Spaceman's muddle
PD
Spaceman has essentially asked the following question:
For a clock that is approaching an observer, what will happen to the
clock's rate as seen by that observer? Will it be
-sped up, much like blue-shifting
-slowed down, because the clock is moving relative to the observer.
Spaceman has taken the fact that he does not know which of these
answers to believe to represent a "problem" for special relativity,
and that failure to provide him a clear answer as to which to believe
specifically represents the failure of special relativity.
So here's the question:
Does Spaceman's confusion about which of these to believe truly
represent a problem for special relativity?
Is it necessary for the integrity of special relativity and for
science in general, to provide an answer to Spaceman that he
understands and believes?
PD
Spaceman
> In case you've missed on the kerfuffle...
>
> Spaceman has essentially asked the following question:
> For a clock that is approaching an observer, what will happen to the
> clock's rate as seen by that observer? Will it be
> -sped up, much like blue-shifting
> -slowed down, because the clock is moving relative to the observer.
>
> Spaceman has taken the fact that he does not know which of these
> answers to believe to represent a "problem" for special relativity,
> and that failure to provide him a clear answer as to which to believe
> specifically represents the failure of special relativity.
Poor PD,
He can not even get the problem correct.
The problem involves three clocks and of course PD had to
limit it to two clocks because SR can not handle the three clock
problem
PD has just jumped on stage and pulled off the twist dance without
music and he still did not dance to the beat correctly.
:)
Three clocks PD.
Use SR for the three clock problem, not the problem you make up
that loses a clock. (ding ding)
Paul Cardinale
> In case you've missed on the kerfuffle...
>
> Spaceman has essentially asked the following question:
> For a clock that is approaching an observer, what will happen to the
> clock's rate as seen by that observer? Will it be
> -sped up, much like blue-shifting
> -slowed down, because the clock is moving relative to the observer.
>
> Spaceman has taken the fact that he does not know which of these
> answers to believe to represent a "problem" for special relativity,
> and that failure to provide him a clear answer as to which to believe
> specifically represents the failure of special relativity.
>
> So here's the question:
> Does Spaceman's confusion about which of these to believe truly
> represent a problem for special relativity?
No. The problem is that spacemoron doesn't understand the difference
between seeing and observing.
> Is it necessary for the integrity of special relativity and for
> science in general, to provide an answer to Spaceman that he
> understands and believes?
No. spacemoron is too stupid to understand any explanation; so
there's no point in trying.
Paul Cardinale
Dirk Van de moortel
02c67730-c4d1-4bc5...@u26g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
> In case you've missed on the kerfuffle...
>
> Spaceman has essentially asked the following question:
> For a clock that is approaching an observer, what will happen to the
> clock's rate as seen by that observer? Will it be
> -sped up, much like blue-shifting
> -slowed down, because the clock is moving relative to the observer.
>
> Spaceman has taken the fact that he does not know which of these
> answers to believe to represent a "problem" for special relativity,
> and that failure to provide him a clear answer as to which to believe
> specifically represents the failure of special relativity.
>
> So here's the question:
> Does Spaceman's confusion about which of these to believe truly
> represent a problem for special relativity?
Imagine explaining the workings of an expression like
sqrt( (1-v/c)/(1+v/c) ) to someone who thinks that
(-2)*(-2) = -4
> Is it necessary for the integrity of special relativity and for
> science in general, to provide an answer to Spaceman that he
> understands and believes?
It is necessary for the integrity of this newsgroup and for
Usenet in general, not to provide an answer to Spaceman.
Dirk Vdm
PD
>
> It is necessary for the integrity of this newsgroup and for
> Usenet in general, not to provide an answer to Spaceman.
I agree with this, but am wondering whether providing a partial answer
would be more maddening.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
Yes, you're almost as devious as I am ;-)
Dirk Vdm
mathkills
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 02c67730-c4d1-4bc5-9ace-7113fdca2...@u26g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
NEWSFLASH, spaceman's theories have been proven... As you have seen in
the past, proofs of his wonderful theory have been missing a key link
in the chain... here is an excerpt from the now complete proof.
1. Einstein was wrong, Spaceman is right, malfunctioning clocks
explains it all.
2. I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO
BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE!
I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO
BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE!
I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO
BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE!
I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO
BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE!
I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO
BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE!
I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE! I DO
BELIEVE! I DO BELIEVE!
3. q.e.d
And there it is... sorry Spaceman for spoiling the surprise... I
should've waited for it to get published in PRL first... hope you can
forgive me.
-MK
PS - Let me save the need for the obvious replies:
Spaceman: Poor Mathkills, he does not even understand the problem.
Don't go driving any spaceships near my planet with your
malfunctioning clock. Enjoy your life as the king of the world of
rubber rulers.
Androlces: Pillock can't spell, ergo he MUST not know anything about
physics. WANKER!
Igor
wrote:
Here's the link you ignored last time:
http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-twin-01.html
Maybe you should actually read it this time.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
Spaceman is correct. No clock is perfect.
Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his telescope.
His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N ticks per orbit of the
ISS.
Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and ....whooosh! up she
goes to join the ISS.
Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices that it now
emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit.
"That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock into free
fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter certainly hasn't
changed and neither has the ISS orbit."
"Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."
Einstein's Relativity exists solely because of the faith of its gullible
followers.
>-MK
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary
doug
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
You look pretty stupid not being willing to acknowledge the fact that
there are lots of clock accurate enought to show that relativity
works.
>
> Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his telescope.
> His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N ticks per orbit of the
> ISS.
> Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and ....whooosh! up she
> goes to join the ISS.
>
> Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices that it now
> emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit.
>
> "That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock into free
> fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter certainly hasn't
> changed and neither has the ISS orbit."
>
> "Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."
>
> Einstein's Relativity exists solely because of the faith of its gullible
> followers.
That, and of course the hundred of experiments which show it to be
correct and the daily use of the GPS. Keep lying henri, with your
fake degree there is not much else for you to do.
Dr. Henri Wilson
>
>
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Spaceman is correct. No clock is perfect.
>
>You look pretty stupid not being willing to acknowledge the fact that
>there are lots of clock accurate enought to show that relativity
>works.
hhahahhahhahahha!
>> Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his telescope.
>> His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N ticks per orbit of the
>> ISS.
>> Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and ....whooosh! up she
>> goes to join the ISS.
>>
>> Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices that it now
>> emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit.
>>
>> "That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock into free
>> fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter certainly hasn't
>> changed and neither has the ISS orbit."
>>
>> "Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."
>>
>> Einstein's Relativity exists solely because of the faith of its gullible
>> followers.
>
>That, and of course the hundred of experiments which show it to be
>correct and the daily use of the GPS. Keep lying henri, with your
>fake degree there is not much else for you to do.
Not one experiment has verified Einstein's relativity.
Spaceman
> On Oct 2, 10:50 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In case you've missed on the kerfuffle...
>>
>> Spaceman has essentially asked the following question:
>> For a clock that is approaching an observer, what will happen to the
>> clock's rate as seen by that observer? Will it be
>> -sped up, much like blue-shifting
>> -slowed down, because the clock is moving relative to the observer.
