Light Clock
Pmb
moving clock runs slower than the same clock at rest I've decided to make a
web page out of this. I'm curious at just how he'll respond! :-)
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/light_clock.htm
There are two clocks - one at rest in O and one at rest in O' each of which
is of identical construction.One is attached to, and is part of, the light
clock. The other one is at rest in O' - the frame in which the clock is
moving. According to the Principle of one frame cannot be said to be moving
and the other one at rest. Only thing meaningful is "relative motion".
Well spaceman?
Pmb
Frodo Morris
> Since spaceman seems reluctant to even consider why Einstein said that a
> moving clock runs slower than the same clock at rest I've decided to make a
> web page out of this. I'm curious at just how he'll respond! :-)
>
--
FM
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:dmgqa.643$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Well what?
You are using your silly wrong ideas about "time" being a variant unit of measuring.
You are a lost spacetime fool Pmb.
You must do lot's of drugs huh?
You still can not figure out how clocks are "supposed" to work?
and still think time exists huh?
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8c3sm$603$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
And yet more of the arrogant asshole shit that is all Fordo and his brainwashed lemmings
ever post.
Frodo,
Still backing up the scam huh?
Still a con man to the first degree huh?
Still can not grasp a clock malfunction, nor what time was invented for at all huh?
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:dmgqa.643$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
How can light do multiple speeds that you allow it to do?
How can light be the same speed to all Pmb?
Don't you have any clue about how stupid that actually is?
Pmb
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b8c3sm$603$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
Yeah but keep in mind that at this point its just entertainment for me and
regardless how he responds it'll be fun to watch.
Pmb
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:uIgqa.672$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
So you admit you are a con man and will never accept you could be wrong at
all?
And also you refuse to stop your worshipping of a clock malfuction and
the prediction only math crap huh?
<LOL>
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:XBgqa.617367$3D1.338656@sccrnsc01...
So what you're saying is that you don't understand the derivation. I thought
that would be the case.
At least point out what in that derivation is incorrect about how a clock us
"supposed to work"
The construction of that clock is just as you described how a clock should
be constructed.
Now take a deep breath and try again.
Pmb
Frodo Morris
--
FM
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message
news:dmgqa.643$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> <snipped bullshit from the idiot that has no mechanical smarts at all>
I have more mechanical smarts than you could ever dream of
>
> How can light do multiple speeds that you allow it to do?
> How can light be the same speed to all Pmb?
Well if you'd actually *study* relativity and find out then you'd *know* why
but you refuse to learn the physics. Only a moron would claim that a theory
that he's never even learned is wrong because the predictions don't seem
right to him.
The speed of light being the same in both frame is nothing like you have
experience with. Light is just too fast to have that kind of experience. Had
light been slower then it would be more obvious. However that is something
that has been proven **experimentally** and thus **observered** in the lab -
over and over again.
It's called a *postulate.* Look that word up in the dictionary spaceman!
> Don't you have any clue about how stupid that actually is?
I know how it **appears* to look from someone who doesn't understand it -
like you.
But its a fact of nature - that is just the way light works. Its not open
for debate but has experimentally been proven
Unless you think that you can show that all the various ways of testing this
were flawed?
Pmb
Gregory L. Hansen
In a way, I think this sort of summarizes Spaceman's objections to
relativity. It's not that he's studied the theory and found reasoned
objections to it, not that he has a reasonable alternative... he simply
can't comprehend it. He cannot even imagine the picture that it
describes. He can not or will not, even for the sake of argument, shed
the Galilean postulates and consider a non-Newtonian theory in a
non-Newtonian way of thinking. So he continually asks "What is the
cause?", looking for Newtonian forces or other influences in a theory
that needs none.
So he brings not internal contradictions, not experimental contradictions,
but "Don't you have any clue about how stupid that actually is?"
--
"Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy
the pig."
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message
news:uIgqa.672$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> >
> > "Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:b8c3sm$603$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> > > Pmb wrote:
> > > > Since spaceman seems reluctant to even consider why Einstein said
that a
> > > > moving clock runs slower than the same clock at rest I've decided to
> > make a
> > > > web page out of this. I'm curious at just how he'll respond! :-)
> > > >
> > > You assume that he'll read the page. Experiment suggests otherwise.
> > > --
> > > FM
> > >
> >
> > Yeah but keep in mind that at this point its just entertainment for me
and
> > regardless how he responds it'll be fun to watch.
>
> So you admit you are a con man and will never accept you could be wrong at
> all?
Sure. IT could be wrong. But every single way that this has been tested, and
there are a very large number of ways its been tested, and its tested every
single say and every single moment - especially with the GPS system. But
what you've not done to date is to even understand the theory. You mean to
tell me that just today you learned that relativity postulates that the
speed of light is independant of the source.
And if I was to yield to someone smarter - without thinking - being
brainwashed etc - then it would be to Einstein not you
> And also you refuse to stop your worshipping of a clock malfuction and
> the prediction only math crap huh?
So since you can't understand the math therefore he won't even try to learn
it? Is that right?
Pmb
Pmb
The worst part about this is that the concept is so simple! Ya gotta love
that Einstein!
Pmb
Frodo Morris
> In article <KEgqa.617405$3D1.337698@sccrnsc01>,
> Spaceman <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>
>>"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message
>>news:dmgqa.643$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>><snipped bullshit from the idiot that has no mechanical smarts at all>
>>
>>How can light do multiple speeds that you allow it to do?
>>How can light be the same speed to all Pmb?
>>Don't you have any clue about how stupid that actually is?
>
>
>
> In a way, I think this sort of summarizes Spaceman's objections to
> relativity. It's not that he's studied the theory and found reasoned
> objections to it, not that he has a reasonable alternative... he simply
> can't comprehend it. He cannot even imagine the picture that it
> describes. He can not or will not, even for the sake of argument, shed
> the Galilean postulates and consider a non-Newtonian theory in a
> non-Newtonian way of thinking.
So far I agree with you completely.
> So he continually asks "What is the
> cause?", looking for Newtonian forces or other influences in a theory
> that needs none.
However I think spaceman gives up before this bit here.
>
> So he brings not internal contradictions, not experimental contradictions,
> but "Don't you have any clue about how stupid that actually is?"
Yes, because to someone who's never had to consider anything faster than
say 60m/s, there is no experience or "prior art" to show that it is not
only sensible, but real. I think this is also why spaceman doesn't like
quantum theory - he's never had to consider anything smaller than say
100um. Remind me to show him how his computer works after I've taken
the CMP option this term :-)
--
FM
Frodo Morris
>
> The worst part about this is that the concept is so simple! Ya gotta love
> that Einstein!
>
meant to be so complicated and Einstein-esque about it. Then I realised
that this was the whole point: there's only *one* genius line and it's
so small that you could almost miss it. But from this one line the
entire theory drops out. Amazing.
--
FM
Pmb
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:b8c5of$j6d$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
It used to be that it was an optical illusion. Now he's just saying that the
speed of light postulate is wrong. So in reality this so-called "illusion"
argument was based on nothing at all! Or he's is incapable of being clear!
Pmb
Pmb
To me it was that huge leap (the one spaceman can't even imagine never mind
taking) he made by stating that the speed of light is independent of the
source!
Wow! What a concept!
Pmb
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:hLgqa.677$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> So what you're saying is that you don't understand the derivation. I thought
> that would be the case.
