A memorable fancy or Newton flames Al
Oriel36
Newtonian >mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation
more precise and to >distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others which will be >introduced hereafter, we call it the
``stationary system.''
Dear Al,
You won't find two scientists who will agree with you on this and if
you come to London I will have you locked up in the tower.If you read
the paper you would surely have seen
", the reader is not to imagine, that by those words, I anywhere take
upon me to define the kind, or the manner of any action, the causes or
the physical reason thereof, or that I attribute forces, in a true and
physical sense,"
The co-ordinate system I,Isaac, use is always rotational and you can't
just arbitrarily decide that it is any old co-ordinate system and
plonk yourself down as an observer and consider things relative to
your position,this would be an enormous waste of time.
"There is only one real circular motion of any one revolving body,
corresponding to only one power of endeavouring to recede from its
axis of motion, as its proper and adequate effect; but relative
motions, in one and the same body, are innumerable, according to the
various relations it bears to external bodies, and like other
relations, are altogether destitute of any real effect, any otherwise
than they may partake of that one only true motion."
>If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of
co-ordinates, its >position can be defined relatively thereto by the
employment of rigid >standards of measurement and the methods of
Euclidean geometry, and can be >expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.
So what !,when these measures are sensible,visible,external they have
nothing to do with absolute/relative motion of a rotating celestial
system,in case you are not clear on this perhaps so as not to get into
trouble I will call them apparent/actual motions of rotating celestial
systems to keep you out of mischief.
>If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the
values of >its co-ordinates as functions of the time.
What in the hell are you talking about of "functions of the
time",surely you can't mean summertime,lunchtime or some other
relative measure.
"Wherefore relative quantities are not the quantities themselves,
whose names they bear, but those sensible measures of them (either
accurate or inaccurate), which are commonly used instead of the
measured quantities themselves. And if the meaning of words is to be
determined by their use, then by the names time, space, place and
motion, their measures are properly to be understood; and the
expression will be unusual, and purely mathematical, if the measured
quantities themselves are meant."
> Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this >kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we >understand by ``time.'
This is embarrasing,you would have to be subhuman to pin time
down,there are so many ways to do it that no one definition can be
given,this is why time is absolute.
>' We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time
plays a >part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for
instance, I say, >``That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,'' I mean
something like this: ``The >pointing of the small hand of my watch to
7 and the arrival of the train are >simultaneous events.''
There is no such judgement in respect to absolute/relative and I could
almost swear you bottled time up in a clock.Where were you when they
give the longitude lecture Al,did they not tell you that a friggen
watch is tethered to 360 degrees and that 24 hours and subdivisions of
this constitutes a circular measure.
"Wherefore relative quantities are not the quantities themselves,
whose names they bear, but those sensible measures of them (either
accurate or inaccurate), which are commonly used instead of the
measured quantities themselves. And if the meaning of words is to be
determined by their use, then by the names time, space, place and
motion, their measures are properly to be understood; and the
expression will be unusual, and purely mathematical, if the measured
quantities themselves are meant"
>It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending
the >definition of ``time'' by substituting ``the position of the
small hand of my >watch'' for ``time.'
What ???????.
' And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned
with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is
located;
You are already defining time with a watch when clocks determine fixed
co-ordinates of Long and Lat or do you not get that 360 degrees is
equivalent to 86 400 seconds or that 1 second is equivalent to .00416
of a degree.It does'nt matter if rotation varies,the relationship
between clocks and geometry remains.You can't arbitralily decide to
plonk an observer in a fixed co-ordinate system and pretend that
clocks are really measuring a definable quantity,if you did you would
spend centuries digging your way out of fluff
"There is only one real circular motion of any one revolving body,
corresponding to only one power of endeavouring to recede from its
axis of motion, as its proper and adequate effect; but relative
motions, in one and the same body, are innumerable, according to the
various relations it bears to external bodies, and like other
relations, are altogether destitute of any real effect, any otherwise
than they may partake of that one only true motion."
> but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of >events occurring at different places, or--what comes to the same thing--to >evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch.
So what !,relative measures are useless for they amount to
what-you-see-is-what-you-get scenario and hopeless at translating
apparent motion into actual motion.
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses."
>We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by
an >observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the
co-ordinates, >and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the
hands with light signals, >given out by every event to be timed, and
reaching him through empty space.
I should send Ole Roemer to the forum who knows all about light
signals from distant celestial objects,he will show you how time
values tell you nothing but geometric values tell you that nature
imposes an observational limitation.If you persist in the direction
you are taking you will no longer be capable of discerning actual
motion from apparent motion,no harm done as it is not like you were
going to say that space curves at great distances and say they apply
locally.