>>
>> Spaceman has taken the fact that he does not know which of these
>> answers to believe to represent a "problem" for special relativity,
>> and that failure to provide him a clear answer as to which to believe
>> specifically represents the failure of special relativity.
>>
>> So here's the question:
>> Does Spaceman's confusion about which of these to believe truly
>> represent a problem for special relativity?
>
> No. The problem is that spacemoron doesn't understand the difference
> between seeing and observing.
LOL
Poor Paul.
He still does not understand either at all.
LOL
Paul is also one that can not solve the 3 clock problem using SR
so instead he does the dance with all the other jesters.
:)
Spaceman
Wow!
Poor mathkills.
He has joined the jester dance crew.
C,mon mathkills
Provide the SR method to solve the three clock problem, (ding ding)
:)
Spaceman
100 experiments and all with incorrect analysis.
Each and every one ignores three basic facts.
Malfunctioning clocks.
Percieved wavelength times frequency ignores relative speed.
and of course.
lightspeed is not constant to non "at rest" observer frames.
But of course.
They need to support thier religion like any good relativist
would do.
:)
Spaceman
Read and laughed through the entire thing.
Especially since clock malfunctions are so simple to
understand and yet all that bullshit is not seeing such at all.
LOL
And even more sad.
It has all the clocks moving.
I explained it quite clear.
clock A and B are "at rest" to each other.
they never ever move wrt each other.
Like your house and the street in front of your house.
Sheesh.
Get a clue Igor.
That link is not even the same thing as the true
3 clock problem that SR can not explain.
Sheesh.
Spaceman
Oh and BTW about that link..
The "time skipping" part is truly one of the greatest
moronic explanations that ever could be given.
LOL
mathkills
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ding Ding? Are you serious?
I'll explain for you anything you want, but why? You won't listen to
logic let alone physics. If you really want me to, do me the favor of
rephrasing the question with all assumptions. I don't have the time
or patience to dig it up in the NG...
In the meantime, let me see if I understand clock malfunction
theory...
You accept experimental evidence that at least perceived time is
affected by relative motion or gravity. HOWEVER, you basically
explain it that all physical processes slow down and that the thing
called time is unaffected, correct? I don't think it too difficult of
a logical conclusion to say that a change in the rate at which time
passes is completely indistinguishable from the case where ALL
physical processes change the rate at which they occur, do you? So
OK, there is nothing wrong with that as a theory just as there is
nothing wrong with the theory that all science is a ruse by god to
trick the unfaithful into abandoning religion. That the whole
universe was staged to appear 13 billion years old, that dinosaur
skeletons were planted as-is, in the crust to fool us. You cannot
prove it is not true... so therefore it must be true and all non
believers in creation science are fools. This is such backwards
logic.
At some point you have to simply make decisions based on simplicity.
How complex of a theory would "malfunctioning clock theory" have to be
to explain how ALL physical processes, inlcuding quantum processes
will change in exactly the same under relative motion or in a gravity
field. It just does not fit the picture of the universe. It may be a
logically sound theory, at least to you anyway, but the likelihood of
it being true is so astronomically small, you should abandon it.
Your skepticism is good, but you take it too far. The shame of it all
is that I perceive that you have developed these difficulties in a
study of freshman level special relativity and havent gotten over
yourself long enough to really explore the theories that go so far
beyond SR. Why don't you take a few months off of the NG badgering,
push the "I belive (for now)" button and try to actually learn
something.
MK
Dono
wrote:
> And even more sad.
> It has all the clocks moving.
> I explained it quite clear.
> clock A and B are "at rest" to each other.
> they never ever move wrt each other.
> Like your house and the street in front of your house.
> Sheesh.
> Get a clue Igor.
> That link is not even the same thing as the true
> 3 clock problem that SR can not explain.
> Sheesh.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Oct 2, 5:36�pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
It looks as though Spaceman is far too smart for you MK.
PD
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:09:39 -0700 (PDT), mathkills <mathki...@ureach.com>
Certainly true.
But the observed effect is much larger than the traceable imperfection
of the clock.
That's that whole experimental precision thing, you know. Signal,
background, noise, all that.
PD
No, no, no! That's the point of the thread. What is there possibly to
be gained from indulging his "want" for your explanation? He doesn't
want the explanation, he wants you to indulge him your time and
effort. He'll throw your explanation down in the dirt, just to show
you his contempt both for your proffered explanation and for your
willingness to indulge him his demands. That is his *entire*
objective, to show contempt for whatever you do at his behest.
I have a better idea. Rather than providing what he says he wants, why
don't you see if you can get him to do something you want him to do?
I've been having a great deal of fun doing that with him.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
The funniest and most spectacular thing I have *ever* seen
anyone do to Spaceman was this:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SenseHumour.html
I bet this cannot be topped.
Dirk Vdm
PD
>
> > On Oct 2, 1:14 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> >> It is necessary for the integrity of this newsgroup and for
> >> Usenet in general, not to provide an answer to Spaceman.
>
> > I agree with this, but am wondering whether providing a partial answer
> > would be more maddening.
>
> Yes, you're almost as devious as I am ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Oh, I'm willing to be quite open about it. I believe it will be more
fun to tell Spaceman exactly what I am doing, both of us knowing full
well that he will not be able to help himself with an entirely
predictable response.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Oct 2, 4:50 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> 2494c379-7698-48e8-90f4-6d4ddb5d6...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> On Oct 2, 1:14 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>
>>>> It is necessary for the integrity of this newsgroup and for
>>>> Usenet in general, not to provide an answer to Spaceman.
>>
>>> I agree with this, but am wondering whether providing a partial answer
>>> would be more maddening.
>>
>> Yes, you're almost as devious as I am ;-)
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Oh, I'm willing to be quite open about it. I believe it will be more
> fun to tell Spaceman exactly what I am doing,
I don't know about that. He wouldn't understand what
you are talking about. Autism, you know...
> both of us knowing full
> well that he will not be able to help himself with an entirely
> predictable response.
I have my doubts about that as well :-)
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:09:39 -0700 (PDT), mathkills <mathki...@ureach.com>
Right no clock is perfect. The reason is that a clock second will
contain a different amnount of absolute time in different frames. But
this is not clock malfunction. This is clock running at different
rates in different state of absolute motion.
>
> Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his telescope.
> His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N ticks per orbit of the
> ISS.
> Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and ....whooosh! up she
> goes to join the ISS.
>
> Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices that it now
> emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit.
No....the ground clock emits N-n tick per ISS orbit. The rocket clock
emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit. This is because the rocket clock second
contains less absolute time than the ground clock second.
>
> "That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock into free
> fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter certainly hasn't
> changed and neither has the ISS orbit."
>
> "Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."
No none of the clocks is malfunctiong. The rocket clock second
contains less amount of absolute time than the ground clock second and
thus Fred sees the ISS require more ticks per ISS orbit.
Ken Seto
>
> Einstein's Relativity exists solely because of the faith of its gullible
> followers.
>
> >-MK
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
>
> Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary- Hide quoted text -
Sue...
> In case you've missed on the kerfuffle...
