xersan Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 TIME DILATION IN FOOTBALL GAME ON THE WORLD Special Theory of Relativity requires "time dilation". I want to appear that it is possible in football positions by same way of SR. You may soppose: The ball instead of the Light (In procedure) . The player (passer) instead of The source :( The target player for pass instead of observer ;) At the moment of To: (Position I) ;)........................................................................................ ;) S0..............................................................................................O1 At the moment of Ti = To + t : (Position II) .>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;)....................................;).......................................................S1......................................O1 After the passer player ;) pass the ball toward :( , he can change his position at during the time of t. The speed of the ball is fixed as the light. The theory remains the speed of ball at every position. The distance between :( ;) for the position I = c.t The distance between :) ;) for the position II = c.t' to be continued Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted July 29, 2005 Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 Are you asking a question, posing a riddle or trying to prove something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xersan Posted July 29, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 TIME DILATION IN CLASSIC RELATIVITY It is possible the time dilation in classic relativity by a football experiment. I hope that the more clear definition of parameters will be perceived due to this experiment. Remember the theory’s experiment in the train, the source flashes at the moment of T0. And flash light travels toward the observer during the time < t >. The theory uses the distance at the moment of T1 to confirm the value of light’s speed. This distance is accounted by the position of the source at the moment of T1, and then this distance is modified by {1 / 1- (v/c)2}1/2 In exactly like analyze, the passer player shoot the ball at the moment of T0. The ball travels the distance between the points of S0 and the other player. This is just authentic event. But the theory uses the point < S1 > of passer player at the moment of T1. If we also take in procedure the position of the ball at the moment of T1 for counting the fixed speed of ball, we would be forced to dilate the time. The observer in the train takes the distance between T1 and O1 by primary thinking or without inquiry. Because he believes that the light travel the distance of S1O1 during the time of T1 . According to him S0 = S1. But we can perceive authentic event; we know that there are two points S0 and S1. Of course the passer player can go to any direction (He is independent) after he shouted the ball and his new position can be anywhere. The distance at the moment T1 can be longer (time contraction = faster tempo) or can be smaller (time dilation = slower tempo). Is it so simple? If we are not influence of mysticism or if we have neutral vision; yes, it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted July 29, 2005 Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 We are not under the influence of mysticism, it's a fact that the velocity of light is an invariant and it is the same as the velocity of any massless particle. The only sensible explanation is that this velocity is a property of space-time. The velocity of the football is not an invariant. Relativity doesn't need flashes of light between trains to be proven, these are only illustrations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erasmus00 Posted July 29, 2005 Report Share Posted July 29, 2005 The distance at the moment T1 can be longer (time contraction = faster tempo) or can be smaller (time dilation = slower tempo). If you are talking about relativity, the longest time elapsed will always be in a stationary reference frame. Time can only dilate as compared to a clock at rest. It cannot "contract." -Will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xersan Posted July 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2005 The theory SR takes the position of source (S1) at the moment of T1. T1 is the moment that the light arrived to the observer. The light travel the distance between S0 and O1. If it is taken the lenght of S1O1, this proceeding is an alfabetical mistake in physics (I could hope this clear argument can be perceived.) But, it is made like so in theory's procedure. I gave the football game experiment, because, simply, it is never taken S1O1 to count the ball's speed. The place of the source at the time of T1 is out of the event. The function of the source has finished instantly, after the source flashed. This is a key knowlodge. The conclusions of the theory SR are famaous and known by everybody. But we don't say the same justice for the procedure of theory. usually it is defensed by most of some. You may not join my ideas, of course. But I am working to give technical and simple expressions for my ideas. If we want to create synergy, you must give technical arguments too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xersan Posted July 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2005 The point <S1> is never the starting point of light's motion. The theory SR had set by this mistake. And the world embraced it for 100 years and still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gregory Czuhai Posted July 31, 2005 Report Share Posted July 31, 2005 The theory SR takes the position of source (S1) at the moment of T1. T1 is the moment that the light arrived to the observer. The light travel the distance between S0 and O1. If it is taken the lenght of S1O1, this proceeding is an alfabetical mistake in physics (I could hope this clear argument can be perceived.) But, it is made like so in theory's procedure. I gave the football game experiment, because, simply, it is never taken S1O1 to count the ball's speed. The place of the source at the time of T1 is out of the event. The function of the source has finished instantly, after the source flashed. This is a key knowlodge. The conclusions of the theory SR are famaous and known by everybody. But we don't say the same justice for the procedure of theory. usually it is defensed by most of some. You may not join my ideas, of course. But I am working to give technical and simple expressions for my ideas. If we want to create synergy, you must give technical arguments too. since light has a finite speed, the passer is judging where the recieverof a pass will be in the future based on seeing him/her as he/she was in the past (the passer's)!Any "live" broadcast of anything on the tv is not instantaneous but by the time it gets to the viewer its "old" news!!!this is because the father something is away from us the longer it takes light or a EM signal to travel to us so when we "see" it we are seeing the IT as IT was in the observer's past!!say a person is walking away from us and we can see him/her. as he/she walks away we are "seeing" him/her as he/she was more and more in our past! and vice versa!!!therefore the ONLY possible existence of NOW can only be POSSIBLY our perseption of outself but even then, the extention of our bodies and brains through space means we cannot even know our complete self and a certain time!!!THEREFORE THERE IS NO NOW!!!! ONLY PASTS or collections of pasts that we label as now!!!as far as the future is concerned its kinda amazing our brains think they can come up with what it will be like at all or even be so sure that it exists!!!i am already in your past when you read this as well as everybody else all the time!since i have PROVED THAT NOW does NOT exist!!!you are at best only a has been at the very least to everybody else!and they are has beens to you!!!if you make a decision you are only imagining that its based on what is happening NOW because i have already showed you there is NO NOW!!!these ideas although clear as a bell to me in my assorted past experiences seem towarrent further evaluation and mathematical formalization. However it has been shownthat i will never NOW have the time for this,SO THEREFORE OUR EARTHLY LIFE (SINCE LIGHT HAS A FINITE SPEED) has at least a high degree of meaninglessness and as far as others are concerned the best you canever be is just OLD NEWS!!! this probably why you are bored by the past compared what you think if you are healthy what you imagine you can do in the future but there is nothing you can actually do NOW about it since NOW does not exist so the only thing you can do is change the "pasts" !!! THEREFORE!!!!THEREFORE!!!!there is NO NOW OR FUTURE :) but only changed pasts!!!!!QED!!!!a collorory is:HISTORY is NOT AT ALL CONSTANT. :) therefore what is called RED might be called GREEN, [iN SOME PAST!!!but if we cosider a collection of PASTS to us as our NOW we see that NOW can change for everyone at any time!CRAZY AIN'T IT!!!THIS STUFF IS AN ACCEPTED FACT FROM YOUR PAST!!!since there is NO NOW you cannot say its not 100% correct!! ;) PASTLY.....love and peace,and,peace and love,(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai ;) George W. Bush;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xersan Posted August 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2005 I join exactly, if you want to say that: We can never see anything simultaneously. Because light has a finite speed, and the distances have always positive values.And the events are never became in our eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xersan Posted August 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2005 Sorry, most have a filter to defense the theory SR. A clue is presented to examine the theory SR. Science likes and benefits from other ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.