Re: Twins paradox debunking 101.
Dirk Van de moortel
79ednVsecZjaFVfV...@comcast.com
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Spaceman <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>> T8idnSGfLOsyGFfV...@comcast.com
>>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>> Spaceman <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>>>> Ea2dnRMOR8xdHFfV...@comcast.com
>>>>> PD wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 12, 12:25 am, "Spaceman"
>>>>>> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>>>>>>> In short simple terms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both twins are the same revolutions of Earth with reference
>>>>>>> to the Sun old.
>>>>>>> The Entire Universe agrees that both twins have "existed"
>>>>>>> the same amount of natural Universal time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only a relativist fool would argue with the universe that says
>>>>>>> the twins are the same age.
>>>>>>> The same fools also never learned how a clock works
>>>>>>> nor what a clock actually does to abstract time from motion
>>>>>>> in the 3D universe.
>>>>>>> It simply counts the motion.
>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What really happened?
>>>>>>> The human created clocks malfunctioned.
>>>>>>> There will never be "time travel" as long as you
>>>>>>> can not change the entire Universe motion speed
>>>>>>> itself at will.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> James M Driscoll Jr
>>>>>>> Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
>>>>>>> Spaceman
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spaceman thinks that physical time is based on the number of
>>>>>> revolutions of the earth, because that's the way it was done for
>>>>>> centuries, and he has no idea why anyone would have changed their
>>>>>> mind about that, and even if they did he thinks it's a terrible
>>>>>> idea, and anyone that doesn't agree with him on the matter is a
>>>>>> loser.
>>>>>
>>>>> PD thinks that clocks rule the Universe instead of the universe
>>>>> ruling the clocks.
>>>>> PD thinks a human invention has physical force over all the planets
>>>>> in motion and such an invention is more "real" than billions and
>>>>> billions of planets and stars and galaxies etc..
>>>>> LOL
>>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> Here you go - just what I was trying to explain to PD
>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, all these billions of planets form billions of natural
>>>> clocks that are and remain synchronized with the stay
>>>> at home twin's clock.
>>>> The returning traveling twin counts the same number of
>>>> rotations and orbits of these planets as the stay at home
>>>> twin, but if the Traveling Clock is Malfunctioning, then
>>>> each rotation or orbit will count a smaller number of
>>>> Malfunctioning-Travel-Clock-Seconds, don't you agree?
>>>
>>> No,
>>> The clock is not counting the planets motion.
>>
>> The clocks counts seconds.
>
> Wrong!
> The clocks count motion of a mass and "abstract" a second
> from a certain number of counts.
>
>
>> The earth clock counts earth-seconds
>
> Wrong again.
> The Earth does not count anything.
I didn't say anuthing about what earth counts.
I said:
The earth clock counts earth-seconds.
[snip]
>> The malfunctioning-travel-clock counts malfunctioning-travel-clock
>> seconds.
>> Do you agree?
>
> No, of course not.
You are
| James M Driscoll Jr
| Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
| Spaceman
You say that the clock malfunctions.
But the clock counts something and call it
malfunctioning-travel-clock-seconds.
So again:
The earth clock counts something we call earth-seconds.
The malfunctioning-travel-clock counts malfunctioning-travel-clock
seconds.
Agree?
Yes or no?
[to be continued on sci.physics.relativity]
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
Again you are a twisting fool,
The clocks do not "count" seconds.
They count motions in the clock mechanism and
abstract a second after a certain amount of counts.
If the certain amount of counts take longer or shorter
than the standard clock than the clock malfunctioned.
Dirk,
A certain type of pendulum clock takes 2 swings to
measure a second. If the swinging slows down and
another clock says the clock took 10 seconds
to actually make 2 swings did it still measure a second
correctly?
> So again:
> The earth clock counts something we call earth-seconds.
And again,
No it does not "count".
We count and abstract.
You sure are being ignorant on such a simple fact about
what time is.
> The malfunctioning-travel-clock counts malfunctioning-travel-clock
> seconds.
No,
It counts the mass in motion and if the mass in motion moves
slower the clock has malfunctioned in it's proper operation.
Why are you so dense about how a clock works and what
it actually counts?
