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     Active Topics FAQ
 Who's Online 0 registered (), 203 Guests and 1 Spider online. Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
 Latest Posts Is there anybody out there? by paul 12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
 True 1 paul 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
 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