"But we my distinguish rest and motion, absolute and relative, one
from the other by their properties, causes and effects. It is a
property of rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one
another. And therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions
of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body
absolutely at rest; but impossible to know, from the position of
bodies to one another in our regions whether any of these do keep the
same position to that remote body; it follows that absolute rest
cannot be determined from the position of bodies in our regions"
But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not
independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock,
as we know from experience.
And what experience is that ?.you would'nt by any chance be taking the
clock as a relative measure seriously.
We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
line of thought
WE (you won't find two scientist who will go along with you)ARRIVE AT
A MORE PRACTICAL DETERMINATION (you depart from every practical
determination ever imagined) ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINE OF THOUGHT( the
vulgar mistake relative measures for actual quantities with no harm
done but you would need to be subhuman to ....)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:273f8e06.02072...@posting.google.com...
> >Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
> Newtonian >mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation
> more precise and to >distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
> from others which will be >introduced hereafter, we call it the
> ``stationary system.''
What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
[snip]
So let's have a look at the conclusion:
> We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
> line of thought
>
> WE (you won't find two scientist who will go along with you)ARRIVE AT
> A MORE PRACTICAL DETERMINATION (you depart from every practical
> determination ever imagined) ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINE OF THOUGHT( the
> vulgar mistake relative measures for actual quantities with no harm
> done but you would need to be subhuman to ....)
Brilliant conclusion.
Most revealing.
Dirk Vdm
Oriel36
> "Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:273f8e06.02072...@posting.google.com...
> > >Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
> > Newtonian >mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation
> > more precise and to >distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
> > from others which will be >introduced hereafter, we call it the
> > ``stationary system.''
>
> What is this?
> Some kind of quote of some post?
> An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
> Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
Ha,ha,ha,do you not recognise the 1905 'shit' when you see it.I think
you have a website with blunders and this certainly is a good one.
>
> [snip]
>
> So let's have a look at the conclusion:
Obviously you have never heard of the 'memorable fancy' of William
Blake.I admit I got such a laugh from JPD when he posted that excerpt
from Einstein that I thought I would put a variation on it and who
knows Dirk,you might even learn something from it.
>
> > We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
> > line of thought
> >
> > WE (you won't find two scientist who will go along with you)ARRIVE AT
> > A MORE PRACTICAL DETERMINATION (you depart from every practical
> > determination ever imagined) ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINE OF THOUGHT( the
> > vulgar mistake relative measures for actual quantities with no harm
> > done but you would need to be subhuman to ....)
>
> Brilliant conclusion.
> Most revealing.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Relativity is a cartoon at best and a joke at worst,Einstein parodied
Newton and I think somebody should return the favor,in this respect I
hope somebody else has a try at this method for it is revealing and
funny at the same time besides if ever a bunch deserved it you lot
certainly do.
Spaceman
>What is this?
stuff you will never get about the Universe,
since you are bound by an atomic clock God and the insult Queens
that worship it.
Dirk?
Do you think time actually runs slower on mountain tops than
in the valleys?
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020729102357...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> >From: "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
>
> >What is this?
>
> stuff you will never get about the Universe,
> since you are bound by an atomic clock God and the insult Queens
> that worship it.
>
> Dirk?
>
> Do you think time actually runs slower on mountain tops than
> in the valleys?
4 * 4 =
(-4) * 4 =
4 * (-4) =
(-4) * (-4) =
-4 * -4 =
-4 + (-4) =
-4 - (-4) =
-4 -4 =
0/4 =
0/-4 =
-0/4 =
0/(-4) =
4/0 =
-4/0 =
(-4)/0 =
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:273f8e06.02072...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> Relativity is a cartoon at best and a joke at worst,
You don't know then? They were created with one single
purpose: annoy and confuse the dumb. Why do you think
so many popular science books talk about it? Right.
And the dumbasses... they read them and get annoyed and
confused. Serves them right.
> Einstein parodied
> Newton and I think somebody should return the favor
Stop dreaming. Creating a parody takes a minimum amount of
brain power. Gerald Kelleher alias Oriel36, tsk.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>>"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote
>> Do you think time actually runs slower on mountain tops than
>> in the valleys?
> 4 * 4 =
> (-4) * 4 =
> 4 * (-4) =
> (-4) * (-4) =
> -4 * -4 =
> -4 + (-4) =
> -4 - (-4) =
> -4 -4 =
> 0/4 =
> 0/-4 =
> -0/4 =
> 0/(-4) =
> 4/0 =
> -4/0 =
> (-4)/0 =
<LOL>
nice twist but..
no answer.
F- so far Dirk,
something wrong with your word parser?
I asked a question that has nothing to do with the above.
Do you think time actually runs slower on mountain tops than
in the valleys?
