The experiment relativists are afraid of.
Spaceman
Equipment needed
A source for light that can turn on remotely and start a
timer that will turn it off in 1 second after turned on remotely
and setup at rest to Earth.
A light detector that can be setup to move towards the lightsource
at a high speed and measure the amount of time it sees the light
on for.
A switch that will turn the lightsource on as the detector reaches
a high speed and moves past it towards the lightsource.
This should cause the detector to trigger the light and
time how long it sees the light for.
The track the detector travels along must be physically measured
so there will be no length contraction of the distance being
traveled able to be stated.
Prediction:
The detector will see light for less than 1 second.
And time dilation will not be able to prove otherwise
since if time dilation occurs it should take more than a second
worth of light since the detectors clock should be running
slower and cause more light to be seen.
If such occurs, (less than one second of light)
It would be empirical proof that lightspeed is not
constant to all frames and is only constant to all "at rest"
frames.
Relativists will never attempt the experiment as stated.
If I had the materials, I would do such.
If anyone has the materials and sets up the experiment
as stated...You will get a lot of enemies, but you will of
course fix the falsehood of lightspeed being constant to
all frames and you will kick science into fast forward.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Dirk Van de moortel
PKmdnWjPGKhPWlfV...@comcast.com
Spaceman, Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory,
seems to afraid of answering the folloeing question
with Yes or No.
| 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 simple word, then
| don't bother replying.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4ca3ad202d568304
He did not bother to reply, so we can assume
that he either is uncapable or afraid to reply.
Amusing, but strange :-)
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
<snipeed the usual bullshit and asks>
Dirk,
Why are you sending my posts to sci.physics into your rubber ruler group?
Why do you divert answers so they do not show up in the original
group they were posted to?
Why do you need to use such sneaky tactics in physics groups Dirk?
Is it that you are afraid to let certain groups see the answers?
You must do this all the time just so you can spout crap like
the person did not answer.
I was going to answer you post but I saw it was diverterted
to sci.physics.relativity instead so now as far as I am concerned
I won't answer your post because you are a trickster more than
a scientist.
Screw off Dirk.
And..
If you are not talking abou the subject of this post.
take your bullshit back to the rubber ruler groups where
it is common practice to use diversional tactics instead of
keeping on topic to the subject at hand.
Afraid to try the experiment huh?
Afraid to even let this reply go to sci.physics huh?
Well.
Guess what.. It did and it proves you are just a sad ass troll
at most.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Dirk Van de moortel
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> <snipeed the usual bullshit and asks>
>
> Dirk,
> Why are you sending my posts to sci.physics into your rubber ruler group?
Read the charters of sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
> Spaceman <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> 3oGdnfpIDr1WdFfV...@comcast.com
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> <snipeed the usual bullshit and asks>
>>
>> Dirk,
>> Why are you sending my posts to sci.physics into your rubber ruler
>> group?
>
> Read the charters of sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.
I am not posting about relativity,
I am posting physics about why relativity is wrong.
You are the one trolling the group and trying to post
non subject related troll attacks..
Maybe you should read what I post instead of just
being a relativity troll.
I changed the reply here again back to the main group I posted.
You should stop changing the groups like only a troll would.
Dirk = Troll only so far.
doug
Spaceman wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
>>Spaceman <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>> 3oGdnfpIDr1WdFfV...@comcast.com
>>
>>>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>><snipeed the usual bullshit and asks>
>>>
>>>Dirk,
>>>Why are you sending my posts to sci.physics into your rubber ruler
>>>group?
>>
>>Read the charters of sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.
>
>
> I am not posting about relativity,
> I am posting physics about why relativity is wrong.
Well you certainly have posted no physics. And nothing about
why relativity would be wrong. And you have not tried the
experiment.
> You are the one trolling the group and trying to post
> non subject related troll attacks..
So anyone who diagrees with you is a troll?
> Maybe you should read what I post instead of just
> being a relativity troll.
He did read it. He had to wait to stop laughing before he replied.
Spaceman
> Well you certainly have posted no physics. And nothing about
> why relativity would be wrong.
Oh ya,
I forgot to say it correctly,
I have posted the reason relativity is wrong so those with brains
can actually see why it is wrong.
I forgot that those without brains can not tell it is proof relativity
is wrong.
Sorry if you are one of the brain challenged Doug.
:)
doug
Spaceman wrote:
> doug wrote:
>
>>Well you certainly have posted no physics. And nothing about
>>why relativity would be wrong.
>
>
> Oh ya,
> I forgot to say it correctly,
> I have posted the reason relativity is wrong so those with brains
> can actually see why it is wrong.
You have posted nothing. You do not like relativity but that has
nothing to do with it. You refuse to study and make silly claims.
You think that your silly experiment might show something so you
claim it "proves" something. No one here is stupid enough to believe
that.
> I forgot that those without brains can not tell it is proof relativity
> is wrong.
> Sorry if you are one of the brain challenged Doug.
> :)
That is as accurate as the rest of your posts.
You still have not looked up how cesium clocks work have you?
You still have not done any experiment have you?
>
>
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>
>> doug wrote:
>>
>>> Well you certainly have posted no physics. And nothing about
>>> why relativity would be wrong.
>>
>>
>> Oh ya,
>> I forgot to say it correctly,
>> I have posted the reason relativity is wrong so those with brains
>> can actually see why it is wrong.
>
> You have posted nothing.
Wrong,
I posted plenty.