No,
I am saying you don't understand how clocks work.
Your light clocks have faults and you still don't even dare to look for such
because you are the smartest dingbat in the Universe.
You actually think lightspeed can be passing all things at 186,000 mps
no matter an objects speed!
<ROFLOL>
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:KRgqa.684$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Well if you'd actually *study* relativity
Listen you freaking dense shit for brains, stuck up, arrogant, ignorant,
clock function/malfunction, mechanically illiterate asshole.
I have studied it, and found out it's wrongs that you refuse to even
attempt to grasp.
You are the one worshipping it (not studying) without ever questioning it.
You treat it as a gospel instead of the "theory" that it is stuck as forever.
You keep proving you have no mechanical thoughts in your brain
at all and are a total ratio illiterate arrogant jerk only.
Why don't you look for wrongs?
Must be because you are so freakin smart you don't need to huh?
Tell me why a quartz clock slows down while in a high energy static field
and the clock is not moving at all?
You are one of the most ignorant arrogant asses I have ever dealt with on Usenet.
You should seek aa clue, for you only prove you have never even looked
for one so far.
Spaceman
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:b8c5of$j6d$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> relativity. It's not that he's studied the theory and found reasoned
> objections to it, not that he has a reasonable alternative... he simply
> can't comprehend it.
This is all I get when you can't fight the facts I post!
<LOL>
So Greg,
still can not grasp clock malfunctions nor what time was invented for huh?
<LOL>
Stupid, Smartest Arrogant fuchs in the Universe!
Oxymorons in reality!
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:69hqa.711$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> It used to be that it was an optical illusion. Now he's just saying that the
> speed of light postulate is wrong. So in reality this so-called "illusion"
> argument was based on nothing at all! Or he's is incapable of being clear!
You are such a sad assed twist artist as usualy it just makes me laugh,
<LOL>
I have used all sorts of reasoning to break through your thick skull,
but no, you are so smart you can not even use logic anymore because
logic would be too simple for you!
<LOL>
illusion, clock malfunctions, and lack of causes.
are all parts I have shown and never only stated one only.
you are an arrogant con man and you are just mad I killed your clock god
and your religion is falling fast, and there is no "reality" you can
come up with that can prop it up anymore!
<LOL>
Still clueless to what time was invented for huh Pmb?
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8c633$7bi$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> So far I agree with you completely.
Con men always need to agree with con men that are pulling the same cons.
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:TVgqa.689$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Sure. IT could be wrong. But every single way that this has been tested, and
> there are a very large number of ways its been tested, and its tested every
> single say and every single moment - especially with the GPS system.
You sure like to parrot that bullshit a lot and still refuwe to realize what
a sync of the clocks does at all huh?
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8c5e0$6pm$2...@news.ox.ac.uk...
I did.
you have no logical brain left to realize such.
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:xXgqa.691$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> The worst part about this is that the concept is so simple! Ya gotta love
> that Einstein!
You mean you gotta worship that Einstein,
with his
"time changing causes time changing" circular cause.
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8c6qo$7o6$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> The first time I saw the Lorentz derivation I couldn't see
You could not see that light's speed has nothing to do with object speed.
<LOL>
Still brainwashed and don't want to use that brain ever again huh?
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:Tahqa.714$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> To me it was that huge leap (the one spaceman can't even imagine never mind
> taking) he made by stating that the speed of light is independent of the
> source!
To you it was a leap,
to me it was a con,
You can't see the con through your brainwashed head.
What does light's speed have to do with any other objects speed?
<LOL>
> Wow! What a concept!
Wow,
what a brainwashed worshipping fool you truly are!
<LOL>
Frodo Morris
> "Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:69hqa.711$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
>>It used to be that it was an optical illusion. Now he's just saying that the
>>speed of light postulate is wrong. So in reality this so-called "illusion"
>>argument was based on nothing at all! Or he's is incapable of being clear!
>
>
> You are such a sad assed twist artist as usualy it just makes me laugh,
> <LOL>
> I have used all sorts of reasoning to break through your thick skull,
> but no, you are so smart you can not even use logic anymore because
> logic would be too simple for you!
> <LOL>
> illusion, clock malfunctions, and lack of causes.
> are all parts I have shown and never only stated one only.
doubt you can give one reference to any post in which you have
conclusively "shown" any of that drivel. And stating it then insulting
everyone doesn't count, before you try that again.
--
FM
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8cfrd$cmh$2...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> If this were true then none of us would be complaining.
Only con men and "those who are too brainwashed or too stupid to use your own logical
portion of your brain anymore" are complaining.
Which one are you?
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message
news:hLgqa.677$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> > So what you're saying is that you don't understand the derivation. I
thought
> > that would be the case.
>
> No,
> I am saying you don't understand how clocks work.
Wrong again
> Your light clocks have faults and you still don't even dare to look for
such
> because you are the smartest dingbat in the Universe.
Wrong again. All I hear you do is so say it. I never hear you *explain* it.
Can't you explain it or do you just go around telling people they're wrong?
> You actually think lightspeed can be passing all things at 186,000 mps
> no matter an objects speed!
Me. Einstein, etc. Its something that is observer. Its what is actually
observed. Its not a guess. Do you understand that?
Pmb
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:H_jqa.503$xw4...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> news:U7jqa.346220$OV.372099@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > "Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message
> news:hLgqa.677$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> > > So what you're saying is that you don't understand the derivation. I
> thought
> > > that would be the case.
> >
> > No,
> > I am saying you don't understand how clocks work.
>
> Wrong again
Nope,
You keep proving it and still have no figured out the problem
with the atomic clock.
> Wrong again. All I hear you do is so say it. I never hear you *explain* it.
> Can't you explain it or do you just go around telling people they're wrong?
>
> > You actually think lightspeed can be passing all things at 186,000 mps
> > no matter an objects speed!
>
> Me. Einstein, etc. Its something that is observer. Its what is actually
> observed. Its not a guess. Do you understand that?
I understand that you are too brainwashed to get that
"same speed to all" means multiple different speeds at once
yet not.. you still don't get the paradox and the creations of such a paradox.
<LOL>
You still think 186,000 + 186,000 = <186,000
<LOL>
You are clueless about basic addition of speed facts.
<LOL>
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote
> Nope,
> You keep proving it and still have no figured out the problem
> with the atomic clock.
What atomic clock. Nobody mentioned an atomic clock. We're discussing the
light clock
> I understand that you are too brainwashed to get that
> "same speed to all" means multiple different speeds at once
> yet not.. you still don't get the paradox and the creations of such a
paradox.
> <LOL>
> You still think 186,000 + 186,000 = <186,000
Nope. Again you refuse to learn relativity. Had you actually opened you mind
a bit then you'd see that its perfectly logical and the thing that you are
calling a mistake is not a mistake at all. You're not doing the math right.
Anyone can "add" numbers which they've called "velocity" or speed or
whatever. It's a totally different thing to apply it correctly.
Suppose that I'm in the a frame of referance O and I toss a baseball with
speed u. Then in *my* frame of referance the ball moves at speed u. Simple!
