The SR is wrong list
Spaceman
2: The paradox twins are both the exact same revolutions of Earth old.
3: The paradox twins are both the exact same revs of the Moon old.
4: Mass does not increase with speed alone.
5: FTL "has not" been proven impossible.
6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
7: Math is not reality.
8: Infinite energy is not needed for FTL.
9: If light is limited, it must have a medium.
10: Wood stops visible light so it's not pure energy.
(It's merely an atomic vibration)
SR is wrong if you REALly think about it.
add more if you gots!
--
James M Driscoll Jr
http://www.realspaceman.com
news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
Mike Varney
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
news:uf8atje...@corp.supernews.com...
> 1: Time is an abstract.
So is your brain.
> 2: The paradox twins are both the exact same revolutions of Earth old.
> 3: The paradox twins are both the exact same revs of the Moon old.
> 4: Mass does not increase with speed alone.
> 5: FTL "has not" been proven impossible.
> 6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
> 7: Math is not reality.
> 8: Infinite energy is not needed for FTL.
> 9: If light is limited, it must have a medium.
> 10: Wood stops visible light so it's not pure energy.
> (It's merely an atomic vibration)
Twit. Imbicile. Moron.
> SR is wrong if you REALly think about it.
>
> add more if you gots!
Dolt.
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>1: Time is an abstract.
>2: The paradox twins are both the exact same revolutions of Earth old.
>3: The paradox twins are both the exact same revs of the Moon old.
>4: Mass does not increase with speed alone.
>5: FTL "has not" been proven impossible.
>6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
>7: Math is not reality.
>8: Infinite energy is not needed for FTL.
>9: If light is limited, it must have a medium.
>10: Wood stops visible light so it's not pure energy.
>(It's merely an atomic vibration)
>
>SR is wrong if you REALly think about it.
>
>add more if you gots!
You are a child of the Universe, a drool.
Sam Wormley
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html
--Sam Wormley
http://edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.html
Tc Hughes1
>1: Time is an abstract.
>2: The paradox twins are both the exact same revolutions of Earth old.
>3: The paradox twins are both the exact same revs of the Moon old.
the known planets and their satellites? That would increase the length of your
list. But a longer list doesn't mean it's more right
>4: Mass does not increase with speed alone.
Please Explain.
>5: FTL "has not" been proven impossible.
>6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
>7: Math is not reality.
>8: Infinite energy is not needed for FTL.
>9: If light is limited, it must have a medium.
>10: Wood stops visible light so it's not pure energy.
>(It's merely an atomic vibration)
And just what is an atomic vibration?
>
>SR is wrong if you REALly think about it.
>
>add more if you gots!
Maybe this should have been one of those top ten lists David Letterman does.
-Taylor
Physics Student at UF
Mathematics and alchohol don't mix; never drink and derive.
Jeremy
--
Eheu fugaces labuntur anni
Mike Varney
"Jeremy" <cfg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:mdYI8.53716$352.3332@sccrnsc02...
> Are you trying to prove how bad American education is?
Usenet protocol dictates that one quotes the person to whom one is
responding, as I have done above.
:-)
tj Frazir
Id rather ave that corect ten put the pices together than put it all
together and still not ave that . Not one thing will stand without it .
Befor you all call spaceman ignorant ...let me call you all ignorant .
After all ,,,some of you knew I was not from your world when I got here
Remember ? What happend to physics ?
Told ya so. Te small holes I drill in te bucket of reality have to be
pluged . You can call me what ever ,, but I know your mind and there is
tis stupid hole that makes you think .
3 days later your all posting on the hole ., like I had not one ting to
do with it .
Alians are fucked up arnt we ?
tj Frazir
1 Time is the rate of energy ,,universe under energy presure / gravity
= how much universe expands per time unit .
2 as the clck in motion moves it gains mass and more mass must be
afected by the energy the clock operates on . Satelights proved time
lags are phoney
4 mass = the space it displaces and a mass in motion takes up more
space per tme unit .
5 , light speed is all the conductor will allow .
But FTL would make a black hole behind an object ,,an air plane
faster than sound must over come the drag ,, but matter made of
condenced energy must have energy under presure ( space time ) to remain
in the state of condenced energy .
