Relativity = Stupidity
Strich.9
Charge: Stupidity
Evidence: No solution by relativity for the following problem.
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M with clock
M now move with respect to E, with relative constant
velocity v. Does the rate of clock M, with respect to frame M,
change?
a) no
b) yes, rate is decreased
c) yes, rate is increased
Ladies and Gentleman,
Observe how all the relativity trolls/cranks/monkeys/dingleberries/
liars will post all kinds of inanities to avoid answering the
question, as they cannot. Just to prove that the question has an
answer, I will answer it now: the answer is (a) no.
Of course, the relativity trolls/cranks/monkeys/dingleberries/liars
have another option. They can invoke their 'right to remain silent'.
I rest my case. Relativity is indeed stupid.
--- -. dotat
You are stupid.
Case proved.
w.
harry
> Defendant: Relativity
> Charge: Stupidity
>
> Evidence: No solution by relativity for the following problem.
>
> Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
> one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M with clock
> M now move with respect to E, with relative constant
> velocity v. Does the rate of clock M, with respect to frame M,
> change?
>
> a) no
> b) yes, rate is decreased
> c) yes, rate is increased
>
>
> Ladies and Gentleman,
>
> Observe how all the relativity trolls/cranks/monkeys/dingleberries/
> liars will post all kinds of inanities to avoid answering the
> question, as they cannot.
Instead, you yourself refuse to answer simple questions of classical
mechanics (are you afraid?).
Harald
Uncle Al
>
> Strich.9 wrote:
> > Defendant: Relativity
> > Charge: Stupidity
> >
> > Evidence: No solution by relativity for the following problem.
> >
> > Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
> > one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M with clock
> > M now move with respect to E, with relative constant
> > velocity v. Does the rate of clock M, with respect to frame M,
> > change?
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
PD
> Defendant: Relativity
> Charge: Stupidity
>
> Evidence: No solution by relativity for the following problem.
You acknowledge the receipt of my answer. Are you senile?
PD
> Charge: Stupidity
>
> Evidence: No solution by relativity for the following problem.
>
> Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
> one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M with clock
> M now move with respect to E, with relative constant
> velocity v. Does the rate of clock M, with respect to frame M,
> change?
>
> a) no
> b) yes, rate is decreased
> c) yes, rate is increased
>
Ooh, this looks like fun, let me try:
An object is observed moving eastward at a certain velocity. It
experiences a constant deceleration of 4.1 m/s^2 westward for an
interval of 10 s. At the end of this interval, is the speed of the
object changed?
a) no
b) yes, the speed is increased
c) yes, the speed is decreased
Your ONLY options are (a), (b), and (c).
This should be easier to answer than the relativity question, because
it is a subject that 7th graders studying physical science in middle
school do.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
2ed93385-1fd1-4b62...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
Thinking that relativity would say anything other than "a) no"
shows what an incredibly stupid idiot you are :-)
Dirk Vdm
Salmon Egg
<2ed93385-1fd1-4b62...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
"Strich.9" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote:
What makes me stupid is replying to this--I cannot control myself. Any
confusion amongst knowing responders are most likely to arise from the
poor grammar used to express the question. The answer us a. Clocks run
at the rate that corresponds to their construction. The details of
construction are usually specified in the frame in which the clock is
stationary. That however, is not necessary.
Bill
--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!
Androcles
"harry" <harald.v...@epflNotThis.ch> wrote in message
news:1222961...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
Hypocritical bastard.
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
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 Cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
Easy: he did NOT say that.
According to cretin van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
_______________________________________________________
Spaceman
> What makes me stupid is replying to this--I cannot control myself. Any
> confusion amongst knowing responders are most likely to arise from the
> poor grammar used to express the question. The answer us a. Clocks run
> at the rate that corresponds to their construction. The details of
> construction are usually specified in the frame in which the clock is
> stationary. That however, is not necessary.
Dear Bill.
A clock is a counting device.
Pendulum clocks do not change thier "counting" ratio in different
frames either but they sure do malfunction trying to keep that
counting rate the same as other clocks when they are moved..
You may want to learn about clock malfunctions before you
have to do the relativity dance also.
:)
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
> Salmon Egg wrote:
> > What makes me stupid is replying to this--I cannot control myself. Any
> > confusion amongst knowing responders are most likely to arise from the
> > poor grammar used to express the question. The answer us a. Clocks run
> > at the rate that corresponds to their construction. The details of
> > construction are usually specified in the frame in which the clock is
> > stationary. That however, is not necessary.
>
> Dear Bill.
> A clock is a counting device.
A clock is only a counting device in the retarded *history of
physics*,
and not the history of *anything else*.
Which is mostly why the people with technology brains invented the
laser-guided-lasers
for the imbeciles in chemistry,
The cd+rw, Blogs, On-Line-Publishing, On-Line-Banking, All-In-One
Printers, XML,
Optical Computers, and USB for the stooges in Washingtoon,
and the post AT&T fiber optics, DVD-stack, RISC++, post Ford
Batteries, post GM robotics,
digital-terrain-mapping, drones, AUVs, AAVs, and cruise missiles for
the bozos in Physics,
Uncle Al
0) Where is the pendulum in radioactive decay half-life, stooopid
Spaceshit?
1) Where is the clock in the Mossbauer effect, Spaceshit,
self-proclaimed "Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory"
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html>
then
Phys. Rev. 129(6) 2371 (1963)
transverse Dopper effect in an ultracentrufuge hub vs. rim is inert
toward rate of time.
then
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html>
Harvard Tower experiment
and
<http://diracseashore.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/c-sells-c-shells-by-the-c-shore/#more-118>
2) Fill in the following (the first one is mercy humped).
Spaceshit can't do onesies! SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!
(+1)(+1) = +1
(-1)(+1) = ?
(+1)(-1) = ?
(-1)(-1) = ?
Hey Spaceshit, how do you hallucinate your stooopidity or utter
insanity versus your inability to perform grade school mathematics?
Uncle Al
Reality is not a peer vote, stooopid. Fucking imbecile. Since you
are too fucking stooopid to read the FAQ, Uncle Al will spoon feed it
up your distended anus. READ IT, JACKASS: The ratio by which the
twins have aged at the end when they are back together again is the
same in all reference frames:
ratio = sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/t (with units of c=1)
Inertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths
through spacetime. No clock anomaly is apparent in any of them until
clocks are compared (by all being local when you do it, initial
calibration then experiment). The situation is NOT symmetric.
Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present clocks but
not to the mixture of space and time in the reference frame that said
clocks measure. You cannot synchronize clocks except by having them
local. If they are local at the start, you can tell who was naughty
thereafter without measuring acceleration.
Given three identical clocks that are off (a state of not running, or
of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed. Each clock has/will
have a very short toggle jiggger switch sticking out. We load them (or
their parts, or ore and a smelter and a machine shop) in individual
spaceships and set up then experiment.
CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial
reference frame with a little jigger sticking out. Touch the jigger
and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on" state becomes "off."
Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from parts just before we need
it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.
CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built after all
acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past Clock 1 (our
clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are now "on" and
locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time accumulates in each
one. The situation is NOT symmetric!
CLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction to Clock 2.
Clock 3 is zeroed and "off." It was built after all acceleration
ceased, and set to zero.
Some arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn "on" by
touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, touching jiggers.
Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on." Write down the elapsed time
in now "off" Clock 2, then smash the clock with a sledgehammer. Or
melt it down, or toss it over the side. The spaceship with Clock 3 is
returning back over the path taken by the spaceship with Clock 2.
CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial
reference frame with a little jigger sticking out. Clock 3 rushes
past, jiggers touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are now off. All clocks are off.
No clock has accelerated while "on" or even while existing. Write down
elapsed times, smash each clock with a sledgehammer. Or melt them
down, or toss them.
BOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together... Accelerate as
you need. Or send all the results to all three folks by radio and
never decelerate. All clocks have been smashed, melted, tossed. Their
elapsed times were written down. The numbers on the papers won't
change when you accelerate or broadcast the data.
Finally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2+#3 does not equal
#1, the local stationary reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3
elasped time is only about 4.5% that than of #1's accumulated elapsed
time. You have the Twin Paradox (Triplets) without any running clock
having been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration
up or down.
Idiot. Imagine being your undershorts given your crass inabilty to
find your own butthole while squatting naked over a mirror with a
flashlight.
dke...@hotmail.com
Hi
How does this contradict SR. It would seem that it is just what is
predicted.
M's clock does not seem to change for M. It has always been so. Both
M and E see the others clock as changed.
Dwight
Dr. Henri Wilson
>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>> Salmon Egg wrote:
>> > What makes me stupid is replying to this--I cannot control myself. Any
>> > confusion amongst knowing responders are most likely to arise from the
>> > poor grammar used to express the question. The answer us a. Clocks run
>> > at the rate that corresponds to their construction. The details of
>> > construction are usually specified in the frame in which the clock is
>> > stationary. That however, is not necessary.
>>
>> Dear Bill.
>> A clock is a counting device.
>> Pendulum clocks do not change thier "counting" ratio in different
>> frames either but they sure do malfunction trying to keep that
>> counting rate the same as other clocks when they are moved..
>>
>> You may want to learn about clock malfunctions before you
>> have to do the relativity dance also.
>> :)
>
> 0) Where is the pendulum in radioactive decay half-life, stooopid
>Spaceshit?
'Number of counts per second' requires a clock, idiot.....
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary
Dr. Henri Wilson
Guess what, the absolute lengths of rods and absolute rates of clocks are not
affected by changes in their inertial movement.
SR is crap from start to finish.
Igor
You're correct. The answer is (a). But then even a broken analog
clock is right twice a day.
glird
> Charge: Stupidity
>
> Evidence: No solution by relativity for the following
> problem.
> Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest
> with respect to one another. Clock rates are of course
> equal. Let frame M with clock M now move with respect
> to E, with relative constant velocity v. Does the rate of
> clock M, with respect to frame M, change?
> a) no
> b) yes, rate is decreased
> c) yes, rate is increased
> answer it now: the answer is (a) no.
You asked, Does the rate of clock M WITH REPECT TO FRAME M change?
Of course not.
It DOES change, though, as measured by frame E.
> I rest my case. Relativity is indeed stupid.
Sorry, Stritch, but the LT agree with both of us, despite the fact
that relativity is indeed stupid. The equations are based on physical
deformations of lengths and rates of inertially moving systems,
coupled with a different local time per successive clock of each
esynched system. They do hold up wrt this simple question; i.e. a
clock of a given system doesn't change its rate as measured by its own
system, but it does run slow as measured by a differently moving
esynched sysem.
Dono
>, despite the fact
> that relativity is indeed stupid.
Lebau,
You are not only an idiot but also a liar.
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>>
>> Salmon Egg wrote:
>>> What makes me stupid is replying to this--I cannot control myself.
>>> Any confusion amongst knowing responders are most likely to arise
>>> from the poor grammar used to express the question. The answer us
>>> a. Clocks run at the rate that corresponds to their construction.
>>> The details of construction are usually specified in the frame in
>>> which the clock is stationary. That however, is not necessary.
>>
>> Dear Bill.
>> A clock is a counting device.
>> Pendulum clocks do not change thier "counting" ratio in different
>> frames either but they sure do malfunction trying to keep that
>> counting rate the same as other clocks when they are moved..
>>
>> You may want to learn about clock malfunctions before you
>> have to do the relativity dance also.
>> :)
>
> 0) Where is the pendulum in radioactive decay half-life, stooopid
> Spaceshit?
Poor Al, he thinks a clock needs a pendulum to make "oscillations"
such as a resonant frequency.
Spaceman
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:28:10 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Spaceman wrote:
>>>
>>> Salmon Egg wrote:
>>>> What makes me stupid is replying to this--I cannot control myself.
>>>> Any confusion amongst knowing responders are most likely to arise
>>>> from the poor grammar used to express the question. The answer us
>>>> a. Clocks run at the rate that corresponds to their construction.
>>>> The details of construction are usually specified in the frame in
>>>> which the clock is stationary. That however, is not necessary.
>>>
>>> Dear Bill.
>>> A clock is a counting device.
>>> Pendulum clocks do not change thier "counting" ratio in different
>>> frames either but they sure do malfunction trying to keep that
>>> counting rate the same as other clocks when they are moved..
>>>
>>> You may want to learn about clock malfunctions before you
>>> have to do the relativity dance also.
>>> :)
>>
>> 0) Where is the pendulum in radioactive decay half-life, stooopid
>> Spaceshit?
>
> 'Number of counts per second' requires a clock, idiot.....
Unlce Al has a problem with "counting"
He can't get past the onsies.
:)
Spaceman
Then the three clock problem steps in.
Two clocks A and B both at rest with reference to each other.
And a third clock (D) is moving from A to B.
How can B measure it to run slower when A is already doing
such and the frequency determined by B actually states the rate
is increased as seen from B.
:)
SR has problems
It can't make up it's mind.
:)
:)
doug
Spaceman wrote:
Whereas you get lost when it comes to multiplication.
You cannot even get -1 x -1 correct. That means that
you cannot do any science. You can troll and you seem
to enjoy doing so and having your delusions of
adequacy while you are unemployed.
Spaceman
> Whereas you get lost when it comes to multiplication.
> You cannot even get -1 x -1 correct.
Poor Doug,
He still thinks 10 apple times 4 groups of those apples
will equal 40 oranges.
LOL
Salmon Egg
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Even a pendulum clock would slow down while moving in an inertial
laboratory moving with respect to my inertial laboratory. The trick is
for it to survive or be repaired after the initial acceleration.
Perhaps, the best clock to use for this purpose is a Fabry-Perot clock.
Any other clock that does not run at the same rate after calibration
except for intrinsic error, just is not measuring time. For example,
twins make perfectly good clocks even though they are not accurate
compared with what can be achieved with current technology.
Salmon Egg
HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Out of curiosity, what does ASTC stand for? Is a BSc different from a
BS? What is a DSc(T)? What was your dissertation Topic?
Spaceman
> In article <-O2dndF4lIS0nXjV...@comcast.com>,
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>
>> Salmon Egg wrote:
>>> What makes me stupid is replying to this--I cannot control myself.
>>> Any confusion amongst knowing responders are most likely to arise
>>> from the poor grammar used to express the question. The answer us
>>> a. Clocks run at the rate that corresponds to their construction.
>>> The details of construction are usually specified in the frame in
>>> which the clock is stationary. That however, is not necessary.
>>
>> Dear Bill.
>> A clock is a counting device.
>> Pendulum clocks do not change thier "counting" ratio in different
>> frames either but they sure do malfunction trying to keep that
>> counting rate the same as other clocks when they are moved..
