It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Propulsion and Relativity

page: 6
3
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 07:04 PM

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: glend

Dont bet against Einstein.

There is no accepted violation of EInsteinian relativity ever observed.

Oh really?
Don't the 2 clocks expt in the NIST lab prove him wrong?

I just don't get it. What does fascinate you with these atomic clocks beyond of existing explanation?

What fascinates me --- is an observer, measuring the difference between two clocks. To see the difference between two clocks there must be vintage point to compare two events! If there is no vintage point, 'duration' is only option left.

Haha)))

cheers)

edit on 10-9-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:13 PM
a reply to: glend

Which brings us to 4D Minkowski spacetime, I know there is evidence to support spacetime but also contradictory evidence like the lack of time dilution in pulsars, so whats going on. Perhaps its as simple as two clocks speeding away from each other, resulting in a net change of zero. If there are no absolute velocities in the universe then nothing dictates who's clock should slow down, so at best, time dilation is just an aberration of observing another object under acceleration.

..time dilation is NOT just an aberration of observing another object under acceleration. It is real thing. Length contraction is also real thing. Length contracts along direction of movement.
Thing is, if I prove one, the other one follows as a proof, because it is correlated variable.

Physically confirmed time dilation echoes in me the uncertainty principal. In other words, I have two options when I compare an event from my frame of observation -- either time has dilated or length contracted. Your choice.

cheers)

edit on 14-9-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 12:42 PM
Mmm i already pointed out the problem with atomic clocks, and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, well i still have to prove it, this WAS the same Lorentz who fudged up Maxwell's Quatranes.

Mass is the problem, remove that & all those effects can be ignored.

posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:54 PM

originally posted by: playswithmachines
Mmm i already pointed out the problem with atomic clocks, and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, well i still have to prove it, this WAS the same Lorentz who fudged up Maxwell's Quatranes.

Mass is the problem, remove that & all those effects can be ignored.

From what I understand, mass is a virtual value. Like potential energy. It is inclusive property of physical object. Mass is only meaningful when an object encounters an obstacle, another object, for example. Inertia, is a threshold of the other object to resist changes (its own properties) because of an impact). By the degree of changes impacted object undergone (knowing initial value) we can derive the 'mass' (realized potential) that is conveyed, imo.

Why 'mass' is a problem? If you remove mass, how do you visualise the Moon orbits the Earth? What is the mechanism behind it?

edit on 17-9-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 07:20 PM

originally posted by: Redrat
these two things have been in my mind lately in the reference to UFOs and im just wondering if there are any actual physicists who believe a UFO can be flown in these ways and how it might work.

yes. In theory, imo. There has to be gravity source in front of the ship into which the ship can 'fall'. There you go a 'propulsion'. Why not?)))

edit on 19-9-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

3