SR is corect but me and ienstien are only 2 people tat understood bent
space ,,but e could not find the words to explain it ,,genious is not
the ability to understand but te ability to express it.
Your getting warmer spaceman ; )
tj Frazir
flunk out at .
I proved no water was going to the softner when I unscrewd the hose and
no water came out . Evryone ,,65 engineers sat and said it was pluged
up ( the softner was pluged ) but taking te hose off made idiots of them
all ,,I folowd the pipe and turned te valve on.
Now they are wet and stupid .
If it dont work make a list and switch things around ,,, dont sit
and be lazzy . Cant be done is for those that do nothing .
The engineers tat broke te sound berrior didnt studdy physics that
insisted matter would unravel . They said te atomic bomb was imposible
,,,after try and error made the bomb they rushed to explain it , not
corect ,,they dont ave gravity so ave nothing
Mike Varney
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16823-3C...@storefull-2154.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> I will add that the list of compairisons is what most educated physics
> flunk out at .
Learn to spell, jerk.
Mike Varney
> Gravity is a push to less energy .
> Id rather ave that corect ten put the pices together than put it all
> together and still not ave that
Learn to spell, imbecile.
Mike Varney
> Sr is the math ,,tey just dont understand te physics behind te math.
Learn to spell, idiot.
tj Frazir
only web .
I toulk 6 rounds for USA and am as american as you buthead. Learn
some science varney.
Start posting some science . Moron.
1 , your lazzy
2 ,, your a fraud , 3 , you only spam 4 that makes you a lazy coward .
A coward afraid to express his real self . And you live in colorado and
are poor. All the trees and no idia what to do. Gold in the hills but
to lazzy to look down .
Lives in an apartment ,,dont own a house even. I had lobster and
tropical salad for supper . NY tips for lunch . I ave no addictions
and owe no one . I gave away 200 million for xmass . I bailed out
col state edu. 25 mil.
Your no vet are you . You scam people into thinking your a cyropractor
You sell fake protien pills . In your pic your even looking down.
You cant blaim anyone but you.
Its the quest for the easy road that demised you. I see the easy road
evry tme you post spam . Its easy ,,just say learn to spell ,,,twit and
so on .
When Im in col I will stop by and lauph at you
Mike Varney
Learn to spell, dummy.
Spaceman
"Tc Hughes1" <tchu...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020528230216...@mb-mu.aol.com...
> Well if you are looking for more to add to your list why not write in all
of
> the known planets and their satellites? That would increase the length of
your
> list. But a longer list doesn't mean it's more right
Actually it would,
but the list is right without it too so I didn't bother.
I figure most humans with brains can figure out the facts
of age.
>
> >4: Mass does not increase with speed alone.
> Please Explain.
Kinetic energy increases while the mass cn reamian the same.
unless the mass gathers mass as it moves.
it gains none from the speed alone.
if it is gaining mass it is gathering it.
It can't gain magical mass form speed alone.
> And just what is an atomic vibration?
lights and sounds and x-rays and gamma rays and all sorts of
cools things.
> Maybe this should have been one of those top ten lists David Letterman
does.
Not at all.
It's a sad list.
It shows logical problems with SR that will never go away.
The inconsitancies they refuse to accept.
It's a sad list.
It's proof of brainwashing in school.
those that say it's wrong at all are brainwashed.
Spaceman
You want a cracker don't you Sam?
you get none now.
we are giving the crackers to the logical parrots
that learn instead of parrot off first.
Got moon days?
The twins are the same <moons> old.
to stupid to get it huh?
to brainwashed to even attempt it huh?
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3CF4414C...@mchsi.com...
Spaceman
It is not just america that has physics wrong .
Are you proud of the wrong physics you study?
Or do you teach the wrong crap and brainwash until they get it.
"Jeremy" <cfg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:mdYI8.53716$352.3332@sccrnsc02...
franz heymann
Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
news:uf8atje...@corp.supernews.com...
> 2: The paradox twins are both the exact same revolutions of Earth old.
> 3: The paradox twins are both the exact same revs of the Moon old.