>>
>> You may want to learn about clock malfunctions before you
>> have to do the relativity dance also.
>> :)
>
> Even a pendulum clock would slow down while moving in an inertial
> laboratory moving with respect to my inertial laboratory. The trick is
> for it to survive or be repaired after the initial acceleration.
Yes,
The key point is that "the trick" is for a clock to be properly measuring
time, it must be adjusted to proper time after it malfunctions.
And that alone provides a strong clue that "time itself" does not change
rate and the clock as simply malfunctioned.
As learned long ago with clocks on board ships, and not as long ago
with clocks on board trains, if your clock malfunctions, it does
not mean time changed, it simply means you lost track of time.
And losing track of time only has caused ships to get lost and trains
to crash.
So.
Science would say.
Find the problems with the clocks.
Not the supposed problem with "time".
:)
> Perhaps, the best clock to use for this purpose is a Fabry-Perot
> clock. Any other clock that does not run at the same rate after
> calibration except for intrinsic error, just is not measuring time.
> For example, twins make perfectly good clocks even though they are
> not accurate compared with what can be achieved with current
> technology.
Twins are two clocks.
If you use one clock to time the existance of both twins
They are always the same age.
Such as .
Both twins are the same revolutions of Earth WRT the Sun old.
The Universe is telling you the "twins" are the same age no matter
what thier clocks said at all.
:)
Time does not change rate.
Using a multiple standard for time will only cause things like
GPS to not work at all, but of course, when we adjust the GPS
to use "as close to absolute time as possible".. GPS works.
If the clocks malfunctions were not "removed" from the GPS
clocks.
It is a simple fact that To find as close as possible "absolute" positions
you need as close as possible to "absolute" timing.
So.
Until a physical cause is found for the clock malfunctions
instead of the "joke" of time itslelf changing rate.
Time dilation is still a gigantic joke being played on science.
The clocks are changing "rate" by a physical cause.
Not by thier own function changing thier own function.
(time changing causing time changing)
It is a sad science joke that has gone on for far too much "time".
Part Con Man, part moron, part ignorance.
and worst of all, a sad "slowing" of time for science.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Eric Gisse
> In article <75jae4da9udljchhg4n1ldnu32nudta...@4ax.com>,
He is lying about all of them, as well as his name.
Dirk Van de moortel
6d1d2e65-9ef0-43aa...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
I bet that even strich can calculate v(t) from
tau(t) = c/a arcsinh( a/c t )
and
dtau/dt = sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
:-)
Dirk Vdm
Y.y.Porat
> Defendant: Relativity
> Charge: Stupidity
>
> Evidence: No solution by relativity for the following problem.
>
> Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
> one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M with clock
> M now move with respect to E, with relative constant
> velocity v. Does the rate of clock M, with respect to frame M,
> change?
>
> a) no
> b) yes, rate is decreased
> c) yes, rate is increased
>
>
> Observe how all the relativity trolls/cranks/monkeys/dingleberries/
> liars will post all kinds of inanities to avoid answering the
> answer, I will answer it now: the answer is (a) no.
>
> have another option. They can invoke their 'right to remain silent'.
>
---------------
it is not that the clock rate is changing
IT IS THE MEASURMENTS OF THAT RATE
THAT ARE CHANGING --DEPENDING ON THE FRAME FROM WITH IT I S
MEASURED !!
you have to keep in mind that
time is a human invention
to describe
RELATIVE MOTION to some chosen motion reference !!!
and relative motion causes changes in the
'time unit' that is relevant to the specific case
for instance
while velocity increases it becomes more difficult
to add velocity because the energy needed
to increase the **marginal** velocity
it is not a on 'paper' phenomenon
it is reality of physical world dynamic process
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Dr. Henri Wilson
>In article <75jae4da9udljchhg...@4ax.com>,
> HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
>> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
>Out of curiosity, what does ASTC stand for? Is a BSc different from a
>BS? What is a DSc(T)? What was your dissertation Topic?
Out of curiosity, fuck off.
>Bill
PD
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:55:36 -0700, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >In article <75jae4da9udljchhg4n1ldnu32nudta...@4ax.com>,
> > HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> >> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> >Out of curiosity, what does ASTC stand for? Is a BSc different from a
> >BS? What is a DSc(T)? What was your dissertation Topic?
>
> Out of curiosity, fuck off.
>
> >Bill
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
>
> Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary
There isn't one statement in Henri's posts that has the ring of truth.
Not his name, not his title, not his professed degrees, not his
statements about physics. This is fine with him, as he's not really
interested in saying anything truthful.
PD
Salmon Egg
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
> The key point is that "the trick" is for a clock to be properly measuring
> time, it must be adjusted to proper time after it malfunctions.
> And that alone provides a strong clue that "time itself" does not change
> rate and the clock as simply malfunctioned.
> As learned long ago with clocks on board ships, and not as long ago
> with clocks on board trains, if your clock malfunctions, it does
> not mean time changed, it simply means you lost track of time.
> And losing track of time only has caused ships to get lost and trains
> to crash.
> S
The basic guts of a clock is a rate keeper. Synchronization may be
desirable at times, but is not essential to the construction of a clock.
The ultimate clock these days are the oscillations of cesium atoms.
Other kinds of clocks are calibrated to these oscillations. If a
device's reading does not correlate (except fir error) with the reading
of a cesium clock, it is not a clock.
Moving cesium atoms oscillate at a lower frequency than stationary ones
stric...@gmail.com
correct answer is (a).
Now, why does 'no change' imply that SR is wrong? Simple. According
to SR, an observer in E should see the moving clock M as slower, which
is what is known as 'time dilation'. But since we know that the clock
M did not register a change when it moved, then we know that the 'time
dilation' measured by E must simply be an artifact of measurement, and
does not relfect an actual change.
Dirk Van de moortel
372029bd-c5f6-4f33...@u26g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
> After all the arguments, by now everybody probably agree that the
> correct answer is (a).
>
So nothing stands from you rant:
| "Observe how all the relativity trolls/cranks/monkeys/dingleberries/
| liars will post all kinds of inanities to avoid answering the
| question, as they cannot. Just to prove that the question has an
| answer, I will answer it now: the answer is (a) no.
|
| Of course, the relativity trolls/cranks/monkeys/dingleberries/liars
| have another option. They can invoke their 'right to remain silent'.
|
| I rest my case. Relativity is indeed stupid."
It probably didn't even hurt.
> Now, why does 'no change' imply that SR is wrong? Simple. According
> to SR, an observer in E should see the moving clock M as slower, which
> is what is known as 'time dilation'. But since we know that the clock
> M did not register a change when it moved, then we know that the 'time
> dilation' measured by E must simply be an artifact of measurement, and
> does not relfect an actual change.
If you refuse to call a "change of measurement" an "actual
change", then that's entirely your problem.
You should look at your twin brother Spaceman through a
gap between your fingers sometime.
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
wrote:
Doppler frequency shift is not the rate of clock D.
According to SR:
A predicts the rate of D running slow as follows:
T_d=T_a/gamma_a
B predicts the rate of D running slow as follows:
T_d =T_b/gamma_b
According to IRT:
A predicts the rate of D running slow or fast as follows:
T_d = T_a/gamma_a OR T_d = T_a*gamma_a
B predicts the rate of D running slow or fast as follows:
T_d = R_b/gamma_b OR T_d = T_b*gamma_b
Ken Seto
> :)
> SR has problems
> It can't make up it's mind.