Now if you're in a frame of referance O' which is moving, with velocity v
with respect to the frame I'm in, and in the opposite direction that I
tossed the ball, then you'd measure me to move at speed v. If the ball is
moving slowly then the speed of the ball I tossed as measured by you will be
v + u. However if frame O is moving at near light speed as is the ball
that I through. Then you will not measure the speed of the ball I that I
threw to be moving at velocity v. And that is due to a comination of length
contraction and time dilation and can be rigoursly and **logically**
derived.
If I'm in a frame of referance mo
> You are clueless about basic addition of speed facts.
Nope. You just don't know how to determine the correct velocity. There is
relationship between velocities that depends on time dilation. But to
understand that part you'd have to get past this arrogance of yours and
learn the theory. You've spent much more time trying to prove that its
wrong. If you spent that energy on learning it then perhaps you're know it
by now.
But nope! not spaceman
So prove to me that the speed of light depends on the source. NOT by
guessing since you're not that good at it. But by scientific observations.
Pmb
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:b8c5of$j6d$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In a way, I think this sort of summarizes Spaceman's objections to
>> relativity. It's not that he's studied the theory and found reasoned
>> objections to it, not that he has a reasonable alternative... he simply
>> can't comprehend it.
>
>This is all I get when you can't fight the facts I post!
><LOL>
Yeah, yeah. Let's look at that first question,
"How can light do multiple speeds that you allow it to do?"
Answer: it doesn't do multiple speeds, the theory never said it does, why
would you think it has to?
>So Greg,
>still can not grasp clock malfunctions nor what time was invented for huh?
><LOL>
Still haven't looked into what's happening in the real world? You keep
dwelling on clocks and rulers, mostly clocks. But relativity encompasses
such a large variety of phenomena like momentum versus speed, kinetic
energy versus speed, mass defects, fine structure, accelerator design, the
particles created in those accelerators, and more. These are all measured
things. For instance at high speeds momentum is mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), it
just plain contradicts Newton, and to pretend these measurements haven't
been made is willfull tunnel vision. "Oh, the clock malfunctioned! Let's
pretend I've explained everything and none of that other stuff happened!"
>Stupid, Smartest Arrogant fuchs in the Universe!
>Oxymorons in reality!
><LOL>
Arrogant? I'll show you arrogant.
Accusations of arrogance are the common attack of the ignorant against the
cognoscenti when given information they're too lazy or dim-witted to find
for themselves. It salves the ego without the effort of learning.
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
>
>"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message
>news:69hqa.711$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>> It used to be that it was an optical illusion. Now he's just saying that the
>> speed of light postulate is wrong. So in reality this so-called "illusion"
>> argument was based on nothing at all! Or he's is incapable of being clear!
>
>You are such a sad assed twist artist as usualy it just makes me laugh,
><LOL>
>I have used all sorts of reasoning to break through your thick skull,
Ah, there's the problem. For future reference, insults are not a
convincing form of argument.
Gregory L. Hansen
Brainwashing is another insult leveled by the ignorant against the
cognoscenti. That it fails to explain why physicists in 1905, before any
such brainwashing could have been possible, thought relativity was a good
idea only demonstrates the mental power of the accuser. It is perhaps
better examined as a defense mechanism employed by the person that
wonders why everyone is an idiot except himself, without ever thinking
there's something he himself is missing.
Am I arrogant enough?
Oriel36
> "Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8c3sm$603$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> > Pmb wrote:
> > > Since spaceman seems reluctant to even consider why Einstein said that a
> > > moving clock runs slower than the same clock at rest I've decided to make a
> > > web page out of this. I'm curious at just how he'll respond! :-)
> > >
> > You assume that he'll read the page. Experiment suggests otherwise.
>
> And yet more of the arrogant asshole shit that is all Fordo and his brainwashed lemmings
> ever post.
>
> Frodo,
> Still backing up the scam huh?
> Still a con man to the first degree huh?
> <LOL>
James
You are talking to people who probably paid $40 000 to have themselves
brainwashed so they can talk about their cardboard cutout universe
designed by einstein.These are not the bad ones,there are some who
know it is a bright shining lie and use these guys as cannon fodder to
uphold their status nothwithstanding that they can always rely on
aetherist parrots to keep the relativistic corpse dancing.
You are right in that newbies might think they are coming across
'deep' discussions here but behind the tinsel of language there is
nothing there but a bad illusion.The funny thing is that there is real
science to do but when men don't even know that accurate clocks were
developed as rulers and got their features from the parent planetary
geometry you know that you are not dealing with humans any longer.The
newbies and lurkers will make up their minds somehow but it takes
those who are willing to refresh the arguments constantly and people
should be thankful to you for that.
Welcome back James.
Bill Vajk
> James
> You are talking to people who probably paid $40 000 to have themselves
> brainwashed so they can talk about their cardboard cutout universe
> designed by einstein.
Boy are you ever out of date. Its easy to spend that per year now
for university tuition, books, and living expenses.
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
Jim
AntiCrank
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message
>
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> >
> > "Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message
> > <snipped bullshit from the idiot that has no mechanical smarts at all>
>
I bet you could change tires nearly as well as Spaceman. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Note to all: I will add [pmb] to all my Brown flames so that you can
filter.
AntiCrank
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
Wow! Note how Brown has pissed off the great and mighty Spaceman! It is
fun seeing these two dolts argue.
Dale A Trynor
> "Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:dmgqa.643$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> <snipped bullshit from the idiot that has no mechanical smarts at all>
>
> How can light do multiple speeds that you allow it to do?
Dale Trynor wrote;
Those multiple speeds are always someplace else in someone else's frame of reference. You don't see
any differences within your own area. For example you cant be both near a black hole and far away at
the same time.
>
> How can light be the same speed to all Pmb?
It is when you are close up to where the measurments are made. The fact that its slower someplace
else has no effect on it being unchanged we we are at that time.
>
> Don't you have any clue about how stupid that actually is?
Pmb's idea of a light clock is a good one for these types of thought experiments as using the
distance that light travels a certain distance as our measure of time, shows how time and light
speed are really the same thing and you cant say the clock is broken because that would require the
light itself to be broken.
Try picturing a space ship traveling almost as fast as light with a light beam traveling with the
craft as well as having one of these clocks on board and then try to think how this would this
appear to different observer's and what would happen if light had different speeds depending on its
history of origin.
For our non moving observers we would see light traveling very slowly towards the front of the
spaceship as the light for us is only a bit faster than the spacecraft so would appear as if it were
slower. The light clock would also appear to have the same light delay in reaching the front of the
craft otherwise one would get fast and slow light and on the space craft they would be able to note
this difference if it existed. Because the clock is using light for its ticks its time is also the
same. What would that suggest about how our astronauts measure time.
In reality its even trickier as far as I have been able to find out, objects traveling away from us
tend to display a slower time while objects traveling towards us may display a faster time. Its
trickier still because of the fact that we can observe the objects at all requires a time delay for
the light to arrive to tell us about the differences and that may be easily argued to be out of
date. The idea that objects measure shorter when traveling very fast is subject to its own bit of
controversy as it also depends on this out of date arival of light and has its own dependence on how
much importance can you give the fact that light is sort of slow in the cosmic sense.
I have been able to show some reasonable arguments that if you could speed up time you could also
speed up light and create what works just like a worm hole as described in sci-fi. And yes if so
would allow you to have any speed, so that you could indeed add 300,000 km/s with 300,000 km/s
except that ones measures of time would be ours and not those of any relativistic particles
traveling with the light pulses. For us, we would only be measuring the travel times for light
entering one end of the 600,000 km worm hole as one second as it then exits the other end.