> 4: Mass does not increase with speed alone.
> 5: FTL "has not" been proven impossible.
> 6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
> 7: Math is not reality.
> 8: Infinite energy is not needed for FTL.
> 9: If light is limited, it must have a medium.
> 10: Wood stops visible light so it's not pure energy.
> (It's merely an atomic vibration)
>
> SR is wrong if you REALly think about it.
>
> add more if you gots
You are a stupid nerd. Go and mend a puncture or oil a bicycle.
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> Gravity is a push to less energy .
> Id rather ave that corect ten put the pices together than put it all
> together and still not ave that . Not one thing will stand without it
.
> Befor you all call spaceman ignorant ...let me call you all ignorant
.
OK, I waited.
Frazir is ignorant
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
> I toulk 6 rounds for USA
Learn to spell, moron
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
tj Frazir <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16818-3CF...@storefull-2154.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> tey
> te
> presure
>clck
> afected
> Satelights
> condenced
> condenced
> corect
> ienstien
> tat understood
> e
> Your getting
Learn to spell, ignoranus
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
> --
> Eheu fugaces labuntur anni
>
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
"franz heymann" <franz....@nospamcare4free.net> wrote in message
news:uf9o1fn...@corp.supernews.com...
> You are a stupid nerd. Go and mend a puncture or oil a bicycle.
so,
you can't find what is wrong with the wrongs huh?
thanks!
tj Frazir
I did ,,if you cant , your a stupid ass clinging to the magority for
your intelects safty .
Randy Poe
> 6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
I see you've absorbed Oriel's nonsense about "saying distance
equals velocity times time is pretending the earth is a
Mercator projection."
Perhaps you can do a better job than he can at explaining
that connection, and what the correct way is to calculate
the time for a radio signal to reflect off a target
1 km away.
- Randy
Jason P
This is hilarious. Do you live in Arlen, Texas, and is your real name Boomhauer?
Jason
franz heymann
> Fran ,,, its time fo you to post gravity .
> I did ,,if you cant , your a stupid ass clinging to the magority for
> your intelects safty .
Learn to spell, moron
Franz Heymann
>
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but...
>6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
Huh? Where'd that come from?
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Spaceman
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:ad2lba$a2g$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <uf8atje...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
> I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but...
>
> >6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
>
> Huh? Where'd that come from?
It comes from relativity and standards of it's measurement actually.
You don't follow any enlightening threads huh?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:ufajlag...@corp.supernews.com...
No no, it comes from something Idiot Oriel36 vomited.
Oriel must be real proud to have a Super-Idiot like Spacetire
as a pupil.
By the way, we say "its measurement"
I bet "your" kids spell better than their alleged father.
> You don't follow any enlightening threads huh?
No, we only follow threads about tire shaped earths.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:uf8atje...@corp.supernews.com...
> 1: Time is an abstract.
> 2: The paradox twins are both the exact same revolutions of Earth old.
> 3: The paradox twins are both the exact same revs of the Moon old.
> 4: Mass does not increase with speed alone.
> 5: FTL "has not" been proven impossible.
> 8: Infinite energy is not needed for FTL.
> 9: If light is limited, it must have a medium.
> 10: Wood stops visible light so it's not pure energy.
> (It's merely an atomic vibration)
>
> SR is wrong if you REALly think about it.
>
>
>
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> http://www.realspaceman.com
> news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
Major entry on
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "The Earth is not cylindrical shaped."
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
Spaceman wrote:
> 1: Time is an abstract.
Correct, it does not exist at all.
> 2: The paradox twins are both the exact same revolutions of Earth old.
correct, but the 'travelin one' metabolism has slowed down.
> 3: The paradox twins are both the exact same revs of the Moon old.
correct, but the 'travelin one' metabolism has slowed down.
> 4: Mass does not increase with speed alone.
almost correct, you can bring it in a gravity well with
the same effect. Almost because mass does not increase
but its inertia increases. The effect is almost the
same, for practical modeling.
> 5: FTL "has not" been proven impossible.
correct, QM does it al the time
> 6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
too bad.
> 7: Math is not reality.
Mathematicians earn real money ?
> 8: Infinite energy is not needed for FTL.
on the contrary.