> :)
>
> :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Spaceman
> In article <u46dncOgH4rgJ3jV...@comcast.com>,
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>
>> The key point is that "the trick" is for a clock to be properly
>> measuring time, it must be adjusted to proper time after it
>> malfunctions.
>> And that alone provides a strong clue that "time itself" does not
>> change rate and the clock as simply malfunctioned.
>> As learned long ago with clocks on board ships, and not as long ago
>> with clocks on board trains, if your clock malfunctions, it does
>> not mean time changed, it simply means you lost track of time.
>> And losing track of time only has caused ships to get lost and trains
>> to crash.
>> S
>
> The basic guts of a clock is a rate keeper.
Only when it does not change rate,
And if it does change rate it is no longer an "accurate" clock
at all and it has "malfunctioned".
> Synchronization may be
> desirable at times, but is not essential to the construction of a
> clock. The ultimate clock these days are the oscillations of cesium
> atoms. Other kinds of clocks are calibrated to these oscillations. If
> a device's reading does not correlate (except fir error) with the
> reading of a cesium clock, it is not a clock.
>
> Moving cesium atoms oscillate at a lower frequency than stationary
> ones
Thier rate changed, the clock malfunctioned.
It is a very simple fact.
It is amazing relativists will ignore it like a charging elephant.
Maybe it is because they are all either con men, or just plain
stupid about what a clock is supposed to be doing to stay
accurate.
"not changing" rate.
doug
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:55:36 -0700, Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <75jae4da9udljchhg...@4ax.com>,
>>HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>>
>>Out of curiosity, what does ASTC stand for? Is a BSc different from a
>>BS? What is a DSc(T)? What was your dissertation Topic?
>
>
> Out of curiosity, fuck off.
>
People with fake degrees are touchy about questions.
Uncle Al
>
> After all the arguments, by now everybody probably agree that the
> correct answer is (a).
>
> Now, why does 'no change' imply that SR is wrong?
idiot
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
PD
Brilliant! So because the rate of the clock M did not register a
change in the frame in which M is at rest, then it cannot register a
change in any other reference frame either!
Hmm... but wait just a small moment.
Let's take two clocks E and M, at rest relative to each other. Both
clocks have zero kinetic energy in the reference frame of M.
Now we let M be put in motion relative to E, and ask the SIMPLE
QUESTION:
In the reference frame that rides along with M, has the kinetic energy
of clock M changed?
a) no
b) yes, increased
c) yes, decreased
Only one of these answers is correct. Which one is it?
PD
Spaceman
The answer would be of course a using your silly
"relativity with reference to itself frames".
But if you were sitting on the M and you thought that was
actually true,
I hate to see what occurs when that 0 kinetic energy of yours
collides with E and you yell oh crap... but my KE was 0 according
to my own frame...
LOL
Of course.
That only proves the "with reference to itself frame" is freaking
wrong and also stupid in science.
But relativists like you can not grasp such a simple fact.
In short.
The clock malfunctioned and in it's own frame the measurement
is "wrong" to state it did not malfunction,
just as the kinetic energy in one's own frame is wrong
as soon as you hit something with the supposed 0 kinetic energy.
:)
PD
wrote:
Well, actually it's a Newtonian problem...
There were reference frames before Einstein, you know...
But also notice that it's in analogous format to Strich9's problem
where he asks whether the rate of clock M, in the frame M, changes.
I'm just asking whether the kinetic energy of clock M, in the frame M,
changes.
Should be simple for Strich9 to answer, since he was able to answer
the first question so easily.
Spaceman
No,
Newton has no such problems.
Again you prove you nver actually learned classical physics.
And of course you ignore the simple fact that the "frame with reference
to itself" is just plain wrong when it comes to KE and time and anything
that is ignoring the rest of the universe like you make it do.
PD
:>)
> Again you prove you nver actually learned classical physics.
> And of course you ignore the simple fact that the "frame with reference
> to itself" is just plain wrong when it comes to KE and time and anything
> that is ignoring the rest of the universe like you make it do.
Really? What's your kinetic energy right now? A value would be nice.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> snip logical stupidity
First of all, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy are always 0 when
measured in the rest frame.
Time on the other hand, is not zero in the rest frame. If you can
find me a rest frame where time is zero, then maybe your analogy may
hold water.
Until then, you are comitting reasoning with false analogy.
papa...@hotmail.com
a) Frame K is associated with the coordinates (x,t). Let us define
time units as years.
b) A spaceship S departs from point (0,0) in Frame K, at a speed
v=0.5c along the x axis, relatively to that point (0,0).
c) Precisely after one year (t=1) from S departure, a nuclear blast at
point (0,1) of Frame K celebrates the anniversary of the departure of
S.
d) Year after year (that is at points with coordinates (0,2), (0,3),
(0,4), etc.) similar nuclear blasts are carried out to celebrate the
successive anniversaries of the departure of S.
The nuclear blasts constitute a light clock signal which, eventually,
will reach the position of S. Since S has in Frame K the movement
equation x = vt = 0.5ct and the light signals emitted by the clock,
travel according to the equation x = ct, we can affirm the following:
1) When the first nuclear blast occurs at t=1, S is at location (0.5c,
1). However, the blast light signal, even traveling at c, will take a
while to reach S. Since the movement equation of the light signal is t
= x/c +1, while the movement equation of S is t = 2x/c, the
intersection point will be (c,2).
2) Similarly, when t = 2, S will be at location (c,2). The
corresponding equation for the light signal is now t = x/c +2, which
will reach S at (2c,4).
3) It is evident (specially after drawing a x-t diagram) that while
the interval between the nuclear blasts, as measured at the point of
departure, is Dk = 1, at the ship it is different. The first nuclear
blast light signal is received by S at location (c,2), while the
second light signal is received by S at location (2c,4), and hence the
interval between blast as measured in Frame K is Ds = sqrt((2c-c)^2 +
(4 - 2)^2) = sqrt(c^2 + 4) > Dk
The previous calculations are not considering the Lorentz
transformations. If we now calculate how the clock is running in Frame
S, according to the Lorentz equations, it is running slow as given by
(t2' - t1') = integral(t1->t2) (dt(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)), which for (t2 -
t1) = 1 means the S clock is indicating (t2' - t1') = 0.866.
Miguel Rios
Sue...
> Let us consider the following scenario:
>
> a) Frame K is associated with the coordinates (x,t). Let us define
> time units as years.
> b) A spaceship S departs from point (0,0) in Frame K, at a speed
> v=0.5c along the x axis, relatively to that point (0,0).
> c) Precisely after one year (t=1) from S departure, a nuclear blast at
> point (0,1) of Frame K celebrates the anniversary of the departure of
> S.
> d) Year after year (that is at points with coordinates (0,2), (0,3),
> (0,4), etc.) similar nuclear blasts are carried out to celebrate the
> successive anniversaries of the departure of S.
>
> The nuclear blasts constitute a light clock signal which, eventually,
> will reach the position of S. Since S has in Frame K the movement
> equation x = vt = 0.5ct and the light signals emitted by the clock,
> travel according to the equation x = ct, we can affirm the following:
>
> 1) When the first nuclear blast occurs at t=1, S is at location (0.5c,
> 1). However, the blast light signal, even traveling at c, will take a
> while to reach S. Since the movement equation of the light signal is t
> = x/c +1, while the movement equation of S is t = 2x/c, the
> intersection point will be (c,2).
This conflicts with your previous statement:
x = ct
Sue...