It's not a multiple variable equation answer.
you may use
Yes or No,
or
True of False.
otherwise.
you get another F-
Spaceman
>You don't know then? They were created with one single
>purpose: annoy and confuse the dumb.
Yup!
and
The dumb ignore the clocks faults and pay money to
the time travel dupes.
The clock goofed Dirk.
Or are you too dumb to realize that?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020730100039...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> >From: "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
>
> >>"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote
>
> >> Do you think time actually runs slower on mountain tops than
> >> in the valleys?
>
4 * 4 =
(-4) * 4 =
4 * (-4) =
(-4) * (-4) =
-4 * -4 =
-4 + (-4) =
-4 - (-4) =
-4 -4 =
0/4 =
0/-4 =
-0/4 =
0/(-4) =
4/0 =
-4/0 =
(-4)/0 =
Dirk Vdm
Oriel36
> "Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:273f8e06.02072...@posting.google.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Relativity is a cartoon at best and a joke at worst,
>
> You don't know then?
Trouble is Dirk,I know and from I've seen here quite a few know that
relativity is perfectly understandable.The weakest part is the
Kinematics,you don't even understand it for why else would you write
on the excerpt from the 1905 paper -
_______________________________________________________________________________
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<OVX09.33027$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> "Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:273f8e06.02072...@posting.google.com...
> > Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
> > Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
> > more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
> > from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
> > ``stationary system.''
>
> What is this?
> Some kind of quote of some post?
> An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
> Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Shit,indeed.
They were created with one single
> purpose: annoy and confuse the dumb. Why do you think
> so many popular science books talk about it? Right.
> And the dumbasses... they read them and get annoyed and
> confused. Serves them right.
So where does that leave you when you could'nt even recognise the
excerpt from the damn 1905 paper ?.
Spaceman
> 4 * 4 =
> (-4) * 4 =
> 4 * (-4) =
> (-4) * (-4) =
> -4 * -4 =
> -4 + (-4) =
> -4 - (-4) =
> -4 -4 =
> 0/4 =
> 0/-4 =
> -0/4 =
> 0/(-4) =
> 4/0 =
> -4/0 =
> (-4)/0 =
>
>Dirk Vdm
someone fix the bot!
It's stuck in a time loop.
<LOL>
poor Dirk Bot
get's all messed up when asked about time on mountain tops.
:)
xxein
xxein: There is a formula for this if you will allow homogenous mass.
It is: (1-(2*M/R))^.5 . Mass is in meters and Radius is in meters.
To get mass in kg to mass in meters, multiply by [G/c^2] where G is
6.6725911311299E-11 and c^2 is 8.98755178736812E+16 (or whatever
reasonable value you get for G).
This gives a timerate compared to a "far away" timerate of "1" where
"far away" is an infinite distance from any gravitational source.
This is also known as "gravitational redshift". It does not involve
rotation or revolution or ether drift or relative velocity doppler
effects or relative velocity time dilation or the nearby grav
fluctuations of being on an actual mountain. It is simply the
relation of timerate as a function of R to M in the gravitational
sense.
No "real" actual conditions can exist for this simple formula, but it
is (nonetheless) the actual case of empirical measurement when all
other variables are accounted for.
I can agree with anybody that SR-GR is flawed, but you can go to the
bank on this one. I strongly suggest that you accept this.
Peter John Lawton
>
> >From: "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
>
> >What is this?
>
> stuff you will never get about the Universe,
> since you are bound by an atomic clock God and the insult Queens
> that worship it.
>
> Dirk?
>
> Do you think time actually runs slower on mountain tops than
> in the valleys?
The speed of time is always 1 second per second wherever the clock is.
When you get the clocks back together, they have different counts. If
you assume the time interval has been the same for both, then the one
has been counting mountain top seconds and the other valley seconds.
They are different sizes - not 'longer' or 'shorter', just different
sizes.
You could say 'the clock goofed' but that does assume that one of them
has some precedence over the other. People who live on mountains have
equal rights to be considered right.
Peter Lawton
Spaceman
>The speed of time is always 1 second per second wherever the clock is.
Correct,
but, clocks that mess up that second have lost
that "scientific second"
>When you get the clocks back together, they have different counts.
Yes,
because the clocks goofed up trying to keep the same rate.
> If
>you assume
BUZZZZ!
no assumptions here.
clocks goof up!
proven fact!
> the time interval has been the same for both, then the one
>has been counting mountain top seconds and the other valley seconds.
>They are different sizes - not 'longer' or 'shorter', just different
>sizes.
No,
the seconds are not different sizes (that is leaving science completely)
>You could say 'the clock goofed' but that does assume that one of them
>has some precedence over the other. People who live on mountains have
>equal rights to be considered right.