> 9: If light is limited, it must have a medium.
the inertial 'field'
> 10: Wood stops visible light so it's not pure energy.
My woodstove thinks differently.
> (It's merely an atomic vibration)
>
> SR is wrong if you REALly think about it.
>
> add more if you gots!
Relativity : two objects 'moving' in an empty space.
Who is the forgotten third party ?
Dr Mach, in the distant star room, with his principle.
Hayek.
--
"March 24, 1933
..panicky German Parliament..
passes..'Enabling Act'..
Germans soon saw gun confiscation,
national identity cards,
racial profiling,
a national security chief (Himmler),
and, later, mass murders and
incarcerations in concentration camps."
Spaceman
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3CF55D4C...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
>
> > 2: The paradox twins are both the exact same revolutions of Earth old.
>
> correct, but the 'travelin one' metabolism has slowed down.
No,
the metabolism has never been tested at all.
>
> > 3: The paradox twins are both the exact same revs of the Moon old.
>
> correct, but the 'travelin one' metabolism has slowed down.
No,
the metabolism of twins has never been tested at all.
> > 4: Mass does not increase with speed alone.
>
> almost correct, you can bring it in a gravity well with
> the same effect. Almost because mass does not increase
> but its inertia increases. The effect is almost the
> same, for practical modeling.
No,
always correct,
mass does not increase from speed alone.
it gains kinetic energy and force but it's mass remains the same
unless it gathered it in it's path.
inertia increase is not mass increase.
>
> > 5: FTL "has not" been proven impossible.
>
> correct, QM does it al the time
QM does what?
proves FTL is impossible
I know it proves no such thing.
> > 8: Infinite energy is not needed for FTL.
>
> on the contrary.
no on the contrary about it.
only bad math shows such.
> > 10: Wood stops visible light so it's not pure energy.
>
> My woodstove thinks differently.
No,
the wood stops the light as it should until it's burned away.
Does the wood contain pure energy?
Why don't we abstract it better than burning it then?
Why do we have to burn wood to extract pure energy of light.
burnbing wood is far from pure..
how do you get pure energy from wood via light?
you don't.
the energy is made from vibration and destruction of
electron chains.
light is not pure energy.
it's a vibration of small stuff.
pure energy is bologna and cheese!
Jeremy
news:ad1k2g$f51$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> Usenet protocol dictates that one quotes the person to whom one is
> responding, as I have done above.
Like this? ;)
Jeremy
Geez, are you twelve or something? I'm clearly stating that you are clearly
a product of the American educational system, which you clearly are! ;)
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman
No, silly Jeremy
I am 36 and I know how to build and create devices such as clocks.
I see you have no clue about clocks and devices.
you must be closer to 12 than I am.
at 12 I fixed an automatic transmission and learned about
hyromatics and fluid flow ..
at 13 I learned the electrical systems of cars and trucks and electron flow.
at 14 I leanred about ride suspension tecnology and the flow of motion of
cars.
15 brakes systems to stop them with and then at
16 I finally got to drive them all legally.
are you even 16 yet?
have you found out how a car works yet?
Your isultation physics is a waste.
Wake up and Grow Up.
SR IS WRONG.
no matter what you parrot or insult.
Spaceman
>
> Could you explain in considerably more detail?
No,
you would not get it, it seems.
Tell us why the clocks are supposedly not effected by
acceleration or gravitational forces.
and yet they are supposedly the REAL time.
Tell me why you ignore the third clock in all cases
that try and only allow 2 clocks?
Tell me why you don't get that the Paradox twins
are the exact same revolutions of Earth old
and they are also the same revs of the Sun and Moon old
so therefore they are the same EXACT ages.
three clocks all agreeing emperically that the twins
are the same age old.
Why do you ignore such simple disproof that is REAL.
Mike Varney
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
>
> "Jeremy" <cfg...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:nxeJ8.8873$0A2.10151@rwcrnsc54...
> > "Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
> > news:uf9h40f...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Geez, are you twelve or something? I'm clearly stating that you are
> clearly
> > a product of the American educational system, which you clearly are! ;)
>
> No, silly Jeremy
> I am 36
The you truly are sad, spacy.