>
> Spaceman has essentially asked the following question:
> For a clock that is approaching an observer, what will happen to the
> clock's rate as seen by that observer?
If the observer sees the clock via a fiber optic
cable he will notice no difference.
Was someone asking poorly worded question about the
free space propagation of light?
> Will it be
> -sped up, much like blue-shifting
> -slowed down, because the clock is moving relative to the observer.
>
> Spaceman has taken the fact that he does not know which of these
> answers to believe to represent a "problem" for special relativity,
> and that failure to provide him a clear answer as to which to believe
> specifically represents the failure of special relativity.
>
> So here's the question:
> Does Spaceman's confusion about which of these to believe truly
> represent a problem for special relativity?
If a particle model of light propagation is assumed
and a free_space path is assumed, there is room
for some misunderstanding.
> Is it necessary for the integrity of special relativity and for
> science in general, to provide an answer to Spaceman that he
> understands and believes?
Yes... The theory should offer unambiguous solution to
Spaceman or any other idiot that queries it.
Sue...
>
> PD
Spaceman
Almost,
All "clocks" do not follow SR nor GR.
Some clocks depending on orientation and type make
SR and GR explanations so far off it is amazing time dilation
is still considered to be "time" changing rate at all.
Since the clock is the measurement device.
SR and GR are simply being stupid and stating
The measuring system caused the measuring system to change.
It is the saddest thing that has ever been accepted as "physics"
for all time.
> I don't think it too difficult of
> a logical conclusion to say that a change in the rate at which time
> passes is completely indistinguishable from the case where ALL
> physical processes change the rate at which they occur, do you? So
That is the point you seem to ignore.
All physical processes do not match GR or SR.
Only atomic clocks do.
Most every other type of clock is further and further
away from such predictions.
And of course, the most important function of a clock
is to "not change" rate, so if it does change rate, the clock
has failed it's most important function.
The ignorance of a clocks most important function is
the biggest backward step science has ever taken,
and it has not taken a new step in over 100 yrs now
because of the stupid ass clock malfunction not being
treated as the malfunction it truly is.
Spaceman
Signal = The clock malfunctioned
Background = Clocks are not supposed to change rate.
(Function number one of a clock, it's most important function)
Noise = Relativists like PD etc..
:)
Spaceman
> No, no, no! That's the point of the thread. What is there possibly to
> be gained from indulging his "want" for your explanation? He doesn't
> want the explanation, he wants you to indulge him your time and
> effort. He'll throw your explanation down in the dirt, just to show
> you his contempt both for your proffered explanation and for your
> willingness to indulge him his demands. That is his *entire*
> objective, to show contempt for whatever you do at his behest.
>
> I have a better idea. Rather than providing what he says he wants, why
> don't you see if you can get him to do something you want him to do?
> I've been having a great deal of fun doing that with him.
The dog thinks that he make me ring the bell!
Yet the dog still does not know what the most important
part of a clocks function is!
LOL
Spaceman
Poor Dirk,
Also ignorant to how a clock works and what the most important
function of a clock is to "keep" accurate.
:)
Spaceman
The clock failed in the most important function of the clock.
That function is to ..."not change rate".
>> Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his
>> telescope. His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N
>> ticks per orbit of the ISS.
>> Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and
>> ....whooosh! up she goes to join the ISS.
>>
>> Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices
>> that it now emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit.
>
> No....the ground clock emits N-n tick per ISS orbit. The rocket clock
> emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit. This is because the rocket clock second
> contains less absolute time than the ground clock second.
absolute time is absolute everywhere,
If the absolute time" has conflicted with the absolute time,
at least one of the clocks did not keep absolute time.
>> "That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock
>> into free fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter
>> certainly hasn't changed and neither has the ISS orbit."
>>
>> "Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."
>
> No none of the clocks is malfunctiong.
BULLSHIT!
If no clock had malfunctioned, no different times would be
seen.
The most important "function" of a clock is to not change rate.
If a clock changed rate, it malfunctioned.
PD
Probably not, though he has tried hard.
It's a pretty sad story, really, and not too hard to piece together.
Worked in his father's shop and lived in an apartment attached to the
shop, until his father died and the business was sold from the estate,
and he had to move. Divorced twice, unemployed, too stupid to get work
as a mechanic, and so he's trying to work his way up to being employed
by Geek Squad, helping homeowners install printers and get their
internet working for $9/hr. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if his car
is up on cinder blocks. But despite his ambitions, he spends most of
his waking hours making an idiot of himself on a newsgroup on a
subject he knows absolutely nothing about. He's oxidizing slowly, and
as the hole appears in the muffler, he gets louder. I'm sure his
mother is worried about whether he'll ever amount to anything before
she goes to the grave.
PD
kenseto
wrote:
Yes it is and the rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all
frames. But we have no unit of clock time that represents the same
amount of absolute time in different frame. Why? Because a unit of
clock time such as a clock second represents a different amount of
absolute time in different frames.
> If the absolute time" has conflicted with the absolute time,
> at least one of the clocks did not keep absolute time.
>
> >> "That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock
> >> into free fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter
> >> certainly hasn't changed and neither has the ISS orbit."
>
> >> "Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."
>
> > No none of the clocks is malfunctiong.
>
> BULLSHIT!
> If no clock had malfunctioned, no different times would be
> seen.
> The most important "function" of a clock is to not change rate.
> If a clock changed rate, it malfunctioned.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that clocks in relative motion
are running at different rates? The cause of the rate difference is
due to the clock second contain a different amount of absolute time in
different frames.
Ken Seto
Spaceman
> Worked in his father's shop and lived in an apartment attached to the
> shop, until his father died and the business was sold from the estate,
> and he had to move. Divorced twice, unemployed, too stupid to get work
> as a mechanic, and so he's trying to work his way up to being employed
> by Geek Squad, helping homeowners install printers and get their
> internet working for $9/hr. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if his car
> is up on cinder blocks. But despite his ambitions, he spends most of
> his waking hours making an idiot of himself on a newsgroup on a
> subject he knows absolutely nothing about. He's oxidizing slowly, and
> as the hole appears in the muffler, he gets louder. I'm sure his
> mother is worried about whether he'll ever amount to anything before
> she goes to the grave.
Wonderful imagination PD.
You got so much twisting around I am not going to bother
fixing your bad story telling.
and
Too bad I did a lot more that you have no clue about and
I am not going to bother with such details since they are irrelevant
to anything in physics.
It is great how you need to make up such stories instead of
actually admitting that clocks malfunctioned and SR is wrong
about "time slowing".
You truly are one sick con man, or just very stupid.
:)
So as usual the relativist will do such...
When the facts given can not be falsified with fact,
attack the messenger and make up as many stories that are
as twisted and wrong as you can to make yourself feel better
for being a con man or just stupid.
:)
Strich.9
>
> Probably not, though he has tried hard.
> It's a pretty sad story, really, and not too hard to piece together.