Hope this helps you to grasp the importance of visualizations to get an intuitive sense on what's
really going. I believe math often fails to do this and may be better at testing models than at
understanding or creating them.
Pmb
> In article <Ufjqa.82993$Si4....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
> Spaceman <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
> >
> >"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >news:b8c5of$j6d$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> In a way, I think this sort of summarizes Spaceman's objections to
> >> relativity. It's not that he's studied the theory and found reasoned
> >> objections to it, not that he has a reasonable alternative... he simply
> >> can't comprehend it.
> >
> >This is all I get when you can't fight the facts I post!
> ><LOL>
>
> Yeah, yeah. Let's look at that first question,
>
> "How can light do multiple speeds that you allow it to do?"
>
> Answer: it doesn't do multiple speeds, the theory never said it does, why
> would you think it has to?
>
> >So Greg,
> >still can not grasp clock malfunctions nor what time was invented for
huh?
> ><LOL>
Well Greg when you're right you're right! I was in this for the fun since it
was amusing at first but now its like watching the same commercial over and
over again
pmb
Pmb
> In article <amjqa.83049$Si4....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
> Spaceman <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote:
> >
> >"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:b8c6qo$7o6$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> >> The first time I saw the Lorentz derivation I couldn't see
> >
> >You could not see that light's speed has nothing to do with object speed.
> ><LOL>
> >Still brainwashed and don't want to use that brain ever again huh?
> ><LOL>
>
> Brainwashing is another insult leveled by the ignorant against the
> cognoscenti. That it fails to explain why physicists in 1905, before any
> such brainwashing could have been possible, thought relativity was a good
> idea only demonstrates the mental power of the accuser.
Hmm! Excellant point!!!
Seems to me that spaceman has been brainwashed from birth in respect to the
constancy of the speed of light. We can overcome this but spaceman doesn't
seem to be able to. Funny part is that he doesn't even realize that he's the
one brainwashed! And if anyone can be said to exihibit brainwashed behaviour
its spaceman.
Pmb
Frodo Morris
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:<bDgqa.379225$Zo.88450@sccrnsc03>...
>
>>"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8c3sm$603$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>>
>>>Pmb wrote:
>>>
>>>>Since spaceman seems reluctant to even consider why Einstein said that a
>>>>moving clock runs slower than the same clock at rest I've decided to make a
>>>>web page out of this. I'm curious at just how he'll respond! :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>You assume that he'll read the page. Experiment suggests otherwise.
>>
>>And yet more of the arrogant asshole shit that is all Fordo and his brainwashed lemmings
>>ever post.
>>
>>Frodo,
>>Still backing up the scam huh?
>>Still a con man to the first degree huh?
>>Still can not grasp a clock malfunction, nor what time was invented for at all huh?
>><LOL>
>
>
> James
>
> You are talking to people who probably paid $40 000 to have themselves
> brainwashed so they can talk about their cardboard cutout universe
> designed by einstein.
I didn't pay $40000, I've got a *loan* of ~£12000 which I pay back once
I graduate. Also I doubt whether I've been brainwashed, given that I've
repeated enough of the necessary experiments to see that theories such
as relativity *work*. May I ask what experiments you have done, what
results they gave and the conclusions that you draw?
--
FM
Frodo Morris
given that yours supposed proofs *don't* *exist*.
--
FM
Pmb
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote
> I didn't pay $40000, I've got a *loan* of ~£12000 which I pay back once
> I graduate. Also I doubt whether I've been brainwashed, given that I've
> repeated enough of the necessary experiments to see that theories such
> as relativity *work*. May I ask what experiments you have done, what
> results they gave and the conclusions that you draw?
Actually I think we're all "brainwashed" in a certain sense. We are born
into the world knowing nothing. We grow up and learn, but we do so with
limited knowledge of the nature, in fact an inaccurate knowledge since our
senses are limited. And we become fully confident that this "world view" is
accurate since it always works within the realm of our limited experiences.
And in that sense we are sort of "brainwashed." However when one starts to
study physics one starts to realize that our senses do no tell the full
story. We thus begin the process of becoming "un-brainwashed" and it can be
difficult at times to give up those old ideas.
Seems that spaceman is unwilling to become un-brainwashed!
Pmb
Pmb
His "reference" is him. He tells you that its nonsense and that is his
proof.
Pmb
Frodo Morris
> "Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b8djnf$p9$2...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>>"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:b8cfrd$cmh$2...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
>>>>If this were true then none of us would be complaining.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only con men and "those who are too brainwashed or too stupid to use
>
> your own logical
>
>>>portion of your brain anymore" are complaining.
>>>Which one are you?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So you can't give a reference then. I though tthat would be the case,
>>given that yours supposed proofs *don't* *exist*.
>
>
>
> His "reference" is him. He tells you that its nonsense and that is his
> proof.
>
I don't think I've ever taken "because I said so" as a meaningful
argument from anyone bar my parents, and that was only because when I
was 5 they probably *were* more right than me :-)
--
FM
Oriel36
Well,what to do with that overpriced education,I guess you can come to
these newsgroups with a mathematical toolbox to fix everything in the
Universe or to hit your opponent over the head,either way it looks
impressive even if nothing is ever accomplished.
Without being too unkind I did read an article by a non physicist on
his reaction when the latest and greatest scientist shows up in the
media and starts to talk about the latest dark
matter-superstring-quantum entanglement-brane clashing Universe of
woo-woo physics (seemingly woo-woo is the sound your head makes after
listening for a while) and it was unintentionally funny even if the
physicist is blisfully unaware of the consequences which he takes most
seriously.The point is that it is difficult to blame anyone here when
they live mostly on trickle down physics and no wonder so many are at
each other's throats.
On a different note,why oh why gravity physicists flounder around with
linguistic fireworks on observations that have no gravitational causes
is beyond me,it reminds me of the weightlifter cartoon where he grunts
and strains and throws all sorts of shapes at the barbell but can't
lift it while the cleaning lady comes in a picks it up without much
fuss.I guess theories are more important than observations which can
be expressed and discussed in plain English,of course I refer to the
motion of the other galaxies to the reference point of stars of our
Milky Way which causes a shift to each individual galaxy due to
rotation.If theories are still based on 'fixed stars' it is such a
poor means to determine structure of the cosmos,while cosmologists are
convinced astronomy is almost finished from my seat I see a blank
page.Again,it is an observation and not a theory and for once it
belongs to common sense even if it is geometrically head splitting.
BTW,when you see someone talking 'group behavior'/7 habits and theory
you can bet the bottom is not far off.
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:NQkqa.788$xw4...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> What atomic clock. Nobody mentioned an atomic clock. We're discussing the
> light clock
A light clock that has magical multiple speed lightwaves but all are c right?
<LOL>
Spaceman
> Ah, there's the problem. For future reference, insults are not a
> convincing form of argument.
I posted all this stuff many times without insults at all,
and all I got was insults so I only am following the tactics used
by the greatest stupid brains in the universe (relativity worshippers)
<LOL>
Spaceman
> Answer: it doesn't do multiple speeds, the theory never said it does, why
> would you think it has to?