PD
> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snip logical stupidity
>
> First of all, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy are always 0 when
> measured in the rest frame.
Ah, good. So the kinetic energy of clock M, in frame M, does not
change. And so it does not change in frame E. And so the kinetic
energy of clock M, in frame E, is zero.
But wait a sec...
Isn't clock M moving in frame E?
>
> Time on the other hand, is not zero in the rest frame. If you can
> find me a rest frame where time is zero, then maybe your analogy may
> hold water.
Why? Is the value 0 special?
iqgo...@gmail.com
Why use your messy set-up* when you cannot even understand my simple
set-up:
Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M with clock
M now move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. Does
the rate of clock M, with respect to frame M, change?
.
[It cannot get any simpler, two frames moving relative to one another
(initially at rest). Classic Einstein gedanken.]
.
*I know what you are trying to do, you are trying to recast the
problem in a manner which you have been trained to think. The problem
is that manner has had you people confused for centuries.
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you looking for a straw man? Try Mexico.
As for 0, it is special. When a quantity is zero, it means it does
not exist. Time on the other hand, is never zero. Entiende?
YBM
He's not, there is nothing special about 0. Anyway if you don't
want to consider a physical quantity which is 0 in one of the
frames, just consider the KE of an object moving with respect
to both frames.
Spaceman
It depends on what you are comparing it to.
If you are comparign it to the Moon, I have KE,
If you are comparing it to myself, I don't.
But of course. IF I hit the moon. My own frame must have been
wrong.
Or do you think a train that is doing 100mph and has a mass of
5000 tons has 0 KE potential just because you are inside the train
moving with it and doing the measurment from there for it's motion
wrt yourself?
Again PD.
You prove you have no clue how to actually do science when
you use the reference frame of the object with reference to itself
at all.
Spaceman
> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> snip logical stupidity
>
> First of all, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy are always 0 when
> measured in the rest frame.
And of course that is why "a rest frame with reference to itself" is the
biggest joke of relativity.
:)
> Time on the other hand, is not zero in the rest frame. If you can
> find me a rest frame where time is zero, then maybe your analogy may
> hold water.
PD has no clue what clocks are supposed to do,
nevermind hin knowing if they have actually malfunctioned even
when in thier own frames.
:)
PD
Very well. Then the kinetic energy of clock M, in frame M, does not
exist, neither before M started moving or after. And therefore the
kinetic energy of clock M, in frame E, does not exist.
But wait just a second...
In frame E, clock M is moving and so not only does the kinetic energy
exist but it is not zero. So now we have an even more serious problem.
By your thinking, the kinetic energy of clock M in frame E should not
even exist!
Do things both exist and not exist in your view of the world?
PD
Spaceman
> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> snip logical stupidity
>>
>> First of all, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy are always 0
>> when measured in the rest frame.
>
> Ah, good. So the kinetic energy of clock M, in frame M, does not
> change. And so it does not change in frame E. And so the kinetic
> energy of clock M, in frame E, is zero.
Of course not.
Yet more proof you are a twisting sad joke to science.
And your "with reference to itself" is also a joke.
> But wait a sec...
> Isn't clock M moving in frame E?
>
>>
>> Time on the other hand, is not zero in the rest frame. If you can
>> find me a rest frame where time is zero, then maybe your analogy may
>> hold water.
>
> Why? Is the value 0 special?
Because it is the amount of facts you have about the "with reference
to itself" frame being stupid.
:)
Poor PD.
He still does not get that "in it's own frame" a pendulum clock
never changes the ratio of it's own time.
The pendulum would still take x amount of swings to read 1 second.
Poor PD is all lost in his own reference frame so therefore learns
0 amount of facts while stuck there.
Spaceman
It is the old, I refuse to do the experiment as stated, I will do it my own
way to prove your experiment is wrong.
LOL
Stupid asses still putting dead hamsters on the wheels to prove your
live hampster can not turn the wheel.
:)
PD
What an interesting statement. If you measure your KE in your own
frame, then the answer is zero. But if you hit the moon, then that
answer is wrong.
So it's right until you hit something, and then it's wrong?
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> snip logical stupidity
>
> >> First of all, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy are always 0
> >> when measured in the rest frame.
>
> > Ah, good. So the kinetic energy of clock M, in frame M, does not
> > change. And so it does not change in frame E. And so the kinetic
> > energy of clock M, in frame E, is zero.
>
> Of course not.
> Yet more proof you are a twisting sad joke to science.
> And your "with reference to itself" is also a joke.
Hey, take it up with Strich. He's the one that's asking about what
happens to the rate of M in the frame of M.
Dr. Henri Wilson
Let them waste away their lives playing their 'variable time' game, Spaceman.
It keeps them out of trouble and does little harm really, apart from
brainwashing lots of students.
We better informed people know that (perfect) clocks are not affected by
velocity changes and will remain in relative synch no matter what happens to
them. We understand that time 'instant' and time 'flow' are absolute and
universal and are not determined by the readings of sundials or egg timers.
Let an observer synch two clocks when together then move one. If he sees it
running fast or slow, it is either because the clock is now malfunctioning or
because his measurement technique is faullty.
Dirk Van de moortel
64db1585-8bbb-4cd2...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
> On Oct 3, 3:49 pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Let us consider the following scenario:
>>
>> a) Frame K is associated with the coordinates (x,t). Let us define
>> time units as years.
>> b) A spaceship S departs from point (0,0) in Frame K, at a speed
>> v=0.5c along the x axis, relatively to that point (0,0).
>> c) Precisely after one year (t=1) from S departure, a nuclear blast at
>> point (0,1) of Frame K celebrates the anniversary of the departure of
>> S.
>> d) Year after year (that is at points with coordinates (0,2), (0,3),
>> (0,4), etc.) similar nuclear blasts are carried out to celebrate the
>> successive anniversaries of the departure of S.
>>
>> The nuclear blasts constitute a light clock signal which, eventually,
>> will reach the position of S. Since S has in Frame K the movement
>> equation x = vt = 0.5ct and the light signals emitted by the clock,
>> travel according to the equation x = ct, we can affirm the following:
>>
>> 1) When the first nuclear blast occurs at t=1, S is at location (0.5c,
>> 1). However, the blast light signal, even traveling at c, will take a
>> while to reach S. Since the movement equation of the light signal is t
>> = x/c +1, while the movement equation of S is t = 2x/c, the
>> intersection point will be (c,2).
>
> This conflicts with your previous statement:
>
> x = ct
>
> Sue...
We haven't seen this one from you, Dennis.
Nice touch of brain rot for a retired engineer:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReviewPaper.html
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
No,
It is wrong to begin with, but you won't really be able to prove it
is wrong until you do hit something.
Again,
Who is moving PD with reference to the ground.
The tree or the car?
Which one has the correct 0 potential energy and con be
considered as the "at rest" to the ground object?
Is the tree actually 0 KE even though it is moving around the
Sun and around the center of the Earth also?
You truly are one sad con artist.
But of course, we know that is the real problem you have.
You are just trying to sell your "specially relative" snake oil.
:)
Spaceman
> On Oct 3, 3:43 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> snip logical stupidity
>>
>>>> First of all, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy are always 0
>>>> when measured in the rest frame.
>>
>>> Ah, good. So the kinetic energy of clock M, in frame M, does not
>>> change. And so it does not change in frame E. And so the kinetic
>>> energy of clock M, in frame E, is zero.
>>
>> Of course not.
>> Yet more proof you are a twisting sad joke to science.
