2 = sqrt(v1):t1 = t * v2or something like that I just dont do it that way Id rather do 1 calculation on 1 lineit makes stepping through the calculations easierand less confusing when you are dealing with hundreds of variables.and unlike the above I would name the variables so that theyare more recognizable to me ... like the speed of light c would be sol and the speed of light C would be SOLv1_m1v1_m2v1_m3etc... having easier to find variables makes finding errorsin equation building much easier.and I try to reuse the same variable as I go along in the calculations then I simply give the named variable the value of the variable that I used to work the equation.also this way you dont have too many variables storingunnecessary data.and I try to never have duplicate equations if possibleby sending values of variables to a routine that handlesthat specific equation.as in 100 if a >= 100 then a = 0101 if add_10=1 then goto 600102 if a < 101 then goto 500103 goto 100500 a=a+1:add_10=1:goto 100600 a=a+10:add_10=0:goto 100the above loop will never stop.it will add 1 to athen it will add 10 to athen 1then 10etc...etc...etc...this way you can set up multiple routinesin the same loop.if you dont already program you should try itI think you would like it.and its free.visual studio express.https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/products/visual-studio-express-vs.aspx _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56043 - 06/14/16 01:12 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] Bill Megastar Registered: 12/31/10 Posts: 1858 Loc: Oklahoma, USA Originally Posted By: PaulI find its easier to do it the way I posted.theres not as many variables to keep track of.And you can lose track of what you are doing much more easily. That way you can claim that you have disproved something when you have made major errors in your math.I would probably write it as: t1 = t*(sqrt(1-(v^2/C^2)))That way I can see what the equation is and only have3 variables, t, v, and t1. t and v of course are the input values and t1 is the output value, while C is a constant.Bill Gill _________________________ C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.C is the universal speed limit. Top
 #56047 - 06/14/16 05:56 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: Bill] paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 c is a constant but the computer does not know that c is a constant. v , c , t and t1 = 4 variables. _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56050 - 06/14/16 10:38 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] Bill Megastar Registered: 12/31/10 Posts: 1858 Loc: Oklahoma, USA Originally Posted By: paulc is a constant but the computer does not know that c is a constant. v , c , t and t1 = 4 variables. C is a constant. You set it programmatically and then never change it. In many programming languages you can define C as a constant and you can't change it.v and t are independent variables. They are the input values to the calculation and can be set to any value. Except of course that v cannot be greater than C.t1 is a dependent variable. Its value depends on the outcome of the calculation performed using v and t.You know, there is at least one site on the web where you can study math and physics for free. Khan AcademyIf you studied that you might actually understand just what mistakes you are making.Bill Gill _________________________ C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.C is the universal speed limit. Top
 #56054 - 06/15/16 01:34 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] Bill Megastar Registered: 12/31/10 Posts: 1858 Loc: Oklahoma, USA Originally Posted By: Paulby the way you can also declare a value to the textinside a textbox and disable the textbox at design timethis way the text inside the textbox is unchangeable but the value of the text inside the textbox has value is visible to the user and can be called at runtimeas in x = val(textbox1.text)If I wanted to do something like that I wouldn't use a text box. When you disable a text box the text is grayed out. It is still readable, but it really looks odd. I would use a label. A label displays the text in the normal mode, but can't be edited by the user, so that makes it work just the same for your application, without being grayed out.The fact is that I use labels quite a bit for displaying the results of calculations. You can change the text displayed in a label programmatically. e. g. lblTprime.text = val(txtT.text) * sqrt(1 - val(txtV.text)^2/val(lblC.text)^2)I do try give my text boxes and labels meaningful names. Starting them with lbl or txt gives me a quick clue as to what I am operating on and clarifies the operations I can perform on it.This also assumes you are using Visual Basic, other languages use different conventions, but what you have been saying sounds to me like VB.Of course I don't know what you are developing so I don't know why you would want your constant shown on the screen.Bill Gill _________________________ C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.C is the universal speed limit. Top
 #56056 - 06/15/16 05:45 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: Bill] paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 Quote:Of course I don't know what you are developing so I don't know why you would want your constant shown on the screen.Im not developing anything right now.my dev computer isnt up and running again enough forme to trust it.Im waiting on a hard drive that I havent ordered yet.because the one that was in the dev computer became infectedand I wont use it anymore to dev on or connect it to the internet.yes I use VB .netI didnt know that you programmed.I wouldnt grey out a textbox for my own use just to storea constant in it.I would simply set it and forget itin the declarations.and using labels is the better choice as you say for pretty much any text or numbers.have you ever used a controls AccessibleDescription propertyor AccessibleName property to make a control array with?you can assign the control a numbered value at design timeand then control the many different captions on the buttons , labels or text in the textboxes of the controlsin your control array at run time.you can also reassign numbers to the controls at run timefor sorting purposes etc...by setting up routines.its really good for using in any type of data situationwhere data is stored accessed and updated frequently and you dont want to use the microsoft databases for any particular reason.you can make your own working excel like spreadsheetor database application using textboxes , labels , buttons etcand make them function exactly the way you want them to. _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56058 - 06/15/16 06:12 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] Bill Megastar Registered: 12/31/10 Posts: 1858 Loc: Oklahoma, USA I hope you have good backups of your dev computer. It wouldn't be a good thing to lose all of your work.I haven't used those particular properties. I do use text boxes and labels quite a bit. I don't really do a lot of programming. The last thing of any consequence I did was a couple of years ago I built my own calendar that works the way I want it to, instead of accepting what somebody else thinks is the right way. The same way you do your spread sheets. You can never find anything that really does what you want. It may take some work, but at least it does what you want it to.One thing about my calendar it can show holidays in different calendars. The Hebrew calendar, the Muslim calendar, the Chinese calendar, and several different Hindu calendars. Fortunately I found a book with basic algorithms for all of those. I just had to interpret them into VB.Bill Gill _________________________ C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.C is the universal speed limit. Top