A wave that is in motion can not have the same relative speed to all things,
It would have to be magical to do such or be able to change speed just before
you measure it each time.
Constant to all wavespeeds are complete jokes you still can not grasp.
Spaceman
"Dale A Trynor" <da...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:3EAA5129...@nbnet.nb.ca...
> Dale Trynor wrote;
> Those multiple speeds are always someplace else in someone else's frame of reference. You don't see
> any differences within your own area.
You could not "see" any changes because once changed, it is no longer light.
Sheesh!
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
Wrong. There are no "magical multiple speed" lightwaves. There is one and
only one speed of light - c = 2.998x10^m/s.
What part of that are you having trouble with? It'd be a heck of a lot
easier if you'd be willing to learn it. Then you can tell everyone why
they're wrong and you are right.
Then you can try to explain the null result of the Michaelson-Morely
interferometer experiments.
Pmb
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
So when one or two people insult you then you feel justified in insulting
everyone? When did I ever insult you?
Pmb
Spaceman
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.03042...@posting.google.com...
Thanks Gerald,
and, Yes tons of science to yet be discovered by simply igoring the
flat worlders and thinking on ones own thought processing instead
of the brainwashed ROM.
:)
I couldn't leave.
It would be like one of Columbus's men leaving the Americas and
never coming back because people told him it did not exist even though
he had been there.
:)
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8djkk$p9$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> I didn't pay $40000, I've got a *loan* of ~£12000 which I pay back once
> I graduate. Also I doubt whether I've been brainwashed, given that I've
> repeated enough of the necessary experiments to see that theories such
> as relativity *work*. May I ask what experiments you have done, what
> results they gave and the conclusions that you draw?
Frodo,
a sign of good brainwashing is to believe in speed changing the rate of time.
You have proven you have been brainwashed with such.
As long as you think "speed or velocity" changes the rate of time,
you have lost science and are in brainwash land.
Gregory L. Hansen
Like I said, unable or unwilling to shed Newtonian postulates even for the
sake of argment. Relativity is not Newtonian mechanics, I don't know why
you insist it must be consistent with Newtonian mechanics.
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:b8clog$ovp$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> > Answer: it doesn't do multiple speeds, the theory never said it does,
why
> > would you think it has to?
>
> A wave that is in motion can not have the same relative speed to all
things,
It doesn't. I has the same speed relative to the inertial frame of referance
that you're in. If you have two beams of light going in opposite directsions
then the relative speed of the left-going wave with respect to the
right-going wave is twice the speed of light. However all the second
postulate of relativity states is that the speed of light be indpendant of
the source and this implies that the speed of light has one and only one
speed as measured with respect to the frame in which you are taking the
measurements. Nobody can really say why it happens but nobody pretends to
make that claim. All that is claimed is that when you measure the speed of
light you get one and only one value - c. And that is simply the way nature
is whether we like it or not.
However, anyone who has studied relativity and understands it is fully aware
of the objections that you make. I.e. you think that if a light source is
moving at a given speed then that speed has to be added to the speed of the
light source. And that is not so and they know how the apparent difficulty
is explained - Time dilation and length contraction - since speed has to do
with Time/Distance - once these facts are accounted for all is right with
the world.
> Constant to all wavespeeds are complete jokes you still can not grasp.
Seems like every one can grasp it expect you.
Tell me. Why do you think you're smarter than Einstein?
Pmb
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:1fvqa.3418$xw4...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> news:Qavqa.630313$F1.83804@sccrnsc04...
> >
> > "Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message
> news:NQkqa.788$xw4...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> > > What atomic clock. Nobody mentioned an atomic clock. We're discussing
> the
> > > light clock
> >
> > A light clock that has magical multiple speed lightwaves but all are c
> right?
>
> Wrong. There are no "magical multiple speed" lightwaves. There is one and
> only one speed of light - c = 2.998x10^m/s.
and as an object moves toward or away from the speed,
the relative speed changes to not be c.
Sheesh!
You are lost!
<LOL>
> Then you can try to explain the null result of the Michaelson-Morely
> interferometer experiments.
MMX was doomed to fail because of the same reason that a tennis
ball can not detect a constant train motion from a bounce.
The source is moving with the detectors.
Sheesh!
you are so brainwashed, you even refuse to try and break the brainwashing.
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:cgvqa.3423$xw4....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
Each time you tell me that I did not study relativity,
It is an insult.
It is you who has worshipped it, instead of studying it.
Frodo Morris
> "Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8djkk$p9$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
>>I didn't pay $40000, I've got a *loan* of ~£12000 which I pay back once
>>I graduate. Also I doubt whether I've been brainwashed, given that I've
>>repeated enough of the necessary experiments to see that theories such
>>as relativity *work*. May I ask what experiments you have done, what
>>results they gave and the conclusions that you draw?
>
>
> Frodo,
> a sign of good brainwashing is to believe in speed changing the rate of time.
A good sign that one hasn't been brainwashed is to execute an experiment
to justify the opinion. I have done so; have you?
> You have proven you have been brainwashed with such.
No I have not. You have proven you don't know the first thing about
maths or physics, and have had to resort to insulting everyone to try
and wriggle out of answering any technical question directly.
> As long as you think "speed or velocity" changes the rate of time,
> you have lost science and are in brainwash land.
But as long as I can *verify* the same through *experiment*, I will
always be at least one up on you. Probably more.
--
FM
Spaceman
Like I said, brainwashed.
Greg,
There is no way an object heading towards the wave front
will detect the same speed of the wave front as an object travleing in the same
direction of the wavefront.
You are lost in your brainwashed land.
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:hovqa.3445$xw4....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> It doesn't. I has the same speed relative to the inertial frame of referance
> that you're in.
It can not you dang brainwashed fool.
That would be like a formula one car having
the same speed relative to all other cars and the people in the stands
at the same time.
You truly are lost in the hype and "scifi".
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8e0hs$8cp$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> No I have not. You have proven you don't know the first thing about
> maths or physics,
No,
I have proven that I know how clocks work and what time
was invented for in the field of science,
you have proven you are only more brainwashed than you can fight
with your own thoughts.
Still don't grasp how clocks work huh Frodo?
<LOL>
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote
> and as an object moves toward or away from the speed,
> the relative speed changes to not be c.
> Sheesh!
> You are lost!
You're not being very clear. What the heck does "object moves toward or away
from the speed" mean?
> > Then you can try to explain the null result of the Michaelson-Morely
> > interferometer experiments.
>
> MMX was doomed to fail because of the same reason that a tennis
> ball can not detect a constant train motion from a bounce.
> The source is moving with the detectors.
So you think that light behaves like a projectile? If that is what you think
then you've failed to consider how radar works. When a radar been is bounced
off a moving object the speed after the reflection is the same as before the
relfection.
> Sheesh!
> you are so brainwashed, you even refuse to try and break the brainwashing.
Or perhaps we understand the physics and you don't. Let me guess. You
consider that to be an impossibility right? It is impossible for spaceman to
be wrong? Is that what you believe?
Pmb
Frodo Morris
> "Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8e0hs$8cp$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
>>No I have not. You have proven you don't know the first thing about
>>maths or physics,
>
>
> No,
> I have proven that I know how clocks work and what time
> was invented for in the field of science,
Could you please post the erference for this? You keep claiming to have
"proven" things and yet no-one ever seems to be able to find that proof.