>> And your "with reference to itself" is also a joke.
>
> Hey, take it up with Strich. He's the one that's asking about what
> happens to the rate of M in the frame of M.
I don't have to take it up with Strich,
I know what he is showing, and you are also proving how stupid
the SR thoughts are about the "with reference to its own frame"
bullshit about clocks ticking at the same rate in thier own frames.
Dirk Van de moortel
48e682b0$0$13305$426a...@news.free.fr
> iqgo...@gmail.com a écrit :
Surely do you don't hope to win an argument in *his* eyes
over a sentence like "there is nothing special about 0"?
Of course there is something special about 0. So you're
bound to lose this - in *his* eyes. He'll even be *genuinely
convinced* that you are a fool without having to fake it.
The only way to win against an imbecile in *his* eyes, is by
either violently crushing something, or either by flatly ignoring.
We all know we can't crush anything with merely technical
arguments against these genuine imbeciles :-)
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
The saddest part of this is that "real" science has known the problems
about clocks accelerated motions or g-force changes for a long time.
It is amazing the dingleberries do not understand the most important
function of a clock, and that of course is to never change rate.
:)
and of course they always ignore that constant moving clocks
do not malfunction if they are set to the proper rate while they
are in constant motion.
:)
papa...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Quite the contrary, it shows your malfunctioning brainless clockwork
theory has less sense than 100 pink elephants walking on the Moon,
playing flutes, while their tales scare the flys living there.
Miguel Rios
Spaceman
Poor Miguel,
He is mad that SR has been detroyed and his "variable time god"
is dead.
ELOL
Salmon Egg
HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
What do ASTC,BSc, and DSc(T) staznd for? Again.
Bill
--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!
doug
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
There you go again ignoring facts. We have shown you that you are
wrong. GPS shows you are wrong. Your life must be pretty sad to
knowingly look stupid here. Of course your fake degrees tell us that.
Spaceman
You have done no such thing, and GPS proves you are a clueless twit.
GPS has to use as close to absolute time as possible to find as close
to absolute positions as possible.
Hence it needs to remove the rubber rulers and malfunctioning clock
crap to work correctly at all.
Sheesh you are about as smart as a jello hammer.
LOL
Darwin123
> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epflNotThis.ch> wrote in message
>
> news:1222961...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
>
>
>
> > Strich.9 wrote:
> >> Defendant: Relativity
> >> Charge: Stupidity
>
> >> Evidence: No solution by relativity for the following problem.
>
> >> Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with respect to
> >> one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M with clock
> >> M now move with respect to E, with relative constant
> >> velocity v. Does the rate of clock M, with respect to frame M,
> >> change?
>
> >> b) yes, rate is decreased
> >> c) yes, rate is increased
>
> >> Ladies and Gentleman,
>
> >> Observe how all the relativity trolls/cranks/monkeys/dingleberries/
> >> liars will post all kinds of inanities to avoid answering the
> >> question, as they cannot.
>
> > Instead, you yourself refuse to answer simple questions of classical
> > mechanics (are you afraid?).
>
> > Harald
>
> Hypocritical bastard.
>
> Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
> 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 Cretin harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch
>
> Easy: he did NOT say that.
> According to cretin van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he
> wrote.
> _______________________________________________________
No. The claim was that the equation, that Einstein wrote, does not
mean what you claim it means. Einstein never claimed, and his
equations never implied, that "c+v" and "c-v" are speeds of light.
The equation,
1+1=2,
does not implied that 1 refers to a shoe.
Your logic is equivalent of saying, "since 2 is the number of
shoes in a pair of shoes, and 1+1=2, therefore the 1 in the equation
is a shoe." You write the equation of Einstein's, yet do not quote any
of his words where he defines the variables. You are using your own
words to define the variables. These words are neither what Einstein
said nor are what experimenters understand the words to mean.
"c" is the observed speed of light. In other words, it is the
speed of light relative to the observer. An observer can not observe
himself, nor determine his speed relative to the aether. "c-v" is the
closing speed, which is the velocity of light relative to an observed
object that is moving in the same direction as the light. "c+v" is the
opening speed, which is the velocity of light relative to an observed
object that is traveling in the opposite direction of the light.
Einstein said that "c" is the same in all frames, not "c+v" or "c-v."
Y.y.Porat
> On Oct 3, 5:55 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:55:36 -0700, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >In article <75jae4da9udljchhg4n1ldnu32nudta...@4ax.com>,
> > > HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> > >> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> > >BS? What is a DSc(T)? What was your dissertation Topic?
>
> > Out of curiosity, fuck off.
>
> > >Bill
>
> > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
>
> > Einstein: the greatest hoaxer since 'virgin' mary
>
> Not his name, not his title, not his professed degrees, not his
> statements about physics. This is fine with him, as he's not really
> interested in saying anything truthful.
>
> PD
-------------
and you can add to it
that he Henry Wilson is a psychopath !!
it i s not difficult to detect it !!
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
Y.y.Porat
> After all the arguments, by now everybody probably agree that the
> correct answer is (a).
>
> Now, why does 'no change' imply that SR is wrong? Simple. According
> to SR, an observer in E should see the moving clock M as slower, which
> is what is known as 'time dilation'. But since we know that the clock
> M did not register a change when it moved, then we know that the 'time
> dilation' measured by E must simply be an artifact of measurement, and
> does not relfect an actual change.
-------------
right !!
and that is what i said above as well
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.y.Porat
> On Oct 3, 8:25 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > After all the arguments, by now everybody probably agree that the
> > correct answer is (a).
>
> > Now, why does 'no change' imply that SR is wrong? Simple. According
> > to SR, an observer in E should see the moving clock M as slower, which
> > is what is known as 'time dilation'. But since we know that the clock
> > M did not register a change when it moved, then we know that the 'time
> > dilation' measured by E must simply be an artifact of measurement, and
> > does not relfect an actual change.
>
> change in the frame in which M is at rest, then it cannot register a
> change in any other reference frame either!
>
> Hmm... but wait just a small moment.
>
> Let's take two clocks E and M, at rest relative to each other. Both
> clocks have zero kinetic energy in the reference frame of M.
> Now we let M be put in motion relative to E, and ask the SIMPLE
> QUESTION:
>
> of clock M changed?
> a) no
> b) yes, increased
> c) yes, decreased
>
> Only one of these answers is correct. Which one is it?
>
---------------
in the reference frame that rides with the
moving clock no
in another frame yes
if a theory says differnt it has to be corrected !
Time is a spacial *dependant**(on relative movement) case !!!
and therefore **measured** lenght in different frames
in movement -- as well dependent (in relative movement !!!)
(unlike mass !!)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
-------------------
Y.y.Porat
if there is a freeze of movement all over the universe
than time is ZERO !!!!!
just stick it to your mind
'Time' is relative motion measurment
Y.Porat
---------------------
Dr. Henri Wilson
...and no clock is perfect....
>and of course they always ignore that constant moving clocks
>do not malfunction if they are set to the proper rate while they
>are in constant motion.
>:)
It is extremely difficult to absolutely synch two relatively moving clocks
because of communication travel time and uncertainty of position. In GPS this
is tried continuously and with considerable accuracy ...but there is always an
error. The clocks are never 100% stable and reliable.