Gregory L. Hansen
If half the time you spent railing on about this on Usenet were spent in
study of the subject, you would be asking a lot fewer of these kinds of
questions. You'd be able to work them out for yourself. Probably you'll
forever wonder why no physicist knows as much as you do about physics.
In the Twin's Paradox, apply the Lorentz transformations to everything in
sight. Let me know what you get.
Spaceman
> In article <ufc4i3f...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
> >
> >"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >news:ad3tu3$do4$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> >>
> >> Could you explain in considerably more detail?
> >
> >No,
> >you would not get it, it seems.
> >
> >Tell us why the clocks are supposedly not effected by
> >acceleration or gravitational forces.
> >and yet they are supposedly the REAL time.
> >
> >Tell me why you ignore the third clock in all cases
> >that try and only allow 2 clocks?
> >
> >Tell me why you don't get that the Paradox twins
> >are the exact same revolutions of Earth old
> >and they are also the same revs of the Sun and Moon old
> >so therefore they are the same EXACT ages.
> >three clocks all agreeing emperically that the twins
> >are the same age old.
> >
> >Why do you ignore such simple disproof that is REAL.
>
> If half the time you spent railing on about this on Usenet were spent in
> study of the subject, you would be asking a lot fewer of these kinds of
> questions. You'd be able to work them out for yourself. Probably you'll
> forever wonder why no physicist knows as much as you do about physics.
Refuse to answer anything huh?
figures.
> In the Twin's Paradox, apply the Lorentz transformations to everything in
> sight. Let me know what you get.
<LOL>
apply it why?
The Earth and Sun and moon are not moving at high speeds.
and the Lorentz transform is crap for humans anyway.
It's all bologna and poor you is brainswashed.
I am asking you how old the twins are when compared to Earth spins?
How can they be the same Earth spins and yet different times old?
You are truly lost in time.
and ..
it's sad.
for your brainwashing seems to want to keep you there
forever.
I feel sorry for you.
How old are the twins in Earth revs?
How old are the twins in Moon revs?
How old are the twins in Saturn revs?
How about mercury revs?
How about they both are thesame age and your clocks
are goofing up.
Why do you ignore ALL the planets and moons and stars?
I refuse to.
I could crash into them at high speed if I did like you.
Alejandro Rivero
of SR is wrong". Of course that works with a lot of idealizations.
Hey, we know that the idea of instant velocity (and movement) is
wrong, so what?
> 6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
> 10: Wood stops visible light so it's not pure energy.
This two are pretty ones becasue they sound very, very, old.
To use "Wood" for solid, instead of "Stone" or "Metal" or any other
possibility, was also the Greek option. It appears even in the
description of atoms.
Alejandro
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Oriel36
> In article <ufajlag...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
> >
> >"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >news:ad2lba$a2g$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> In article <uf8atje...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
> >>
> >> I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but...
> >>
> >> >6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
> >>
> >> Huh? Where'd that come from?
> >
> >It comes from relativity and standards of it's measurement actually.
>
> Could you explain in considerably more detail?
If Speicher is back to calling spacetime a mathematical abstraction
you'd better believe there is something up besides you wrote back in
March;
"Speaking of goofs triggering ideas, related to Oriel36's rant that I
still
don't understand, that a round Earth disproves relativity,".
Despite Randy's insistence,I recognise velocity/speed/acceleration as
secondary terms and as outriggers of distance and clocks,the primary
term being 'distance covered' alone,the geometry of the Earth and how
clocks and their subdivisions are combined.
Below is a posting from another thread,far from using George's attempt
to 'unseat my confusion' as a means to insult George,it would do well
to remind him that he used essentially a geocentic viewpoint of a flat
horizon (read flat Earth) with the Sun scribing an arc across the
Sky.He was absolutely correct in his assumption of the problems that
would emerge if measurement and latitude was altered but this is no
different than the problems Einstein seen with GR and SR.
In short,the geometry relating to clocks along latitudinal lines (and
this is so subtle that it may appear I am talking about longitude) was
combined with the perception of clocks as they operate along
longitudinal lines giving spacetime.To untangle why the property of
spacetime cannot be disproven( and it can't be disproven due to its
unique nature) is to return to where the 'second' and by association -
clocks become more objective and the original premise of "clocks
measure time " is not totally objective.