>
> Worked in his father's shop and lived in an apartment attached to the
> shop, until his father died and the business was sold from the estate,
> and he had to move. Divorced twice, unemployed, too stupid to get work
> as a mechanic, and so he's trying to work his way up to being employed
> by Geek Squad, helping homeowners install printers and get their
> internet working for $9/hr. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if his car
> is up on cinder blocks. But despite his ambitions, he spends most of
> his waking hours making an idiot of himself on a newsgroup on a
> subject he knows absolutely nothing about. He's oxidizing slowly, and
> as the hole appears in the muffler, he gets louder. I'm sure his
> mother is worried about whether he'll ever amount to anything before
> she goes to the grave.
>
> PD
Well I'll be damned. PD imitates my style again.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4c129ccc06045c79
That was the thread that made PD cry, and he was so hurt he did not
post for days. He is so impressed by the effect it had on him that he
decided to use it against James. Unfortunately, PD does not have the
touch and his little story is comical at best. Here was PD's story.
Hopefull it does not make him cry a second time.
There once was a little man named PD. His mother told him he was
smart. He believed her though she did not. He was a below average
student. Come college he chose physics because it was least
competitive compared to the great stuff such as business,
engineering,
pre-law, pre-med. Still he could only get into a second rate
program. He finished after 8 years. He got a job as a teaching
assistant. He would brag to his family that he was a professor and
they would clap their hands for him, as they did when he was small.
He barely managed to understand physics, and to this day, only
parrots
the twenty or so lines that he remembers from his school days. But
that is enough for him. What he cannot answer he refers to the
textbooks. He always pretends he is smart, and since nobody is mean
enough to tell him otherwise, he continues to live under this
delusion. He is now middle age, but still acts juvenile, never
having
matured. Never really using his brain, he will develop an early
dementia. Nobody will know, as he would continue to act the same way
as he always did.
Spaceman
A unit of time that is not absolute in all frames, is simply a clock
malfunction in at least one of the frames.
If a clock does not keep an "absolute tick rate", the clock
has failed it's most important function.
>> BULLSHIT!
>> If no clock had malfunctioned, no different times would be
>> seen.
>> The most important "function" of a clock is to not change rate.
>> If a clock changed rate, it malfunctioned.
>
> Why is it so hard for you to understand that clocks in relative motion
> are running at different rates? The cause of the rate difference is
> due to the clock second contain a different amount of absolute time in
> different frames.
Why is it so hard for you to understand what the most important
function of the clock is.
To not change rate.
If it changed rate at all, it failed the most important function it was
designed
to do.
Dr. Henri Wilson
Ken, your logic is circular.
You are saying, "the clock runs faster in orbit because time runs slower...as
indicated by the fact that the clock runs faster".
>Ken Seto
>>
>> Einstein's Relativity exists solely because of the faith of its gullible
>> followers.
>>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
Ken, we understand your arguments and know that they would be well worth
considering if an absolute spatial reference frame happened to exist.
Unfortunately it does not...so we can do little other than feel sorry for you.
>> If the absolute time" has conflicted with the absolute time,
>> at least one of the clocks did not keep absolute time.
>>
>> >> "That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock
>> >> into free fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter
>> >> certainly hasn't changed and neither has the ISS orbit."
>>
>> >> "Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."
>>
>> > No none of the clocks is malfunctiong.
>>
>> BULLSHIT!
>> If no clock had malfunctioned, no different times would be
>> seen.
>> The most important "function" of a clock is to not change rate.
>> If a clock changed rate, it malfunctioned.
>
>Why is it so hard for you to understand that clocks in relative motion
>are running at different rates? The cause of the rate difference is
>due to the clock second contain a different amount of absolute time in
>different frames.
C1------------------C2->v---------------------C3->v
Clocks c2 and c3 are MAR and moving at v away from clock1.
C2 is accelerated toward C1 until it is at rest wrt C1 and moving at v away
from C3.
C1------------------C2---------------------C3->v
According to SR, C2's 'gamma factor' has increased in C3's frame and decreased
in C1's frame.
So there is no way time in C2's frame can both increase and decrease
simultaneously. SR's concept of 'variable time' cannot explain any clock rate
changes. The clock must have malfunctioned if its rate has changed.
In aether theory, it could be possible to explain this situation...but we know
there is no absolute rest frame so let's just forget it.
>Ken Seto
>
>
>- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
kenseto
Sigh....no clock time unit is capable of representing the same amount
of absolute time in different frames. So according to you all clocks
are malfunctioning. It is much better to say that clocks in relative
motion are running at different rates.
> If a clock does not keep an "absolute tick rate", the clock
> has failed it's most important function.
But you failed to understand that no physical clock can keep an
"absolute tick rate" in different frames. That's why in SR the
observer claims that his clock is ticking at an absolute tick rate and
all the clocks moving wrt him are ticking at a slower rate.
In IRT an IRT observer claims that his clock is ticking at an absolute
rate but all the other clocks moving wrt him are ticking at different
rates....ie they are ticking at slower or faster rates.
>
> >> BULLSHIT!
> >> If no clock had malfunctioned, no different times would be
> >> seen.
> >> The most important "function" of a clock is to not change rate.
> >> If a clock changed rate, it malfunctioned.
>
> > Why is it so hard for you to understand that clocks in relative motion
> > are running at different rates? The cause of the rate difference is
> > due to the clock second contain a different amount of absolute time in
> > different frames.
>
> Why is it so hard for you to understand what the most important
> function of the clock is.
> To not change rate.
In terms of absolute time all clocks are running at the same rate in
different frames. However, the same absolute time rate is represented
by different clock rates in different frames.
> If it changed rate at all, it failed the most important function it was
> designed
> to do.
Unfortunately there is no clock capable of keeping absolute time rate
in different frames. So according to you all clocks are
malfunctioning.
Ken Seto
Spaceman
OMFG,
That is what I am saying,
The clocks run at different rates.
That is a clock malfunction.
Go back and learn the most important function of a clock
some year will you.
Sheesh!
mathkills
> That is the point you seem to ignore.
> All physical processes do not match GR or SR.
> Only atomic clocks do.
> Most every other type of clock is further and further
> away from such predictions.
> And of course, the most important function of a clock
> is to "not change" rate, so if it does change rate, the clock
> has failed it's most important function.
So all you are really saying is that clocks are not perfect... duh.
This does not affect the validity of SR or GR. Unless you are saying
that other then well known clock malfunctions, all processes speed up
and slow down to give the appearance of a change in the passage of
time as predicted by relativity. You know you did not invent this
theory I hope, its been around as long as relativity.
So again I raise the point, how does clock malfunction theory differ
from relativity from a positivist point of view? That is, how are the
theories different in their predictive power. Can you now provide
some prediction of Clock Malfunction Theory that goes beyond
relativity... no you cannot.
The only difference between your theory and relativity is that
relativity is a simple explanation, where as your theory relies highly
on several completely UNRELATED physical processes being affected in
the same way. You should see this as a BIG PROBLEM to overcome. This
must have a simple and singular explanation, unless you are arguing
for an anthropic theory, which in that case this is the wrong NG.
Any scientific phenomenon can have an infinite number of valid
theories to explain it due to the limitations in observation and
experiment. Any two theories with identical predicitve power are
effectively identical in themselves. So what are you really aguing
about?
mk
Spaceman
>> That is the point you seem to ignore.