Relativists seem to believe that when a clock rate drifts a little, this is a
sign that time has changed.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Oct 3, 3:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 5:55 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:55:36 -0700, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > >In article <75jae4da9udljchhg4n1ldnu32nudta...@4ax.com>,
>> > > HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>
>> > >> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>>
>> > >Out of curiosity, what does ASTC stand for? Is a BSc different from a
>> > >BS? What is a DSc(T)? What was your dissertation Topic?
>>
>> > Out of curiosity, fuck off.
>>
>> > >Bill
>> There isn't one statement in Henri's posts that has the ring of truth.
>> Not his name, not his title, not his professed degrees, not his
>> statements about physics. This is fine with him, as he's not really
>> interested in saying anything truthful.
>>
>> PD
>-------------
>and you can add to it
>that he Henry Wilson is a psychopath !!
>it i s not difficult to detect it !!
>
>Y.Porat
>-----------------------------
Porat, when are you going to learn how to write proper English?
Dr. Henri Wilson
>In article <086de4ditrice7hto...@4ax.com>,
> HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
>> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
>What do ASTC,BSc, and DSc(T) staznd for? Again.
...you know what curiosity can do...don't you...
>Bill
iqgo...@gmail.com
> ...just consider the KE of an object moving...
Sorry. We're considering the observer as the object, which is at rest
in its own frame. All v, p and KE are zero for this object.
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, the KE of clock M in frame M does not exist. If you have proof
otherwise, shout it out.
And, the clock M in frame M continues to tick. If you have proof
otherwise, shout it out again.
Bozo.
iqgo...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know. PD is no good at everything: physics, storytelling, trolling,
making his wife happy...
I forgot, he can be good as a clown. He does make us laugh,
especially when he does the PD dance.
Spaceman
Yes, they have been brainwashed into thinking "time" itself has
a physical force to change itself.
Tis very sad to be such "non physical" in physics.
:)
Spaceman
LOL
doug
Spaceman wrote:
Humorously enough, Henri does not know the difference between
a drift and a change. There is a lot Henri does not know. The
GPS knows the drift and they know the change. The change is
thousands of times the "drift".
Spaceman
LOL
Doug is too ignorant to understand a "drift" is a change.
Apparently Doug thinks if you call is a different name it is no
longer a change.
And the most sad thing of all is Doug thinks "time" itself can change
or drift.
LOL
LOL
Dr. Henri Wilson
Dougie, Diaper, Dono, geese and van de morbidity are all competeing strongly
for the 'moron of the year' award.
doug
It is pretty humorous watching you guys pat yourselves on the back
when you are spouting blatantly wrong things. You think that you
prejudices and dislikes trump a century of real science. You
are good for a laugh and as an example to students of what happens
to them if they ignore their studies.
kenseto
> After all the arguments, by now everybody probably agree that the
> correct answer is (a).
>
> Now, why does 'no change' imply that SR is wrong? Simple. According
> to SR, an observer in E should see the moving clock M as slower, which
> is what is known as 'time dilation'. But since we know that the clock
> M did not register a change when it moved, then we know that the 'time
> dilation' measured by E must simply be an artifact of measurement, and
> does not relfect an actual change.
M uses the same definition for a clock second before or after he
moved....that is his clock runs at 1 second/second before and after he
moved. Therefore he cannot see the change even if there is a change.
However, from E's point of view the rate of M has changed and this
change is not an artifact of measurement. The reasons for E sees the
rate change in M are as follows:
1. E and M's clock second contain the same amount of absolute time
when they are at rest wrt each other.
2. After M moved his clock second contains a larger amount of absolute
time. This means that the passage of an E clock second will correspond
to the passage of less than a clock second in M's frame.
3. That's why E says that M's clock is running slow.
BTW the existence of absolute time also explains why all observers
measure the speed of light to be a constant math ratio 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.
This new definition for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory
of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However,
unlike SRT, the equations of IRT have an unlimited domain of
applicability, including in a gravity environment. A description of
IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Also visit my website for more papers on my theory:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
The Draper family
58d74b79-ccd6-4218...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
iqgo...@gmail.com at iqgo...@gmail.com wrote on 10/4/08 8:32 AM:
And so, since nothing changed about that fact in M, and since it didn't
exist in E either before M started moving, then it doesn't exist in E
afterwards, either, right? That's exactly your argument about clock rates.
But M's kinetic energy in E *does* exist after M starts moving.
So what has happened here, Seju? What is wrong with your argument?
The Draper family
0449037b-e5bf-4ad8...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, Y.y.Porat
at y.y....@gmail.com wrote on 10/4/08 1:16 AM:
Tell that to Seju. He believes if the answer is no for one frame, then it is
no for all frames.
The Draper family
ad3b44ef-2829-4c29...@v15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, Y.y.Porat
at y.y....@gmail.com wrote on 10/4/08 1:01 AM:
Well, there you go, Ralph. If Porat can tell you're a psychopath, then you
gotta start asking yourself why it's not obvious to you.
PD
>
>
>
Y.y.Porat
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> strich.9...@gmail.com <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 372029bd-c5f6-4f33-8093-69d684396...@u26g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
>
> > After all the arguments, by now everybody probably agree that the
> > correct answer is (a).
>
> | "Observe how all the relativity trolls/cranks/monkeys/dingleberries/
> | liars will post all kinds of inanities to avoid answering the
> | answer, I will answer it now: the answer is (a) no.
> |
> | Of course, the relativity trolls/cranks/monkeys/dingleberries/liars
> | have another option. They can invoke their 'right to remain silent'.
> |
> | I rest my case. Relativity is indeed stupid."
>
> It probably didn't even hurt.
>
> > Now, why does 'no change' imply that SR is wrong? Simple. According
> > to SR, an observer in E should see the moving clock M as slower, which
> > is what is known as 'time dilation'. But since we know that the clock
> > M did not register a change when it moved, then we know that the 'time
> > dilation' measured by E must simply be an artifact of measurement, and
> > does not relfect an actual change.
>
> change", then that's entirely your problem.
> You should look at your twin brother Spaceman through a
> gap between your fingers sometime.
>
> Dirk Vdm
-------------
and who told you moron monkey
Van Der Shmate that there cant be
a change in measurements??
Hey moron??
why did you diverted this thread to the place you belong ??
Y.Porat
-----------------
The Draper family
spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh wrote on 10/3/08 5:27 PM:
> PD wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 3:38 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>> wrote:
>>> PD wrote:
>>>> On Oct 3, 2:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> PD wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 3, 1:36 pm, "Spaceman"
>>>>>> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>>>>>>> PD wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 8:25 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> After all the arguments, by now everybody probably agree that
>>>>>>>>> the correct answer is (a).
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, why does 'no change' imply that SR is wrong? Simple.
>>>>>>>>> According to SR, an observer in E should see the moving clock M
>>>>>>>>> as slower, which is what is known as 'time dilation'. But since
>>>>>>>>> we know that the clock M did not register a change when it
>>>>>>>>> moved, then we know that the 'time dilation' measured by E must
>>>>>>>>> simply be an artifact of measurement, and does not relfect an
>>>>>>>>> actual change.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Brilliant! So because the rate of the clock M did not register a
>>>>>>>> change in the frame in which M is at rest, then it cannot
>>>>>>>> register a change in any other reference frame either!
>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm... but wait just a small moment.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's take two clocks E and M, at rest relative to each other.
>>>>>>>> Both clocks have zero kinetic energy in the reference frame of
>>>>>>>> M. Now we let M be put in motion relative to E, and ask the
>>>>>>>> SIMPLE QUESTION:
>>>
>>>>>>>> In the reference frame that rides along with M, has the kinetic
>>>>>>>> energy of clock M changed?