> you have proven you are only more brainwashed than you can fight
Let's start with two postulates:
(i)I've been brainwashed into thinking that SR is correct.
(ii)You've been brainwashed into thinking that SR is incorrect.
Now let's add a couple of facts:
(A)I've performed experiments to verify the validity of SR.
(B)You've not performed experiments to verify the invalidity of SR.
I leave it to an independent (that's neither you, Spaceflan, nor me) to
derive a conclusion from the above.
--
FM
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:kJvqa.3506$xw4....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote
>
> > and as an object moves toward or away from the speed,
> > the relative speed changes to not be c.
> > Sheesh!
> > You are lost!
>
> You're not being very clear. What the heck does "object moves toward or away
> from the speed" mean?
the wavefront has a speed it is taveling at.
that wavefront speed can not be the same "relative" speed to all things.
It can not be doing 186,000 mps to all relative objects.
>
> > > Then you can try to explain the null result of the Michaelson-Morely
> > > interferometer experiments.
> >
> > MMX was doomed to fail because of the same reason that a tennis
> > ball can not detect a constant train motion from a bounce.
> > The source is moving with the detectors.
>
> So you think that light behaves like a projectile? If that is what you think
> then you've failed to consider how radar works. When a radar been is bounced
Hold on to your horsies there Pmb..
If it is not behaving like projectiles like the radar does so,
why would it bounce at all?
Sheesh!
you are lost
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8e1ar$8pi$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> Let's start with two postulates:
> (i)I've been brainwashed into thinking that SR is correct.
> (ii)You've been brainwashed into thinking that SR is incorrect.
No,
I was brainwashed as you are now, and I finally started to
think on my own instead of just use the ROM built up
from the books.
> Now let's add a couple of facts:
> (A)I've performed experiments to verify the validity of SR.
> (B)You've not performed experiments to verify the invalidity of SR.
B is wrong,
and you refuse to even try to do any experiement that is against SR,
just like a good worshipper (or con man) would do.
> I leave it to an independent (that's neither you, Spaceflan, nor me) to
> derive a conclusion from the above.
Can't Spell spaceman now huh?
Or is there some new persons posts I can't see?
<LOL>
Frodo Morris
> "Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8e1ar$8pi$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
>>Let's start with two postulates:
>>(i)I've been brainwashed into thinking that SR is correct.
>>(ii)You've been brainwashed into thinking that SR is incorrect.
>
>
> No,
> I was brainwashed as you are now, and I finally started to
> think on my own instead of just use the ROM built up
> from the books.
I've just explained this a number of times: I don't jsut rely on the
books. I do the experiments to verify the theories, and find that they
are good theories. Please attempt to read before you reply.
>
>
>
>>Now let's add a couple of facts:
>>(A)I've performed experiments to verify the validity of SR.
>>(B)You've not performed experiments to verify the invalidity of SR.
>
>
> B is wrong,
OK, give examples of experiments you have done. Please supply your raw
data, and show how the results differ from those predicted by SR.
> and you refuse to even try to do any experiement that is against SR,
Excuse me? If I perform an experiment, then its result would test the
theory one way or another. If the theory is good, then the predictions
and results would match. If the theory is not good, then the two would
not match. The experiment can not be "against SR" any more than it can
be "for SR". All it can be is an experiment.
--
FM
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8e38i$a3l$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> I've just explained this a number of times: I don't jsut rely on the
> books. I do the experiments to verify the theories, and find that they
> are good theories. Please attempt to read before you reply.
No,
you have parroted that a number off times,
and you keep refusing to notice your experiments are coming
from the same books you were brainwashed from.
> OK, give examples of experiments you have done.
I have told you experiments you could do,
You constantly refuse to do any of them.
(data varies with devices used)
You refuse to try this one completely that I can not try yet.
A non moving WRT the static field source,
Quartz clock (Or atomic clock) in a high energy static field is the only one
you need to do to break your silly "time travel bullshit theories"
You refuse to even try as any good relativity worshipper like yourself would do.
You practice from a Gospel book and refuse to try anything not in your gospel.
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8e38i$a3l$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> Excuse me? If I perform an experiment, then its result would test the
> theory one way or another.
Please show reference to any real and cited experiment that you, (Frodo Morris)
have done!
<LOL>
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote
> Hold on to your horsies there Pmb..
> If it is not behaving like projectiles like the radar does so,
> why would it bounce at all?
That's what electromagnetic waves do. You want to talk EM theory now?
> Sheesh!
> you are lost
Nope. You've simply made a logical error. I just explained to you that the
property that you assigned it "behaves like a ball" is invalid for the
situation you applied it to. You're now making the logical error, i.e. "If
it has one property which isn't like a ball then now properties are like a
ball": which is quite an incorrect conclusion to draw.
As you would say - "Sheesh!"
Pmb
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote
> Each time you tell me that I did not study relativity,
> It is an insult.
Why? The fact that you didn't study something isn't an insult. Everyone who
has ever lived since the beginning of time has not studied one thing or
another. All I'm saying is that you insult everyone for what the hold to be
true and yet you refuse to take the time to learn what it is they are
talking about.
And that later part is what you should be worried about. Insulting people
when you refuse to take the time to **first** learn what they are talking
about.
> It is you who has worshipped it, instead of studying it.
Again with the childish insults huh? tell me some more how this brainwashing
was done! I'm eager to hear it.
How was I brainwashed?
Pmb
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
More of the same - nothing new here except more insults from spacevarney
pmb
Frodo Morris
> "Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8e38i$a3l$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
>>I've just explained this a number of times: I don't jsut rely on the
>>books. I do the experiments to verify the theories, and find that they
>>are good theories. Please attempt to read before you reply.
>
>
> No,
Yes I have. I have even given examples of this.
> you have parroted that a number off times,
Repeated by rote? Well no, in fact I've stated it in different syntax
on a number of occasions. The sad fact is that you don't appear to have
understood any of them.
> and you keep refusing to notice your experiments are coming
> from the same books you were brainwashed from.
No they don't. But then, how would you know whether they did or not?
You refuse to read any books. I've given you a number of references
both to theory texts and to experimental details (often in *different*
literature) and you haven't read any of them. You didn't read that
website pmb constructed for you. Why I should I expect you to know
what's conatined in any book at all, least of all the ones I read?
>
>
>
>>OK, give examples of experiments you have done.
>
>
> I have told you experiments you could do,
> You constantly refuse to do any of them.
Provide references to these experiments. So far all you have said is
"an hour glass would do! <LOL>" without explaining what one is meant to
do with the hour glass, and how the results obtained would differ from
relativity theory's predictions.
> (data varies with devices used)
> You refuse to try this one completely that I can not try yet.
> A non moving WRT the static field source,
Static field source of what? What field? You need to explain things a
little more sensibly if you expect an experiment to be done from all of
this.
> Quartz clock (Or atomic clock) in a high energy static field is the only one
A high energy static field of what?
> you need to do to break your silly "time travel bullshit theories"
Excuse me? Time travel bullshit theory? What's that got to do with
special relativity? Time travel can be explained with some help from
general relativity AFAIU. Oh and BTW we're not trying to *break* any
theory, we'd like to invalidate it (or otherwise). It's impossible to
break a theory. For instance, if someone was to theorise that if they
had one apple and were given another apple then they'd have twenty-six
bananas, then so be it. They could do an experiment, and find that
instead they end up with two apples. That wouldn't break the theory, it
would just suggest it wasn't valid.