 #56059 - 06/15/16 08:41 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: Bill] paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 I didnt have a backup of the OS or the programs but I did havebackups of my files that I thought I wanted to keepsuch as my archive of sagg and health and nutrition papersand info , pictures , etc...also all of my programming projects were not affected becauseI made a program that moves them off the hard drive to an externaldrive and I can choose which projects I want to work onthat way and it will move them back to the hard drive as needed.I made a program once upon a time that I named My Journal ...it was basically a calendar database and you could add notesto the journal every day.it didnt use a database only flat files and each day had its own flat file so you never really could lose a day unless you lostthe folder the files were in.you could click on any date on the calendar control and thenote for that day would pop up because the note was savedas that date as in 01_07_2004 and it used the value of the datethat you clicked on through string manipulation.then the program loaded the 20 notes possible for that dateinto an array of rich text boxes.and each box was editable.it seemed like every time I started working on a ideafor a program before long it was available on the internet.which is why I made the program to move my project filesoff of my dev computer in the first place. _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56060 - 06/15/16 10:38 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] Bill Megastar Registered: 12/31/10 Posts: 1858 Loc: Oklahoma, USA Good, it sounds as if you didn't lose anything of major importance. That is a big part of what you need backs up. My calendar looks pretty much like a standard calendar except it spreads all over the computer screen. In addition to the holidays, which you can add to suit yourself, I have notes on events that will happen on that day. They are in a flat file that the program reads and displays the basic information on the screen. If you hover the pointer over one of them a pop-up shows up that gives all the detail I entered for it.As far as a program to keep your notes that sounds like like a useful idea. Before I retired I kept notes on everything I talked to anybody about using notepad, one file per day. Then I wrote a routine that would search the notes to find where it was I talked about something. That was before Windows had a routine that would search files. That gave me a lot of help trying to come up with just what was said when if a question came up.Bill Gill _________________________ C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.C is the universal speed limit. Top
 #56061 - 06/16/16 12:03 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: Bill] paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 well I would have done a backup.but I only wanted to back up certain files and when Igot everything loaded in the full backup was going to bearound 90 gigabytes ... and microsoft server backup wontlet you do a partial backup the first time you do a backup.I will remember that this time.you know after all the updates are installed and all the hardwareis installed so that I will have a recovery backup.I cant complain though because the windows server 08 r2 thatI installed in 2009 never did give me any real problems untilI started with the android studio and oracle vbox and suchas that.Im not going to say that that is where the infection came from however because I dont know.the same OS install running for 9 years + is a really good record especially on a dev machine. the self help sort of personal programs that I make for myselfare very useful as long as they arent dependent on any of theever changing internet like my netflix program that stoppedfunctioning every time they hired a new kid off the streetsand let him mess around with the code in order to make itlook as if he was doing something.LOLor thats the way it seems anyway. _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 #56063 - 06/16/16 03:08 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] Bill Megastar Registered: 12/31/10 Posts: 1858 Loc: Oklahoma, USA It is pretty well accepted that you need to keep changing your website if you want people to keep coming. But you really need to be careful not to break it. And I expect it is probably not too good an idea to include links in your programs to specific parts of any website. The front page usually at least stays there, but lower level pages tend to change frequently. If you need the information on one of those lower level pages you can have a problem if they move the information to a different page, or format it differently. I have no idea how to handle that problem when you are developing a program that gets data from a given website. I expect if I came up with a case where I needed it I would hit Google and see if I could find a solution. There are a lot of places where you can find good ideas for doing special things in programming. I know I have gotten some good ideas from VBForumsBill Gill _________________________ C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.C is the universal speed limit. Top
 #56066 - 06/16/16 01:24 PM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: paul] Bill Megastar Registered: 12/31/10 Posts: 1858 Loc: Oklahoma, USA Originally Posted By: Paulwhy would anyone want to spend only a few minutes looking inthe forums for needed programming information when they couldspend all day or even weeks reading the microsoft help filesbefore they find that they will most likely need to look inthe forums to actually find the needed information.Everything you could possibly need is in the Microsoft help files. Of course finding it is shall we say 'difficult?' Just finding the information on a key word can get to be frustrating. All you have to do is to high light the word and press F1. And it will give you information on everything that that word could possibly refer to. That's why I keep pointers to the the help forums.Bill Gill _________________________ C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.C is the universal speed limit. Top
 #56070 - 06/17/16 12:06 AM Re: special relativity time dilation formula is false [Re: Bill] paul Megastar Registered: 03/21/06 Posts: 4136 _________________________ 3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science. Top
 Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

 Hop to: General Discussion ------   General Science Discussion Forum   Not-Quite-Science Forum   Sci Fi Forum   Physics Forum   Climate Change Forum
 Newest Members debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT 865 Registered Users