>You do not like relativity but that has
> nothing to do with it.
Wrong,
Relativity has some correct things such as relative motion
facts but has some wrogn things such as supposedly the speed
of light can ignore the relative motion parts of relativity.
> You refuse to study and make silly claims.
Wrong yet again.
I have studied, It is you that has not "studied" and has just
filled your brain with stuff you never learned about and must have
skipped classical physics to accept such illogical bullshit to
begin with.
> You think that your silly experiment might show something so you
> claim it "proves" something. No one here is stupid enough to believe
> that.
No one here is "as stupid as you" so that means plenty of people
might actually grasp how the experiment can and would work.
>> I forgot that those without brains can not tell it is proof
>> relativity is wrong.
>> Sorry if you are one of the brain challenged Doug.
>> :)
>
> That is as accurate as the rest of your posts.
> You still have not looked up how cesium clocks work have you?
> You still have not done any experiment have you?
My posts are more accurate than anything you have posted ever.
I know how cesium clocks work and I am still waiting for your
proof that they do not count a mass in motion.
I have asked you what "non moving thing" is beign counted
for them to measure time with?
I never said I have done the experiment and I never said I
could since I do not have the equipment and such was stated in
the post to begin with.
So.
No answer yet huh?
Is that why you are so angry and keep lying about what I
understand?
Screw Off Doug.
You should seek help.
Your brainwashed peanut in your head is working to hard
and will roast soon and you might like the smell and eat
what's left of your brain.
doug
Spaceman wrote:
> doug wrote:
>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>doug wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well you certainly have posted no physics. And nothing about
>>>>why relativity would be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh ya,
>>>I forgot to say it correctly,
>>>I have posted the reason relativity is wrong so those with brains
>>>can actually see why it is wrong.
>>
>>You have posted nothing.
>
>
> Wrong,
> I posted plenty.
I was referring to anything correct.
>
>
>>You do not like relativity but that has
>>nothing to do with it.
>
>
> Wrong,
> Relativity has some correct things such as relative motion
> facts but has some wrogn things such as supposedly the speed
> of light can ignore the relative motion parts of relativity.
>
This is part of the basis of relativity. Read about it sometime.
>
>
>>You refuse to study and make silly claims.
>
>
> Wrong yet again.
> I have studied, It is you that has not "studied" and has just
> filled your brain with stuff you never learned about and must have
> skipped classical physics to accept such illogical bullshit to
> begin with.
>
Watching cartoons is not counted as studying. You actually need
to study some physics.
>
>
>>You think that your silly experiment might show something so you
>>claim it "proves" something. No one here is stupid enough to believe
>>that.
>
>
> No one here is "as stupid as you" so that means plenty of people
> might actually grasp how the experiment can and would work.
>
Even the other cranks are disagreeing with you since you do not
go along with their particular fantasies. At least I have the
truth behind me.
>
>
>>>I forgot that those without brains can not tell it is proof
>>>relativity is wrong.
>>>Sorry if you are one of the brain challenged Doug.
>>>:)
>>
>>That is as accurate as the rest of your posts.
>>You still have not looked up how cesium clocks work have you?
>>You still have not done any experiment have you?
>
>
> My posts are more accurate than anything you have posted ever.
> I know how cesium clocks work and I am still waiting for your
> proof that they do not count a mass in motion.
What mass in motion do you think they count? I told you how
to find out.
> I have asked you what "non moving thing" is beign counted
> for them to measure time with?
> I never said I have done the experiment and I never said I
> could since I do not have the equipment and such was stated in
> the post to begin with.
>
Since you have not done the experiment, you have nothing to
discuss with respect to relativity.
> So.
> No answer yet huh?
> Is that why you are so angry and keep lying about what I
> understand?
You have already shown how little you understand. I had
nothing to do with that.
> Screw Off Doug.
> You should seek help.
> Your brainwashed peanut in your head is working to hard
> and will roast soon and you might like the smell and eat
> what's left of your brain.
I understand how hard it is on you when people point out
your mistakes. Please study and you will not look so silly.
>
>
Spaceman
> I understand how hard it is on you when people point out
> your mistakes. Please study and you will not look so silly.
Your dilusional pointing out things is pretty funny.
You only have one point still, and when you wear a hat
nobody notices it.
doug
Spaceman wrote:
How is the experiment coming?
Dirk Van de moortel
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Spaceman <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>> 3oGdnfpIDr1WdFfV...@comcast.com
>>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>> <snipeed the usual bullshit and asks>
>>>
>>> Dirk,
>>> Why are you sending my posts to sci.physics into your rubber ruler
>>> group?
>>
>> Read the charters of sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.
>
> I am not posting about relativity,
As was to be expected.
- Spaceman cannot or dares not answer the simple question,
- Spaceman cannot find the charters of sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
pImdnWGK7ob3mVbV...@posted.docknet
> Spaceman wrote:
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>> Spaceman <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>>> 3oGdnfpIDr1WdFfV...@comcast.com
>>>
>>>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>> <snipeed the usual bullshit and asks>
>>>>
>>>> Dirk,
>>>> Why are you sending my posts to sci.physics into your rubber ruler
>>>> group?
>>>
>>> Read the charters of sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.
>>
>>
>> I am not posting about relativity,
>> I am posting physics about why relativity is wrong.
>
> Well you certainly have posted no physics. And nothing about
> why relativity would be wrong. And you have not tried the
> experiment.
This should do it:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoRelativity.html
:-)
Dirk Vdm