>> All physical processes do not match GR or SR.
>> Only atomic clocks do.
>> Most every other type of clock is further and further
>> away from such predictions.
>> And of course, the most important function of a clock
>> is to "not change" rate, so if it does change rate, the clock
>> has failed it's most important function.
>
>
> So all you are really saying is that clocks are not perfect... duh.
No,
I am stating the clocks are malfunctioning and it is not time
changing rate, but of course morons like you that do not understand
what a clock does or what it's most important function is, are
too ignorant tp understand that "time" did not change rate.
<snipped rest of ignorant babble from clock illiterate brainwashed moron>
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Androcles
"mathkills" <math...@ureach.com> wrote in message
news:523ad5ae-1691-475c...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>> That is the point you seem to ignore.
>> All physical processes do not match GR or SR.
>> Only atomic clocks do.
>> Most every other type of clock is further and further
>> away from such predictions.
>> And of course, the most important function of a clock
>> is to "not change" rate, so if it does change rate, the clock
>> has failed it's most important function.
>
>
> So all you are really saying is that clocks are not perfect... duh.
>
> This does not affect the validity of SR or GR.
This does not affect the validity of bright green flying elephants, cretin.
SR and GR have no validity, you pillock.
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
According to the Pillock Shawn Pollock (aka mathkills):
Mikelzon Morrly, whatever.
What Einstein does is basically modify Galilean relativity as follows
X'=A(X-vt)
yes you [Androcles] are an ass (presumably because I asked the question)
=================================================
Yes you, pillock Pollock, are a fucking ignorant cretin!
kenseto
No....the GPS clock second has 4.15 more periods of the radiation
compare to the ground clock second and thus the GPS clock is running
faster than the ground clock.
Ken Seto
Sue...
> > That is the point you seem to ignore.
> > All physical processes do not match GR or SR.
> > Only atomic clocks do.
> > Most every other type of clock is further and further
> > away from such predictions.
> > And of course, the most important function of a clock
> > is to "not change" rate, so if it does change rate, the clock
> > has failed it's most important function.
>
> So all you are really saying is that clocks are not perfect... duh.
>
> This does not affect the validity of SR or GR.
> Unless you are saying
> that other then well known clock malfunctions,
> all processes speed up
> and slow down to give the appearance of a change in the passage of
> time as predicted by relativity. You know you did not invent this
> theory I hope, its been around as long as relativity.
Say What ???
<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
The Draper family
kenseto at ken...@erinet.com wrote on 10/5/08 5:01 PM:
Ken, this is just plain wrong. It is not 4.15 more periods of the radiation.
How are you going to do any experiment if you are numerically illiterate?
PD
Spaceman
That 4.15 periods difference prove it has malfunctioned in it's proper
operation
parameters.
C,mon man!
Wake up.
Spaceman
Poor PD,
He will never get that to make the "second" the same for both clocks
so GPS will work at all, they have to make a new "ratio" for
the "second".
Boy..
It is amazing PD thinks he is so smart yet knows so little about
how clocks work and also has no clue how the GPS actually has to
work to find "absolute" positions.
LOL
.
Dr. Henri Wilson
Well I don't care which goes faster or slower. The point is your argument is
still circular. You are saying that the change in clock rate indicates a change
in time flow...and THAT change is the cause of the apparent change in clock
rate.
>Ken Seto
Spaceman
In short they are actually stating the "a counting method changing rate" is
the cause for "a change of rate in the counting method".
100% circular and.. also pretty sad it was accepted at all in science.
:)
Dr. Henri Wilson
Geez! Aren't you glad you're not completely brainwashed like these dullheads,
Spaceman?
kenseto
wrote:
No it means that the GPS second requires N+4.15 periods of the
radiation to have the same absolute time content as N periods of the
radiation for a ground clock second.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:01:37 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 3, 6:47 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 06:47:37 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 2, 8:45 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:09:39 -0700 (PDT), mathkills <mathki...@ureach.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> "Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."
>
> >> >No none of the clocks is malfunctiong. The rocket clock second
> >> >contains less amount of absolute time than the ground clock second and
> >> >thus Fred sees the ISS require more ticks per ISS orbit.
>
> >> Ken, your logic is circular.
> >> You are saying, "the clock runs faster in orbit because time runs slower...as
> >> indicated by the fact that the clock runs faster".
>
> >No....the GPS clock second has 4.15 more periods of the radiation
> >compare to the ground clock second and thus the GPS clock is running
> >faster than the ground clock.
>
> Well I don't care which goes faster or slower. The point is your argument is
> still circular. You are saying that the change in clock rate indicates a change
> in time flow...and THAT change is the cause of the apparent change in clock
> rate.
No idiot....I am saying that a clock second contain a different amount
of absolute time in different frames. This means that:
1. The rate of passage of absolute time is constant in all frames.
2. The rate of passage of clock time is different in different frames.
Ken Seto
-
kenseto
wrote:
> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:01:37 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kens...@erinet.com>
No idiot I am saying that a clock second contains a different amount
of absolute time in different frames. This means that:
1. The rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames.
2. the rate of passage of clock time is different in different frames.
You can call this as clock malfunction if you want. I don't give a
shit.
Ken Seto
> :)- Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
Absolute time suddenly sounds very relative.
kenseto
No...the difference is this:
1. In SR there is no absolute time.
2. In SR the different observed clock rate is due to the difference of
the rate of time flowing through the clock. In other words the slower
clock time rate is due to time dilation.
3. In IRT absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time
is constant in all frames. IOW there is no absolute time dilation.
4. In IRT a clock second contains a different amount of absolute time
in different frames. That's why a clock second will measure the speed
of light as a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of ruler (299,792,458 m long physically)/the
absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
Ken Seto
Uncle Ben
> On Oct 2, 5:36 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
> > Poor mathkills.
> > He has joined the jester dance crew.
> > C,mon mathkills
> > Provide the SR method to solve the three clock problem, (ding ding)
> > :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> I'll explain for you anything you want, but why? You won't listen to
> logic let alone physics. If you really want me to, do me the favor of
> rephrasing the question with all assumptions. I don't have the time
> or patience to dig it up in the NG...
>
> In the meantime, let me see if I understand clock malfunction
> theory...
>
> You accept experimental evidence that at least perceived time is
> affected by relative motion or gravity. HOWEVER, you basically
> explain it that all physical processes slow down and that the thing
> called time is unaffected, correct? I don't think it too difficult of
> a logical conclusion to say that a change in the rate at which time
> passes is completely indistinguishable from the case where ALL
> physical processes change the rate at which they occur, do you? So
>
> OK, there is nothing wrong with that as a theory just as there is
> nothing wrong with the theory that all science is a ruse by god to
> trick the unfaithful into abandoning religion. That the whole
> universe was staged to appear 13 billion years old, that dinosaur
> skeletons were planted as-is, in the crust to fool us. You cannot
> prove it is not true... so therefore it must be true and all non
> believers in creation science are fools. This is such backwards
> logic.
>
> At some point you have to simply make decisions based on simplicity.