The clock goofed when using a larger reference that is a real
timing of the planets motion (a spin of Earth WRT the Sun)
People who live on mountian tops do not exist for a different
rate of time.
they travel a further distance around Earth every day.
and nothing more.
(still the same day the valley experiences just up higher in orbit)
The clock goofed.
time does not "exist as a reality" that can change at all.
I suggest you learn the clocks faults and stop worshipping them instead.
Peter John Lawton
>
> >From: Peter John Lawton peter_jo...@virgin.net
>
> >The speed of time is always 1 second per second wherever the clock is.
>
> Correct,
> but, clocks that mess up that second have lost
> that "scientific second"
>
> >When you get the clocks back together, they have different counts.
>
> Yes,
> because the clocks goofed up trying to keep the same rate.
>
> > If
> >you assume
>
> BUZZZZ!
> no assumptions here.
> clocks goof up!
> proven fact!
>
> > the time interval has been the same for both, then the one
> >has been counting mountain top seconds and the other valley seconds.
> >They are different sizes - not 'longer' or 'shorter', just different
> >sizes.
>
> No,
> the seconds are not different sizes (that is leaving science completely)
Saying 'time has slowed down' is nonsense, but I don't see what is wrong
with the second being allowed to change. If you send a child out for a
pint of milk and she comes back with a bottle labelled '1 pint' but
which only contains 1/2 of your pints, then you would assume that the
shop was has a different idea of 'the pint'.
> >You could say 'the clock goofed' but that does assume that one of them
> >has some precedence over the other. People who live on mountains have
> >equal rights to be considered right.
>
> The clock goofed when using a larger reference that is a real
> timing of the planets motion (a spin of Earth WRT the Sun)
>
> People who live on mountian tops do not exist for a different
> rate of time.
> they travel a further distance around Earth every day.
> and nothing more.
> (still the same day the valley experiences just up higher in orbit)
The two peoples have the same lifetime if they use their owm clocks to
neasure them, but have different lifetimes if they both use the
Earth-spin clock AFIK.
What their own clocks tell them is what is important to them.
Iron rusts, cells age in step with their own particular clock ticking.
Their goofy clock is in step with their own reality.
> The clock goofed.
> time does not "exist as a reality" that can change at all.
>
> I suggest you learn the clocks faults and stop worshipping them instead.
My worship is not specific to any particular clock. I am ready to
worship any clock, duly certified by the office of weights and measures.
But you have picked to worship, from all the clocks in existence, the
Earth-spin clock.
Why pick this clock. What is so good about the Earth clock? Wouldn't it
goof too if you could take it up a mountain?
It's only difference from any other clocks is that it's too big to move
around so you can show how goofy it is.
It refuses to be put to the test - which it would fail anyway.
Why use a model T when you coud have a Nissan?
Peter Lawton
Franz Heymann
"Peter John Lawton" <peter_jo...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3D4EA6...@virgin.net...
[snip]
> Why use a model T when you coud have a Nissan?
Hey, watch what you say! I was conceived in a model T.
:-)
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
>Saying 'time has slowed down' is nonsense, but I don't see what is wrong
>with the second being allowed to change.
Then that is where you have lost it.
nevermind.
You have left science as soon as you allow any aspect of a second
to be changed "just because of what a clock did"
Peter John Lawton
>
> >From: Peter John Lawton peter_jo...@virgin.net
>
> >Saying 'time has slowed down' is nonsense, but I don't see what is wrong
> >with the second being allowed to change.
>
> Then that is where you have lost it.
> nevermind.
> You have left science as soon as you allow any aspect of a second
> to be changed "just because of what a clock did"
If it were only the clock then I could agree, but as I read it, all
sorts of other processes 'goof up' as well as the clock.
If the mountain people alter the machinery of their clock so it agrees
with the valley clock (when it's put next to the valley clock), then it
might fit in with the Earth clock better, but then some natural
processes they will measure as occuring at a different rate on the
mountain than in the valley - which will cause some difficulties.
I suppose the description you choose is a matter of minimising the
difficulties. It doesn't matter really because the differences are so
small between the mountain and the valley, but for particle physicists,
it seems they prefer to leave their clocks 'uncorrectd' and identical
and use a formula to predict the time one says from the time the other
says.
I would agree that a pendulum clock is only correct at a certain value
of g, but if escapement clocks cease to agree and other processes get
out of step all by the same amount then surely something fundamental is
going on?
I must read up about SR, I know very little about it - but I haven't
found a book that doesn't seem to glide over the difficulties. Too many
'obviously it can be seen that...' and 'it follows that....' etc. when
it isn't obvious and it doesn't follow.
Peter Lawton