> You refuse to even try as any good relativity worshipper like yourself would do.
You refuse to explain your so-called experiment. You also refuse to
answer my question: what experiments have you done to invalidate SR and
what were your results? How were these experiments performed? Have
they been repeatable?
> You practice from a Gospel book and refuse to try anything not in your gospel.
>
Maybe if you could actually explain that experiment in a form that uses
comlpete sentences, I'd be able to give it a go. Now, what are you
trying to measure? How would you go about measuring it? Over what
range of values for the independent variable? What variables do you
need to hold static, and how? What results do you predict? And so
forth. BTW I think I explained this bit before: firing off random
insults doesn't help your case.
--
FM
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
You've once again left out the most important question that Froddo asked
i.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------
> No,
> I have proven that I know how clocks work and what time
> was invented for in the field of science,
Could you please post the erference for this? You keep claiming to have
"proven" things and yet no-one ever seems to be able to find that proof.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Are you going to keep refusing to provide us with something that tells us
you know what a clock is and how they work?
Pmb
Pmb
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote
> I have told you experiments you could do,
> You constantly refuse to do any of them.
> (data varies with devices used)
> You refuse to try this one completely that I can not try yet.
> A non moving WRT the static field source,
> Quartz clock (Or atomic clock) in a high energy static field is the only
one
> you need to do to break your silly "time travel bullshit theories"
> You refuse to even try as any good relativity worshipper like yourself
would do.
> You practice from a Gospel book and refuse to try anything not in your
gospel.
You're basing all of this "no such thing as time dilation" stuff on these
clocks but you're missing the main element of time dilation - the constancy
of light. Problem is that its fact of nature that you have yet to been able
to show to be wrong.
Pmb
Bill Vajk
> Without being too unkind I did read an article by a non physicist on
> his reaction when the latest and greatest scientist shows up in the
> media and starts to talk about the latest dark
> matter-superstring-quantum entanglement-brane clashing Universe of
> woo-woo physics (seemingly woo-woo is the sound your head makes after
> listening for a while) and it was unintentionally funny even if the
> physicist is blisfully unaware of the consequences which he takes most
> seriously.The point is that it is difficult to blame anyone here when
> they live mostly on trickle down physics and no wonder so many are at
> each other's throats.
The only ones I blame are those who believe they have all the
answers already.
> BTW,when you see someone talking 'group behavior'/7 habits and theory
> you can bet the bottom is not far off.
Poor chap started showing significant frustration with me not long
ago. I expect it became a bit of a frustration cascade for him as
he has some sort of an established hierarchy of "experts" who are,
in his mind, invincible. The taboo system is alive and well at all
levels in western culture, as you know from first hand experience.
He seems not to have recovered. He's intelligent so there's hope
for it.
Bearing that in mind, "7 Habits" isn't out of line either if one
considers the rest, though I wouldn't have brought best seller
pop psychology into the fray. I've seen the business of reliance
on others' opinion to bolster one's own used correctly, and abused,
over the years. There's a lot of each in these newsgroups, and
precious few who actually know the difference.
In my day there was no course called "critical thinking." It was,
instead, a lifelong lesson by example. One observed the successful
people in one's world and it was supposed to be one's business to
select the best path in any particular circumstance. Today a
university education seems incomplete without an entire four year
series of "how to live" courses designed to supplement the inadequate
parenting venue afforded by television (and more lately the war
games genre for computers and game-only systems.) Well that nicely
displaces 20% of the time spent at university into graduate school,
and, of course some additional remedial work is found needing
displacing even more.
Where we're rapidly heading is having the equivalent of a 1950
high school graduate emerging from a 4 year university and
considering himself well educated. Self directed study because
someone is interested in a subject seems to be a thing of
the past.
The "pet rock" was an imporant mile marker on the road bringing
us where we are. If the socialist theory about alternating
generations actually pans out, the soon to be born are going
to kick ass, though not the crowd on their way up right now.
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:vwwqa.7641$J27....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote
>
> > Hold on to your horsies there Pmb..
> > If it is not behaving like projectiles like the radar does so,
> > why would it bounce at all?
>
> That's what electromagnetic waves do. You want to talk EM theory now?
Sheesh youi really don't get it huh?
I could care less about "theory" when we know the science already.
You are lost in theory land and seem to never want to return to the science.
> Nope. You've simply made a logical error.
You are the one lacking all the logic.
You are actually backing up circular logic and
have no logic of your own at all.
Typicle brainwashing to the first degree.
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:nAwqa.7685$J27....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote
>
> > Each time you tell me that I did not study relativity,
> > It is an insult.
>
> Why?
Because I have studied it,
and I have even shown you parts it is wrong about,
but you simply refuse to question your gospel book.
Pmb
Well Frodo he's all yours for now. I'm tired of all the re-runs!
Time to killfile spacevarney until I'm bored again.
Pmb
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:eBwqa.7695$J27....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Can't grasp the analogy huh?
Your "same speed to all" would be like a formula one car having the
same speed to all the cars along with all the spectators.
Now..
Do you get it yet?
Or do you just refuse to even try?
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8e4s6$avh$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> Yes I have. I have even given examples of this.
Bullshit.
You have merely parroted like a brainwashed relatavist or con man always does.
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:xQwqa.7874$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Well Frodo he's all yours for now. I'm tired of all the re-runs!
>
> Time to killfile spacevarney until I'm bored again.
He runs because the formula one car analogy to lightspeed being constant
for all is too scary for him to tackle in reality.
:)
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:YHwqa.7773$J27...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> You're basing all of this "no such thing as time dilation"
No you lying sack of crap.
I have never said there is no such thing as time dilation.
There is such thing as time dilation of clocks, and I have never said there is not.
I have stated it is only happening because of clock malfunctions and
you are too arrogant and ignorant (or a con man) to even think about it.
I have stated
time dilation = clock malfunction.
If you can not grasp that fact,
it is you that ignores what time was invented for,
not I.
Frodo Morris
I know who I am, thankyou very much.
> have done!
> <LOL>
>
This has all been covered before, but if you like:
The most accurate test of relativity I have performed to date was a
measure of the Moessbauer effect. The Doppler shift of a photon emitted
by 57Fe* nuclei can make it impossible (or at least, incredibly rare)
for the photon to be reabsorbed by another 57Fe nucleus, if the Doppler
shift is greater than the natural linewidth of the emission.
This linewidth is incredibly small - it's around 5e-9eV. This means
that the Doppler shift required corresponds to a speed v/c=3.228e-13, or
v=484 microns/s. [In a gas of free atoms this linewidth would be
smeared by thermal broadening. We use atoms in the solid state for this
experiment - the nuclei are confined to the lattice hence no thermal
broadening]
I found that the Doppler shift thus described did indeed reduce the rate
of absorption by >50% for v~500 microns/s - not so bad considering that
the equipment rack was about half a century old!
OK Spaceman, your turn.
--
FM
Spaceman
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message news:OFwqa.7747$J27....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Could you please post the erference for this?
How can I post references for an experiment that has been refused to be attempted
at all because assholes like you that could do them easily and supposedly have
all the equipment will never even try?
Frodo Morris
understand it: insulting people doesn't make your point right.