<Added sci.physics back again because I am dealing with
sci.physics, not scifi.relativity.>
Dirk Van de moortel
The clock that stays on earth with the twin who
stays on earth, has a hand that goes tick tick tick...
We call the number of ticks between two events
"earth-clock-seconds".
The malfunctioning-travel-clock that goes with the
travelling twin, has a hand that goes tick tick tick...
We call the number of ticks between two events
"malfunctioning-travel-clock-seconds".
Can you live with that?
Yes or no?
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
The clock that is malfunctioning is not "tick tick ticking"
at the same rate as the clock that is not malfuntioning
because that proper operation of a clock is to not tick
at a different rate at all.
Why don't you get how clocks work Dirk?
They are very simple machines really.
What don't you get about the fact that is a clock
is designed to tick at one rate, but ticks at a different
rate, then it is simply malfunctioning?
Sheesh.
Dirk Van de moortel
Sure, that why I propose to use different names to what
we read on those clocks.
So again:
The clock that stays on earth with the twin who
stays on earth, has a hand that goes tick tick tick...
We call the number of ticks between two events
"earth-clock-seconds".
The malfunctioning-travel-clock that goes with the
travelling twin, has a hand that goes tick tick tick...
We call the number of ticks between two events
"malfunctioning-travel-clock-seconds".
Can you live with this naming convention?
If you cannot reply with one wimple word, then
don't bother replying.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
R0xyk.9103$JK3...@newsfe14.ams2
[snip]
> If you cannot reply with one wimple word, then
> don't bother replying.
The "wimple" was a fingerslip typo, but I think it looks
quite charming, and perhaps more appropriate than what
I had intended, so I'm not going to correct it :-)
Dirk Vdm
xxein
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> R0xyk.9103$JK3....@newsfe14.ams2
>
> [snip]
>
> > If you cannot reply with one wimple word, then
> > don't bother replying.
>
> The "wimple" was a fingerslip typo, but I think it looks
> quite charming, and perhaps more appropriate than what
> I had intended, so I'm not going to correct it :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
xxein: So? You are both brain dead.
Michael Moroney
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 6:25 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>> wrote:
>>> Eric Gisse wrote:
>>>> That's some deep insight there spaceshit - time doesn't change, the
>>>> clock /malfunctions/ !
>>>
>>>> Where's the clock in Mossbauer?
>>>
>>> Where is the time dilation occuring in the Mossbauer Eric?
>>
>> Read the literature, spaceshit. I can explain it to you but I can't
>> understand it for you.
>I did asshole and not one paper I have seen mentions it.
>Got a link to one that does and explains where it happens
>since you cant explain?
Spaceshit, you really need to learn how to use Google. The phrase
"mossbauer effect time dilation" produces tons of hits ("about 10,400"
says Google).
Specifically, look at the "Harvard Tower Experiment" section of
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html.
See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html and
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html (second
section) for a description of the Mossbauer Effect.
Dirk Van de moortel
gagnsj$2ac$1...@pcls4.std.com
This will not impress Spaceshit.
Spaceshit is only impressed by questions he must answer
with one word.
Try him.
[ followup to sci.physics.relativity ]
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
First of all I find it funny that not one mention of "time dilation" and not
even the word dilaton appears at all in any of the above links.
I still only see doppler effect as any real cause for anything in the
Mossbauer effect.
It should be called the Mossbauer Experiment, not the Mossbauer effect.
since it is a actually just a Doppler effect and nothing more.
No time dilation needed for the calculation to do such..
So No clock problems since it is not even a clock based dilation
effect at all.
Dingalings use percieved wavelength instead of physical wavelength
to ignore the relative speed change of light and then use the time dilation
excuse instead for the cause of the shift.
You really should study it a bit more.
Michael Moroney
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> writes:
>>
>>>> Read the literature, spaceshit. I can explain it to you but I can't
>>>> understand it for you.
>>
>>> I did asshole and not one paper I have seen mentions it.
>>> Got a link to one that does and explains where it happens
>>> since you cant explain?
>>
>> Spaceshit, you really need to learn how to use Google. The phrase
>> "mossbauer effect time dilation" produces tons of hits ("about 10,400"
>> says Google).
>>
>> Specifically, look at the "Harvard Tower Experiment" section of
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html.