>>>>>>>> a) no
>>>>>>>> b) yes, increased
>>>>>>>> c) yes, decreased
>>>
>>>>>>>> Only one of these answers is correct. Which one is it?
>>>
>>>>>>> The answer would be of course a using your silly
>>>>>>> "relativity with reference to itself frames".
>>>
>>>>>> Well, actually it's a Newtonian problem...
>>>
>>>>> No,
>>>>> Newton has no such problems.
>>>
>>>>>> )
>>>
>>>>> Again you prove you nver actually learned classical physics.
>>>>> And of course you ignore the simple fact that the "frame with
>>>>> reference to itself" is just plain wrong when it comes to KE and
>>>>> time and anything that is ignoring the rest of the universe like
>>>>> you make it do.
>>>
>>>> Really? What's your kinetic energy right now? A value would be nice.
>>>
>>> It depends on what you are comparing it to.
>>> If you are comparign it to the Moon, I have KE,
>>> If you are comparing it to myself, I don't.
>>> But of course. IF I hit the moon. My own frame must have been
>>> wrong.
>>
>> What an interesting statement. If you measure your KE in your own
>> frame, then the answer is zero. But if you hit the moon, then that
>> answer is wrong.
>> So it's right until you hit something, and then it's wrong?
>
> No,
> It is wrong to begin with, but you won't really be able to prove it
> is wrong until you do hit something.
Ah, so your kinetic energy is never zero, according to you.
So this means it has some other different value.
But of course, what other different value it has depends on what you hit.
For example, if you hit a bridge abutment, you have one value of kinetic
energy, because the impact causes a certain amount of damage.
But if you hit another car in a head-on collision, then your kinetic energy
has a different value, even though nothing about your motion was different.
So the value of KE you got by looking at the bridge-abutment collision must
also have been wrong.
So which one is right? The value zero, the bridge abutment value or the
head-on collision with another car value?
> Again,
> Who is moving PD with reference to the ground.
> The tree or the car?
> Which one has the correct 0 potential energy and con be
> considered as the "at rest" to the ground object?
> Is the tree actually 0 KE even though it is moving around the
> Sun and around the center of the Earth also?
> You truly are one sad con artist.
> But of course, we know that is the real problem you have.
> You are just trying to sell your "specially relative" snake oil.
> :)
>
>
The Draper family
spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh wrote on 10/3/08 3:43 PM:
> PD wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> snip logical stupidity
>>>
>>> First of all, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy are always 0
>>> when measured in the rest frame.
>>
>> Ah, good. So the kinetic energy of clock M, in frame M, does not
>> change. And so it does not change in frame E. And so the kinetic
>> energy of clock M, in frame E, is zero.
>
> Of course not.
Well, that's Strich9's claim. I see you disagree with it, too.
> Yet more proof you are a twisting sad joke to science.
> And your "with reference to itself" is also a joke.
>
>
>> But wait a sec...
>> Isn't clock M moving in frame E?
>>
>>>
>>> Time on the other hand, is not zero in the rest frame. If you can
>>> find me a rest frame where time is zero, then maybe your analogy may
>>> hold water.
>>
>> Why? Is the value 0 special?
>
> Because it is the amount of facts you have about the "with reference
> to itself" frame being stupid.
> :)
> Poor PD.
> He still does not get that "in it's own frame" a pendulum clock
> never changes the ratio of it's own time.
> The pendulum would still take x amount of swings to read 1 second.
> Poor PD is all lost in his own reference frame so therefore learns
> 0 amount of facts while stuck there.
>
>
Spaceman
Poor PD.
He still can not grasp that the KE is a relative term.
Poor PD still can not grasp relativity even though he thinks he does.
Poor PD refuses to use relativity when the math shows up wrong,
but loves to use it when the math show up wrong for others.
Poor PD will never get why relativity is still just a theory and it has
it's problems, and yet PD can post one of it's problems above and
still not admit there is any problems!
LOL
Spaceman
> in article DsKdnQcKOfqYGXvV...@comcast.com, Spaceman at
> spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh wrote on 10/3/08 3:43 PM:
>
>> PD wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> snip logical stupidity
>>>>
>>>> First of all, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy are always 0
>>>> when measured in the rest frame.
>>>
>>> Ah, good. So the kinetic energy of clock M, in frame M, does not
>>> change. And so it does not change in frame E. And so the kinetic
>>> energy of clock M, in frame E, is zero.
>>
>> Of course not.
>
> Well, that's Strich9's claim. I see you disagree with it, too.
No, it is not his claim.
You are now turning into a lier again PD.
That is sad, but of course it only proves you are the con man
you have been pointed out to be.
The Draper family
spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh wrote on 10/5/08 11:35 AM:
Yes, of course it is. You were the one that said that your kinetic energy
could not possibly be zero, because colliding with something would prove
that wrong.
So you say that a relative value is wrong.
> Poor PD still can not grasp relativity even though he thinks he does.
> Poor PD refuses to use relativity when the math shows up wrong,
> but loves to use it when the math show up wrong for others.
> Poor PD will never get why relativity is still just a theory and it has
> it's problems, and yet PD can post one of it's problems above
The problem I gave is one that deals with Newtonian physics. Do you have a
problem with Newtonian physics?
Spaceman
It is even more funny you do not get how correct the things we are
"spouting" actually are.
LOL
The Draper family
spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh wrote on 10/5/08 11:37 AM:
> The Draper family wrote:
>> in article DsKdnQcKOfqYGXvV...@comcast.com, Spaceman at
>> spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh wrote on 10/3/08 3:43 PM:
>>
>>> PD wrote:
>>>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> snip logical stupidity
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy are always 0
>>>>> when measured in the rest frame.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, good. So the kinetic energy of clock M, in frame M, does not
>>>> change. And so it does not change in frame E. And so the kinetic
>>>> energy of clock M, in frame E, is zero.
>>>
>>> Of course not.
>>
>> Well, that's Strich9's claim. I see you disagree with it, too.
>
> No, it is not his claim.
Why don't you ask him, rather than speaking for him. You may find out you've
opened your yap just a liiiiiitle to fast. Again.
Spaceman
> in article XdOdnbgKIrPPcHXV...@comcast.com, Spaceman at
> spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh wrote on 10/5/08 11:37 AM:
>
>> The Draper family wrote:
>>> in article DsKdnQcKOfqYGXvV...@comcast.com, Spaceman at
>>> spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh wrote on 10/3/08 3:43 PM:
>>>
>>>> PD wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip logical stupidity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy are always 0
>>>>>> when measured in the rest frame.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, good. So the kinetic energy of clock M, in frame M, does not
>>>>> change. And so it does not change in frame E. And so the kinetic
>>>>> energy of clock M, in frame E, is zero.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not.
>>>
>>> Well, that's Strich9's claim. I see you disagree with it, too.
>>
>> No, it is not his claim.
>
> Why don't you ask him, rather than speaking for him. You may find out
> you've opened your yap just a liiiiiitle to fast. Again.
Why don't you read what he has said.
The only person that would measure a KE of zero is themself from
thier own frame.
Again, you prove you are a lier and con man, or just plain stupid.
Spaceman
No I say that measurements that are with reference to thier own
frame for such things as KE and such that are actually relative motion
dependant are freakin stupid to even think about.
After all a moving object is not a 0 anything.
You are a freaking moron.
Or a real sad con man.