> How complex of a theory would "malfunctioning clock theory" have to be
> to explain how ALL physical processes, inlcuding quantum processes
> will change in exactly the same under relative motion or in a gravity
> field. It just does not fit the picture of the universe. It may be a
> logically sound theory, at least to you anyway, but the likelihood of
> it being true is so astronomically small, you should abandon it.
>
> Your skepticism is good, but you take it too far. The shame of it all
> is that I perceive that you have developed these difficulties in a
> study of freshman level special relativity and havent gotten over
> yourself long enough to really explore the theories that go so far
> beyond SR. Why don't you take a few months off of the NG badgering,
> push the "I belive (for now)" button and try to actually learn
> something.
>
> MK- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear mathkills,
Save your breath. I have explained to Spaceman in excruciating detail
how the answer to his three-clock problem lies in the Doppler Effect,
not in time dilation. I even almost derived the classical Doppler
Effect equations for him in terms of bowling balls emitted by a
walking bowler.
His reply, "that is the Doppler Effect, not Special Relativity."
So until he has some electro-shock therapy, there is no hope for him.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
> be gained from indulging his "want" for your explanation? He doesn't
> want the explanation, he wants you to indulge him your time and
> effort. He'll throw your explanation down in the dirt, just to show
> you his contempt both for your proffered explanation and for your
> willingness to indulge him his demands. That is his *entire*
> objective, to show contempt for whatever you do at his behest.
>
> I have a better idea. Rather than providing what he says he wants, why
> don't you see if you can get him to do something you want him to do?
> I've been having a great deal of fun doing that with him.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD, are we having fun yet? Yes, we are. Keep up the good work!
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > No, no, no! That's the point of the thread. What is there possibly to
> > be gained from indulging his "want" for your explanation? He doesn't
> > want the explanation, he wants you to indulge him your time and
> > effort. He'll throw your explanation down in the dirt, just to show
> > you his contempt both for your proffered explanation and for your
> > willingness to indulge him his demands. That is his *entire*
> > objective, to show contempt for whatever you do at his behest.
>
> > I have a better idea. Rather than providing what he says he wants, why
> > don't you see if you can get him to do something you want him to do?
> > I've been having a great deal of fun doing that with him.
>
> Yet the dog still does not know what the most important
> part of a clocks function is!
> LOL
Spaceman, you have it backwards. The dog doesn't ring the bell. The
bell makes the dog salivate.
Dirk Van de moortel
a0f54833-78f4-4352...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
[snip]
> Dear mathkills,
>
> Save your breath. I have explained to Spaceman in excruciating detail
> how the answer to his three-clock problem lies in the Doppler Effect,
> not in time dilation. I even almost derived the classical Doppler
> Effect equations for him in terms of bowling balls emitted by a
> walking bowler.
>
> His reply, "that is the Doppler Effect, not Special Relativity."
>
> So until he has some electro-shock therapy, there is no hope for him.
For you.
;-)
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> > > No it means that the GPS second requires N+4.15 periods of the
> > > radiation to have the same absolute time content as N periods of the
> > > radiation for a ground clock second.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > Absolute time suddenly sounds very relative.
>
> No...the difference is this:
> 1. In SR there is no absolute time.
Since you haven't been able to write a consistent definition for
absolute time in the 14 years of you arguing about it on USENET...
[snip rest]
IRT is as useless as its' creator.
kenseto
Fucking idiot.
Spaceman
Yes, I am very glad.
Imagine thinking that a clock on a starship was correct (even if running
slow)
and finding out a bit too late after you crash into a planet that did not
care that your clock was slow at all.
It is amazing how the entire universe ignores these "slower clocks"
and still moves around as if time was absolute.
:)
Spaceman
Basically yes.
And that should give you a clue that is did not have the same "absolute"
time before that was done.
And that also should give you a clue that the actual motion does not
give a shit about the "time dilations" and it moves as if it
was using absolute time to find out where it truly is.
:)
Spaceman
If the times are different, why are you using the words absolute?
Don;t be calling me an idiot when you are the one that has forgotten
what the most important function of a clock is.
Spaceman
Poor Unlce Ben,
He still does not get that the doppler effect is the proof SR is not
needed to explain time dilation at all for most cases.
And in fact SR can not account for the three clock problem at all,
and only doppler effect can.
So.
Maybe you need to wake up Ben.
You actually proved SR is not needed yet you still don't get it.
Spaceman
Ben,
I see you have now turned into the asshole that most relativists are.
I see you still don't get that using doppler instead of SR for the three
clock problem proves SR does not solve it still but doppler handles
it with no problem.
So Ben,
Wake up, or remain the sleeping dog forever for all I care.
Eric Gisse
Name one useful contribution you have made in 14 years of arguing on
USENET, or concede the point.
Dr. Henri Wilson
or
3. The clock has malfunctioned.
>Ken Seto
>
>
>-
Dr. Henri Wilson
If you continue to side with Diaper, you will only end up in the idiot bin with
him.
>Uncle Ben
doug
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
1. You have been shown that this is not true.
2. Each crank gets his own special superpower and spaceman
already took this one. Find another delusion.
Spaceman
No such thing has been shown you lying sack of con man crap.
In fact, each and every experiment that is using clocks have proven
it is a fact and very much true.
Poor Doug.
He still can not figure out the most important function of a clock.
> 2. Each crank gets his own special superpower and spaceman
> already took this one. Find another delusion.
Poor Doug,
All humans with brains have this superpower.
I am sorry you are not a human with a brain that can figure
out how to use this superpower of fact known as a clock malfunction.
doug
Spaceman wrote:
So you consider this a strong scientific argument?
> In fact, each and every experiment that is using clocks have proven
> it is a fact and very much true.
Except that it is not true as you have been shown but you
are having delusions of adequacy.
> Poor Doug.
> He still can not figure out the most important function of a clock.
Yes and they are excellent at fullfilling that function. You
should be proud of your tax dollars at work making wonderful
clocks.
>
>
>
>>2. Each crank gets his own special superpower and spaceman
>> already took this one. Find another delusion.
>
>
> Poor Doug,
> All humans with brains have this superpower.
> I am sorry you are not a human with a brain that can figure
> out how to use this superpower of fact known as a clock malfunction.
We enjoy listening to you spout off nonsense. It is always good to
see that there are still ignorant people around. I really see that
you had to give up changing tires since they were outsmarting you.
>
>
>
Spaceman
You truly are an idiot huh?
You prove you have no clue about what the most important function
of a clock is, and you further prove you are an idiot by not
understanding that the clocks have changed rate and that is proof
they have malfunctioned.
You truly are lost.
I feel sad you have been brainwashed so much that you can no
longer learn what clocks need to do to "count" time.
>> Poor Doug.
>> He still can not figure out the most important function of a clock.
>
> Yes and they are excellent at fullfilling that function. You
> should be proud of your tax dollars at work making wonderful
> clocks.
I am proud of clocks.
I am more proud of people that know that when they do
not keep proper time, they have malfunctioned no matter how
good they were when sitting in a nice lab somewhere.
I am very dissapointed you are so stupid you can not grasp
a simple thing like a clock malfunction and yet you call yourself
a scientist.