>>
>> See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html and
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html (second
>> section) for a description of the Mossbauer Effect.
>First of all I find it funny that not one mention of "time dilation" and not
>even the word dilaton appears at all in any of the above links.
So, did you even bother to type "mossbauer effect time dilation" into
Google? If so, did you even bother to read any of the 10,400 links
offered? I didn't think so.
Those links were added so you could have an explanation of the Mossbauer
Effect, and I found the Harvard Tower experiment interesting since it
demonstrates an effect that can be explained only by GR. Explain
that with just Doppler motion frequency shift.
Now how about answering Uncle Al's question? Where is the malfunctioning
clock in the Mossbauer Effect?
Spaceman
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> writes:
>
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Read the literature, spaceshit. I can explain it to you but I
>>>>> can't understand it for you.
>>>
>>>> I did asshole and not one paper I have seen mentions it.
>>>> Got a link to one that does and explains where it happens
>>>> since you cant explain?
>>>
>>> Spaceshit, you really need to learn how to use Google. The phrase
>>> "mossbauer effect time dilation" produces tons of hits ("about
>>> 10,400" says Google).
>>>
>>> Specifically, look at the "Harvard Tower Experiment" section of
>>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html.
>>>
>>> See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html
>>> and http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html
>>> (second section) for a description of the Mossbauer Effect.
>
>> First of all I find it funny that not one mention of "time dilation"
>> and not even the word dilaton appears at all in any of the above
>> links.
>
> So, did you even bother to type "mossbauer effect time dilation" into
> Google? If so, did you even bother to read any of the 10,400 links
> offered? I didn't think so.
Again,
Each link I look at does not include any actual mention
of the time dilation explanation for the Mossbauer effect,
Most do not mention it at all and only say Doppler effect
in the explanation and some just state the mossbauer proves time
dilation without any explanation at all for such a claim.
> Those links were added so you could have an explanation of the
> Mossbauer Effect, and I found the Harvard Tower experiment
> interesting since it demonstrates an effect that can be explained
> only by GR. Explain
> that with just Doppler motion frequency shift.
Doppler is simple to understand without the need of any time dilation
occuring at all.
The Mossbauer can be explained by simple classical Doppler
without any need of time dilation.
> Now how about answering Uncle Al's question? Where is the
> malfunctioning clock in the Mossbauer Effect?
As I said.
There is no actual time dilation needed to explain the effect
Doppler is all that is needed and no need of time dilation with
Doppler either.
I have answered the question,
It is not my fault you do not grasp the answer and still just
follow the lemmings.
Have some fun with Google search.
"Einstein moron" = about 248,000 hits.
Hmm?
It also seems Pink fairies could be caused by time dilation
according to your "google science".
pink fairies time dilation = 80,400 hits.
Maybe you are missing a lot of reading about the
other side of the mountain of shit you worship.
:)
Sue...
wrote:
> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> writes:
> >Michael Moroney wrote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
Sue...
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> writes:
>
> >> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >>>>> Read the literature, spaceshit. I can explain it to you but I
> >>>>> can't understand it for you.
>
> >>>> I did asshole and not one paper I have seen mentions it.
> >>>> Got a link to one that does and explains where it happens
> >>>> since you cant explain?
>
> >>> Spaceshit, you really need to learn how to use Google. The phrase
> >>> "mossbauer effect time dilation" produces tons of hits ("about
> >>> 10,400" says Google).
>
> >>> Specifically, look at the "Harvard Tower Experiment" section of
> >>>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html.
>
> >>> Seehttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html
> >>> (second section) for a description of the Mossbauer Effect.
>
> >> First of all I find it funny that not one mention of "time dilation"
> >> and not even the word dilaton appears at all in any of the above
> >> links.
>
> > So, did you even bother to type "mossbauer effect time dilation" into
> > Google? If so, did you even bother to read any of the 10,400 links
> > offered? I didn't think so.
>
> Again,
> Each link I look at does not include any actual mention
> of the time dilation explanation for the Mossbauer effect,
> Most do not mention it at all and only say Doppler effect
> in the explanation and some just state the mossbauer proves time
> dilation without any explanation at all for such a claim.