--
FM
Frodo Morris
of roughly 100m/sec at its fastest, whereas light travels at 3e8m/sec.
No wonder relativistic effects aren't apparent in Formula One cars, when
v/c is ~3e-7. Now if you could get a Forumla One car to travel at
around 1e8m/sec, you might statr to observe the effects. Go ask the
people at Fermilab - they don't have F1 cars but they do have electrons
going much faster than any F1 team could ever hope (including BAR :-)
--
FM
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8e64u$bqe$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
No Frodo,
If you read what I asked you would see that you have not given such at
all.
Show the experiment that has your name under it.
Show facts that you actually did such (pictures or actual data captures)
Show me, don't tell me in other words.
Show links to a site that you have proven you have done such experiments
for yourself.
sheesh
(Frodo Morris)
You truly are a sad con man.
Frodo Morris
> Well Frodo he's all yours for now. I'm tired of all the re-runs!
Oh cheers I'm sure :-)
>
> Time to killfile spacevarney until I'm bored again.
Interesting parallel there. You see, my term starts on Monday and I've
been here this week with nothing to do, so what do I do? I turn to
sci.physics for a little light amusement. So unless you decide you've
forgiven him by Monday, he'll be all on his lonesome (like his theories).
--
FM
Frodo Morris
Wait a minute, I'm smelling hypocrisy. For instance, when I said ">OK,
give examples of experiments you have done." you replied "I have told
you experiments you could do,
You constantly refuse to do any of them.
(data varies with devices used)
You refuse to try this one completely that I can not try yet.
A non moving WRT the static field source,
Quartz clock (Or atomic clock) in a high energy static field is the only one
you need to do to break your silly "time travel bullshit theories"
You refuse to even try as any good relativity worshipper like yourself
would do.
You practice from a Gospel book and refuse to try anything not in your
gospel." and so forth. You will notice that you have not given such at all.
>
> Show the experiment that has your name under it.
Hold on again. When I ask for experiments you have done, it's alright
for you to say "Frodo,
a sign of good brainwashing is to believe in speed changing the rate of
time.
You have proven you have been brainwashed with such.
As long as you think "speed or velocity" changes the rate of time,
you have lost science and are in brainwash land.", whereas I'm supposed
to give you full references? I think not. Not until you do as you
would be done by, would you be done by as you would.
> (Frodo Morris)
I know who I am, thankyou very much. Look, I even initial my posts!
--
FM
Bill Vajk
> I have stated
> time dilation = clock malfunction.
> If you can not grasp that fact,
> it is you that ignores what time was invented for,
> not I.
"Who" invented time, the great pumpkin?
Pmb
It has little to do with forgiving. He doesn't bother me. Its a matter of
boredom. Besides I can carry on that conversation without him. I just drop
in a "you don't know what a clock is" here and a "you're brainwashed" there
and I can pretty much mimic spavevarney.
However I didn't call him varney-II since spacevarney doesn't have what it
takes since he's not the stalking or obsessive types. Basically when I don't
post to him he has the last word and then he leaves it. varney on the other
hand is quite a different story though! He's a kid who is obsessed with me.
Big difference. spacevarney shares only one property of the real thing -
loves to insult and declares himself to be correct all the time when its
abundantly clear that the opposite is true. :-)
Pmb
Bill Vajk
> Here is the one statement I will continue to repeat until you
> can understand it: insulting people doesn't make your point
> right.
Awww come on, because of the nature of the beast you need
to spell out the entire paradigm. The second half goes like
this:
"Even if they're wrong and you're right don't presume to have
license to flame them."
But wait, there's more (play ginsu theme music....)
Vajk's rule 34:
"If you're going to flame someone don't deceive yourself into
thinking you're in some way better than they are. Realize that
you're doing it because it feels good and before you hit 'send'
ponder whether or not it will feel as good tomorrow."
keith stein
"Pmb" <physic...@yahoo.coom> wrote in message
>
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> > How can light be the same speed to all Pmb?
> The speed of light being the same in both frame is nothing like you have
> experience with. Light is just too fast to have that kind of experience.
Had
> light been slower then it would be more obvious. However that is something
> that has been proven **experimentally** and thus **observered** in the
lab -
> over and over again.
I guarantee that you can not give a reference to one experiment which showed
that the speed of light was the same relative to two comoving observers Pmb.
Here's an experiment for you which proves that the speed of light is NOT the
same for a moving observer, as it is for a stationary observer (stationary
relative to the apparatus that is):
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
= (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
--
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
Streamking
each other only because some do not understand the theory and others
do. I've had a similar discussion with someone in Dutch and we both
didn't agree but we never used words like piece of shit etc.
About the problem:
It's not about clocks and how clocks works, the clock are only used in
the thought experiment and can be any kind of clock. The whole
derivation shows that time dilation is nothing more than Pythagoras's
theorem. There are indeed some fine points, you have to think very
deep at some points. This derivation is one of my favourites, because
for me it's the ultimate proof of time dilation, it's a waterproof
proof. It looks very simple but is very deep.
Even this simple proof can be extremely difficult.
A common mistake is that people often refuse to accept this bevause
they say that speed is the reason that time dilates, but that is not
where the theory is about. It does not say that speed is the reason
but only that there is a relation between it. This stands for almost
100 year now and never has been rejected. There are always people
coming up that try to proof Einstein was wrong, they come up with
10,000 words and wrong arguments. They also call people who think the
theory is correct (within its framework) kind of Einstein groupies,
but I think they are frustrated people who refuse to accept it.
Pmb
"keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
> I guarantee that you can not give a reference to one experiment which
showed
> that the speed of light was the same relative to two comoving observers
Pmb.
The Michaelson-Morely Experiment
> Here's an experiment for you which proves that the speed of light is NOT
the
> same for a moving observer, as it is for a stationary observer (stationary
> relative to the apparatus that is):
Do you seriously believe that everyone since and including Einstein missed
this? They didn't miss this because the argument is flawed. You argue with
the *assumption* that the speed of light is not independent of the motion of
the source.
In effect you're assuming that which you are trying to prove!
>
> A light----> B <-you
> < ----------- L --------------> v m/s
>
> Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
> light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
>
> Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
> where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
> and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
You're not clear here. You use tA and tB in the equation and then you define
t'A and t'B
> Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
> Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
> so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
> which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
> A to B.
>
> Therefore:
> Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
> = (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
> = c + v
There are several errors in this argument.
(1) You are not taking length contraction into account
(2) You are not taking time dilation into account
(3) You are not taking simultaneity into account
If you had then the result you would have got would be the one Einstein got.
As I've said many times in this thread - "The speed of light is independent
of the motion of the source" is a *postulate*. It is what you *assume to be
true* when you go to derive these things. If I had not assumed this then
there would be no reason to assume length contraction or time dilation.
However that would then mean nature does not behave according to the results
you predict. Not so with relativity.
However - if you assume that the postulate is correct then the outcome of
all these millions of experiments is consistent with relativity.
Pmb
Spaceman
"Frodo Morris" <graha...@wadham.invalid.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b8e798$c8s$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> Wait a minute, I'm smelling hypocrisy.
Then start to re-wash your brainwashed brain.
Will you try a clock in a high static field?
A clock that is not moving WRT the field source?
Refuse to try such huh?
Against your relativity religion huh?