I call you a moron.
You have no clue what science is anymore.
>>> 2. Each crank gets his own special superpower and spaceman
>>> already took this one. Find another delusion.
>>
>>
>> Poor Doug,
>> All humans with brains have this superpower.
>> I am sorry you are not a human with a brain that can figure
>> out how to use this superpower of fact known as a clock malfunction.
>
> We enjoy listening to you spout off nonsense. It is always good to
> see that there are still ignorant people around. I really see that
> you had to give up changing tires since they were outsmarting you.
It's always nice to see you have to resort to calling me a tire changer.
Yet more proof you can not follow data that is given.
It must be wonderful to be the con man you are
Want to post your last name?
Or are you afraid because of the con you are pulling?
I am not afraid to post mine.
In fact I am proud of it since I am posting facts instead of
complete bullshit con crap like you post.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
doug
Spaceman wrote:
You keep repeating your delusions and you ignore a century of
experimental evidence. You are just trolling and looking for
an excuse to insult intelligent people. You have no education
and no ability to study. Your only desire is to insult people.
That works with tires but not in science.
> You truly are lost.
> I feel sad you have been brainwashed so much that you can no
> longer learn what clocks need to do to "count" time.
>
>
>
>
>>>Poor Doug.
>>>He still can not figure out the most important function of a clock.
>>
>>Yes and they are excellent at fullfilling that function. You
>>should be proud of your tax dollars at work making wonderful
>>clocks.
>
>
> I am proud of clocks.
> I am more proud of people that know that when they do
> not keep proper time, they have malfunctioned no matter how
> good they were when sitting in a nice lab somewhere.
> I am very dissapointed you are so stupid you can not grasp
> a simple thing like a clock malfunction and yet you call yourself
> a scientist.
I am pleased to be a scientist. I understand clocks. You do not
even understand tires.
> I call you a moron.
> You have no clue what science is anymore.
I do science. You failed at tires.
>
>
>
>>>>2. Each crank gets his own special superpower and spaceman
>>>> already took this one. Find another delusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>Poor Doug,
>>>All humans with brains have this superpower.
>>>I am sorry you are not a human with a brain that can figure
>>>out how to use this superpower of fact known as a clock malfunction.
>>
>>We enjoy listening to you spout off nonsense. It is always good to
>>see that there are still ignorant people around. I really see that
>>you had to give up changing tires since they were outsmarting you.
>
>
> It's always nice to see you have to resort to calling me a tire changer.
Sorry, extirechanger. You did not succeed at that.
Spaceman
Nice lie.
>> I call you a moron.
>> You have no clue what science is anymore.
>
> I do science. You failed at tires.
Both wrong.
It is wonderful how you can be wrong so much.
Thanks for proof you are still clueless about clocks.
and of course. you have no clue about me either.
:)
>> It's always nice to see you have to resort to calling me a tire
>> changer.
>
> Sorry, extirechanger. You did not succeed at that.
Again,
Afraid to use my real profession, a mechanic.
But I guess that could mean you are not a scientist and simply
must be a toilet bowl cleaner in a lab bathroom.
And I am talking about the little disc in the urinal,
Not the human that replaces you once a month.
:)
doug
Spaceman wrote:
Given your track record, that is a complement.
>
>
>
>>>I call you a moron.
>>>You have no clue what science is anymore.
>>
>>I do science. You failed at tires.
>
>
> Both wrong.
> It is wonderful how you can be wrong so much.
> Thanks for proof you are still clueless about clocks.
> and of course. you have no clue about me either.
It is enough to know that you do not know any science.
> :)
>
>
>
>>>It's always nice to see you have to resort to calling me a tire
>>>changer.
>>
>>Sorry, extirechanger. You did not succeed at that.
>
>
> Again,
> Afraid to use my real profession, a mechanic.
> But I guess that could mean you are not a scientist
This guess is no better than any of your other guesses.
You are making a habit of looking stupid and are only
here to bluster and make a fool of yourself. Everyone
here, except strich who is a bigger troll than you are,
knows that you are just talking to hear yourself talk.
There is no realtion between what you say and science.
You do not even realize what you are saying. It is funny
to watch you show your willing ignorance.
I am a scientist who can also do mechanical work but you
are an exmechanic who cannot do any science. Why not
spend some time studying so that you do not look so
stupid? Or else go back to changing tires.
Spaceman
> I am a scientist who can also do mechanical work but you
> are an exmechanic who cannot do any science. Why not
> spend some time studying so that you do not look so
> stupid? Or else go back to changing tires.
You are a dingleberry that does not even understand that when
a clock changes rate it has malfunctioned.
Anything you say can simply be laughed at and thrown aside
like the bullshit it is.
LOL
:)
doug
Spaceman wrote:
Lets see, I am a trained scientist whose views are shaped by
over a century of experimental work done by competent scientists
whose work has been thoroughly reviewed and challenged. You are
an extirechanger who knows no science and whose views are set
by complete ignorance and tactics suitable for bar discussions
where bluster may win among the drunks. That does not work in
science so you are left with your delusions. Having you not
like what I say is further proof of its correctness.
>
>
Dr. Henri Wilson
>Lets see, I am a trained scientist whose views are shaped by
>over a century of experimental work done by competent scientists
>whose work has been thoroughly reviewed and challenged.
Are any of your fellow patients under similar delusions?
.....you're not even a scientist's arsehole dougie!....on second thoughts,
maybe you are....
kenseto
wrote:
Sigh...there is no clock time unit (such as a clock second) that
represent the same absolute time interval in different frames.
> Don;t be calling me an idiot when you are the one that has forgotten
> what the most important function of a clock is.
kenseto
Which clock is malfunctioned?
Ken Seto
>
> >Ken Seto
>
> >-
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
>
> Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary- Hide quoted text -
doug
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:39:54 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Lets see, I am a trained scientist whose views are shaped by
>>over a century of experimental work done by competent scientists
>>whose work has been thoroughly reviewed and challenged.
>
>
> Are any of your fellow patients under similar delusions?
>
> .....you're not even a scientist's arsehole dougie!....on second thoughts,
> maybe you are....
Lets see, I have real degrees, you have fake degrees. I do
science, you lie on a newgroup. Yep, I am still happy with
where I am.
Uncle Ben
wrote:
Jim, it seems that every clock malfunctions (in your opinion) whenever
it moves. (You have never described a clock design which doesn't
malfunction.) The same clock that doesn't malfunction with repspect to
its rest frame, does malfunction with respect to another frame in
which it is in motion. (I don't mean acceleration; just motion.)
So you have the same "contradiction" in your theory that you say
relativity has. You say, how can a clock keep one time in one frame
and another time in another frame at the same time.
I say how can a clock malfunction in one frame and not malfunction in
another frame at the same time?
Your theory has the same properties you accuse SR of having.
Uncle Ben
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>
>> doug wrote:
>>
>>> I am a scientist who can also do mechanical work but you
>>> are an exmechanic who cannot do any science. Why not
>>> spend some time studying so that you do not look so
>>> stupid? Or else go back to changing tires.
>>
>>
>> You are a dingleberry that does not even understand that when
>> a clock changes rate it has malfunctioned.