>
> > Those links were added so you could have an explanation of the
> > Mossbauer Effect, and I found the Harvard Tower experiment
> > interesting since it demonstrates an effect that can be explained
> > only by GR. Explain
> > that with just Doppler motion frequency shift.
>
> Doppler is simple to understand without the need of any time dilation
> occuring at all.
Derive it then, spaceshit. Oh wait, how can you derive Doppler when
you struggle with multiplying negative numbers?
> The Mossbauer can be explained by simple classical Doppler
> without any need of time dilation.
How, spaceshit? Neither the source or reciever are moving in
Mossbauer.
How does spaceshit intend to make it work when spaceshit doesn't even
know how to compute a number using the classical Doppler formula?
Why is spaceshit even here? 8 years ago you were happy to post on
microsoft newsgroups about inane minutia, then suddenly you had to
impose your asinine presense on this newsgroup.
Stupid spaceshit still doesn't understand basics after near a decade
of trying.
[snip]
Spaceman
Why should I derive it asshole, it is stated as the cause on pretty
much every single freakin link for the Mossbauer effect, but apparently
you never read any of the links yourself and only read links
that say Mossbauer is proof of time dilation even though it is not.
>> The Mossbauer can be explained by simple classical Doppler
>> without any need of time dilation.
>
> How, spaceshit? Neither the source or reciever are moving in
> Mossbauer.
Wow!
You never have read about the effect!
Read the parts near the words "source velocity" dipwad.
LOL
<Snipped rest of ignorant irrelevant spouting that still does not explain
where Mossbauer is proof of time dilation at all>
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
> Spaceman
GOD SAVE US FROM THE CONGENITALLY UNIMPORTANT.
That's you, Spaceshit.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Eric Gisse
wrote:
Stupid spaceshit is so out of his depth he doesn't even know it.
>
> >> The Mossbauer can be explained by simple classical Doppler
> >> without any need of time dilation.
>
> > How, spaceshit? Neither the source or reciever are moving in
> > Mossbauer.
>
> Wow!
> You never have read about the effect!
> Read the parts near the words "source velocity" dipwad.
> LOL
The source isn't moving, spaceshit.
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
> [snip crap]
>> --
>> James M Driscoll Jr
>> Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
>> Spaceman
>
> GOD SAVE US FROM THE CONGENITALLY UNIMPORTANT.
>
> That's you, Spaceshit.
Poor Uncle Al,
He smashed the clocks up at close to lightspeed and still
can't figure out how they work.
LOL
Michael Moroney
>The Mossbauer can be explained by simple classical Doppler
>without any need of time dilation.
Spaceshit, explain the Harvard Tower experiment. Ignore the speakers
for now, just consider how vertical separation changes the frequency of
the emitted gammas just enough the detector no longer captures the
gamma. You claim the Doppler effect is responsible for the change in
the frequency, yet neither the source nor the detector are moving!
How can you have a Doppler frequency shift if nothing is moving?
Spaceman
> On Sep 13, 3:15 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> Why should I derive it asshole, it is stated as the cause on pretty
>> much every single freakin link for the Mossbauer effect, but
>> apparently you never read any of the links yourself and only read
>> links
>> that say Mossbauer is proof of time dilation even though it is not.
>
> Stupid spaceshit is so out of his depth he doesn't even know it.
Poor Eric.
Still just being an ass and spewing shit all over the place.
>>>> The Mossbauer can be explained by simple classical Doppler
>>>> without any need of time dilation.
>>
>>> How, spaceshit? Neither the source or reciever are moving in
>>> Mossbauer.
>>
>> Wow!
>> You never have read about the effect!
>> Read the parts near the words "source velocity" dipwad.
>> LOL
>
> The source isn't moving, spaceshit.
Better inform this link and pretty much every other one also
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html
and why is this line ....
a motion of either source or absorber with velocities on the order
of millimeters per second was enough to detune the absorption.
..
also part of the link here
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html#c2
for detection
I see all sorts of stuff about motion of the source or detector
in the links but still have not seen one mention that a time dilation
occurs for any part of the effects.
Maybe you should shut your trap and move on idiot.
Spaceman
First of all how can you even say nothing is moving
The waves are moving or are you not smart enough to know
that all waves including gamma waves move?
and very simply
Gravity increased the speed of the waves heading downward
Also it is not proof Newton was wrong at all.
http://ads.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/abs/1990PhRvL..64.1204J
so .. Again,
You love to prove you skipped classical physics and never
learned the classical cause for Doppler effect which is simple
speed changes.
Yet another case that c is being proven as a relative speed.
But of course you can not abract such a fact since you have been
branwashed to overlook such thoughts forerver.
:)
So Mike,
What is your background for anything science related?
Lofty Goat
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
Love arXiv, and they have such a cool website icon. Between that and LII
there's enough to learn that one need never get bored.
Michael Moroney
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> writes:
>>
>>> The Mossbauer can be explained by simple classical Doppler
>>> without any need of time dilation.
>>
>> Spaceshit, explain the Harvard Tower experiment. Ignore the speakers
>> for now, just consider how vertical separation changes the frequency
>> of the emitted gammas just enough the detector no longer captures the
>> gamma. You claim the Doppler effect is responsible for the change in
>> the frequency, yet neither the source nor the detector are moving!
>> How can you have a Doppler frequency shift if nothing is moving?
>First of all how can you even say nothing is moving
>The waves are moving or are you not smart enough to know
>that all waves including gamma waves move?
So, now you're claiming that the motion of the electromagnetic
ray itself is enough to cause the Doppler effect?
>and very simply
>Gravity increased the speed of the waves heading downward
>Also it is not proof Newton was wrong at all.
>http://ads.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/abs/1990PhRvL..64.1204J
But you just claimed the Doppler effect was the cause of the Mossbauer
Effect. Which is it?
BTW, if gravity increases the speed of waves going "downhill",
the "downhill" observer will also see an increase in frequency, correct?
If so, then you just admitted that even using Newtonian mechanics there
is a time shift effect, just like with GR, since the "downhill" observer
sees the "uphill" clock (in this case the gamma ray frequency is the
clock)! Thanks for admitting that, Spaceshit!
BTW, which "clock" is broken? Downhill or uphill?
Spaceman
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> writes:
>
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> writes:
>>>
>>>> The Mossbauer can be explained by simple classical Doppler
>>>> without any need of time dilation.
>>>
>>> Spaceshit, explain the Harvard Tower experiment. Ignore the
>>> speakers for now, just consider how vertical separation changes the
>>> frequency of the emitted gammas just enough the detector no longer
>>> captures the gamma. You claim the Doppler effect is responsible
>>> for the change in the frequency, yet neither the source nor the
>>> detector are moving! How can you have a Doppler frequency shift if
>>> nothing is moving?
>
>> First of all how can you even say nothing is moving
>> The waves are moving or are you not smart enough to know
>> that all waves including gamma waves move?
>
> So, now you're claiming that the motion of the electromagnetic
> ray itself is enough to cause the Doppler effect?
An increase in the speed of the waves does such
just as relative motion would do.
speed it up and the frequency gets higher,
slow it down and the frequency gets lower.
>> and very simply
>> Gravity increased the speed of the waves heading downward
>> Also it is not proof Newton was wrong at all.
>> http://ads.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/abs/1990PhRvL..64.1204J
>
> But you just claimed the Doppler effect was the cause of the Mossbauer
> Effect. Which is it?
It is doppler just not the stupid ass "relativity" doppler.
It is a simple speed change doppler.
> BTW, if gravity increases the speed of waves going "downhill",
> the "downhill" observer will also see an increase in frequency,
> correct? If so, then you just admitted that even using Newtonian
> mechanics there is a time shift effect, just like with GR, since the
> "downhill" observer sees the "uphill" clock (in this case the gamma
> ray frequency is the clock)! Thanks for admitting that, Spaceshit!
No time shift is needed.
Sheesh.
When are you going to get a clue.
Use absolute timing and increase in wavespeed and no stupid ass
length contraction and tada!
Doppler shift at it's most basic caused by a simple increase in speed.
> BTW, which "clock" is broken? Downhill or uphill?
BTW:
You still have not shown where the time dilation must be occuring
at all, so why is there any clocks malfunctioning if there is no time
dilation
being found to occur at all?
:)