>> Anything you say can simply be laughed at and thrown aside
>> like the bullshit it is.
>> LOL
>> :)
>
> Lets see, I am a trained scientist whose views are shaped by
> over a century of experimental work done by competent scientists
> whose work has been thoroughly reviewed and challenged.
So what, you were trained by morons that ignored the most important
function of a clock.
So you were trained by monkeys.
Big whoop de doo!
:)
Spaceman
Yes there is Ken,
It is called a single standard of time in science.
We use it in science all the time, and when a clock shows a variance
of that single unit, the clock has malfunctioned.
Spaceman
The clock that varied from the set single standard.
Spaceman
> On Oct 7, 12:21 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> doug wrote:
>>> I am a scientist who can also do mechanical work but you
>>> are an exmechanic who cannot do any science. Why not
>>> spend some time studying so that you do not look so
>>> stupid? Or else go back to changing tires.
>>
>> You are a dingleberry that does not even understand that when
>> a clock changes rate it has malfunctioned.
>> Anything you say can simply be laughed at and thrown aside
>> like the bullshit it is.
>> LOL
>> :)
>
> Jim, it seems that every clock malfunctions (in your opinion) whenever
> it moves. (You have never described a clock design which doesn't
> malfunction.) The same clock that doesn't malfunction with repspect to
> its rest frame, does malfunction with respect to another frame in
> which it is in motion. (I don't mean acceleration; just motion.)
Ben,
The most important function of a clock is to never vary rate.
If the clock has varied rate wrt the single standard, it has malfunctioned.
There is no contradiction in such factual science.
The only contradiction come from your relativity religion when it
contradicts itself and uses multiple standards for time and distance.
doug
Spaceman wrote:
The difference is that I know what I am talking about and you
are just guessing and blustering. You have no explaination for
anything, you just run around screaming "the clock malfunctioned"
while having no idea what that would mean.
>
>
PD
wrote:
> Uncle Ben wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 12:21 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> > wrote:
> >> doug wrote:
> >>> I am a scientist who can also do mechanical work but you
> >>> are an exmechanic who cannot do any science. Why not
> >>> spend some time studying so that you do not look so
> >>> stupid? Or else go back to changing tires.
>
> >> You are a dingleberry that does not even understand that when
> >> a clock changes rate it has malfunctioned.
> >> Anything you say can simply be laughed at and thrown aside
> >> like the bullshit it is.
> >> LOL
> >> :)
>
> > Jim, it seems that every clock malfunctions (in your opinion) whenever
> > it moves. (You have never described a clock design which doesn't
> > malfunction.) The same clock that doesn't malfunction with repspect to
> > its rest frame, does malfunction with respect to another frame in
> > which it is in motion. (I don't mean acceleration; just motion.)
>
> Ben,
> The most important function of a clock is to never vary rate.
Nope. The most important function of a clock is local repeatability.
We've talked about this before. What YOU think the most important
function is has not been the most important function for some time,
according to the panel that determines the standards. If you don't
like it, you can lump it.
Spaceman
You are a moron PD.
A pendulum clock that is running at 2 swings per 10 seconds according
to another clock only reads a second in it's own frame.
(In it's own frame the pendulum clock did not fail it's local
repeatability.)
You are so freakin stupid about the function of a clock it is amazing
you can even read a clock face at all.
You must be either a con man or just so freakin stupid that you think
you are smart.
LOL
Spaceman
The difference is, I know the most important function of a clock,
and you have been brainwashed to not understand such anymore.
Therefore you are a brainwashed moron.
LOL
PD
No, sir. You BELIEVE you know the most important function of a clock.
This happens to be at variance with the body of scientists and
engineers that have decided what the most important function of a
clock is. You don't care what that body thinks, and you insist that
what your position is, is the correct one. You are alone in that
position.
People who believe that there are black helicopters watching their
every move also KNOW what the government is doing, or so they say. Of
course, they need medication. Do you need medication, Spaceman?
Spaceman
No idiot.
I know for a scientific fact that it is the most important function.
Apparently you are a con man or just too dense to get even the slightest
clue about what clocks are supposed to do.
A pendulum clock never changes it's local frame count for a second
when using your stupid ass "local standard" bullshit.
You are a freakin moron beyond help.
If you used your brain and actually thought on your own for a second
or two instead of only using your sad ass ROM that has been infected
beyond repair with relativity, you could grasp a clue.
PD
wrote:
You wouldn't know a scientific fact if it walked up, slapped you in
the face and called you "bitch".
Dr. Henri Wilson
>
>
>Spaceman wrote:
>
>> doug wrote:
>> So what, you were trained by morons that ignored the most important
>> function of a clock.
>> So you were trained by monkeys.
>> Big whoop de doo!
>> :)
>
>The difference is that I know what I am talking about
..but you never talk about anything except how you worship your fucking god
einstein .
>and you
>are just guessing and blustering. You have no explaination for
>anything, you just run around screaming "the clock malfunctioned"
>while having no idea what that would mean.
Dr. Fred Bloggs sits on the launch pad watching the ISS through his telescope.
His cesium clock is ticking away next to him, emitting N ticks per orbit of the
ISS.
Fred now sticks his clock in a rocket, lights the fuse and ....whooosh! up she
goes to join the ISS.
Fred continues to receive ticks from his clock by radio. He notices that it now
emits N+n ticks per ISS orbit.
"That's funny", thinks Fred. "For some reason, sending the clock into free
fall must have caused it to change its rate. My counter certainly hasn't
changed and neither has the ISS orbit."
"Damn! The clock must be malfunctioning."
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Oct 6, 6:10 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 02:39:21 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 5, 7:45 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>
>> >> Well I don't care which goes faster or slower. The point is your argument is
>> >> still circular. You are saying that the change in clock rate indicates a change
>> >> in time flow...and THAT change is the cause of the apparent change in clock
>> >> rate.
>>
>> >No idiot....I am saying that a clock second contain a different amount
>> >of absolute time in different frames. This means that:
>> >1. The rate of passage of absolute time is constant in all frames.
>> >2. The rate of passage of clock time is different in different frames.
>>
>> or
>> 3. The clock has malfunctioned.
>
>Which clock is malfunctioned?
The one that experiences some kind of frame change and which you claim reads
differently than it did when viewed by the original observer.
If it does, then it is now malfunctioning.
doug
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:58:58 -0800, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>doug wrote:
>
>
>>>So what, you were trained by morons that ignored the most important
>>>function of a clock.
>>>So you were trained by monkeys.
>>>Big whoop de doo!
>>>:)
>>
>>The difference is that I know what I am talking about
>
>
> ..but you never talk about anything except how you worship your fucking god
> einstein .
>
Yes, I talk about the truth and facts. You lie about physics and
you lie about your degrees.
gabydewilde
>Yes, I talk about the truth and facts.
No doug, you are always attacking people.
> You lie about physics and you lie about your degrees.
ohhh, poe poe. Strong arguments again.
Tell us how smart you are again doug.
We can use a good laugh.
doug
gabydewilde wrote:
You do get touchy when people show that you
are wrong.