I have seen your posts where you adhere to minute relativistic time
differences at the equator to the poles,but the material here is of a
different nature.It requires the same level of competence and the same
approach that worked out how clocks and distance relate for ultimately
geometry comes to the fore."Clocks measure time" tells you less than
nothing concerning how the subdivisions of a clock relate to the
geometry from which the device emerged.
I can see where SR can be turned into an abstraction while GR can be
treated differently but the basic premise is too difficult to mask and
takes most of the exotic models based on spacetime with it.If you are
calling my descriptive shortcomings 'rants',you may forget that there
are formative stages that are indeed scrappy but over time they become
less so and this is the problem that I now turn my attension to.
You cannot tiptoe around this stuff and an outright attempt to contend
with it will make participants look unintentionally foolish,in this
respect,I don't see George as stupid using geocentricity,I do however
see how he is lazy and in this respect I don't know which is
worse,the same goes for all but a few here.
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message :
[Oriel36}
> > From my perspective distances and therefore geometry was never looked
> > at in terms of clocks along latitudinal lines,
>
[George]
> Well of course not. It was always defined as some reproducible
> length that could be used for commerce and navigation. If it
> varied with your latitude, it would be useless. A unit of
> measurement has to be constant.
>
> >.you must remember that
> > the problem of longitude was eased by accurate clocks in terms of
> > distance
>
> That is fundamentally wrong and may well be at the seat of your
> confusion. When navigating a ship, which is where the clock was
> pre-eminent in solving the problem, it is relatively easy to note
> the highest elevation of the Sun above the horizon. That _angle_
> combined with the time of year directly gives you the _angle_ we
> call latitude.
>
> Longitude is much harder, but suppose for a given latitude, you
> had a table that gave the time of sunset on the Greenwich meridian.
> The Earth rotates 360 degrees in 24 hours (not strictly true but
> correct in context) so if you note the time of local sunset, you
> are 1 degree west of the Greenwich meridian for every four minutes
> later than the time in the table because that is the _angle_ through
> which the Earth has turned in that time.
>
> To be of any use therefore, a ship's chronometer must _always_
> show GMT and those clocks can never be adjusted for timezones.
>
> Having located your position by two _angles_, latitude and longitude
> and knowing the equivalent two _angles_ for your destination, it is
> just spherical trig to find the _angle_ from north that you need to
> head and the _angle_ subtended at the centre of the Earth between the
> two locations.
>
> At the end of all that, multiplying the last angle by the radius of
> the Earth can give you the distance to go but that is the only
> distance involved.
>
> >but only with the emergence of spacetime would latitudinal
> > geometry have to be taken into account,to refresh your memory this
> > becomes acute at the poles where multiple time difference results
>
> Rubbish. Answer Randy's question - how long does it take to bounce
> a ball of a wall in another timezone. I'll give you a hint - you
> can try it and count your heartbeats to find out.
How do you exclude/ignore multiple cross polar time differences from
your answer(s) while not excluding geometry of the same clocks that
measure time AS A CONVENIENCE for determining geometry of location.If
you don't recognise multiple answers it means the Earth is cylindrical
,similar to a mercator projection but if you do recognise the multiple
results what can be said of the difficulties that George correctly
points out that would emerge ,the same one Einstein recognised but in
a different fashion ?.
Gregory L. Hansen
Oriel36 <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
>news:<ad3tu3$do4$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> In article <ufajlag...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:ad2lba$a2g$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
>> >> In article <uf8atje...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but...
>> >>
>> >> >6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? Where'd that come from?
>> >
>> >It comes from relativity and standards of it's measurement actually.
>>
>> Could you explain in considerably more detail?
>
>If Speicher is back to calling spacetime a mathematical abstraction
>you'd better believe there is something up besides you wrote back in
>March;
[astonishingly many words snipped...]
>How do you exclude/ignore multiple cross polar time differences from
>your answer(s) while not excluding geometry of the same clocks that
>measure time AS A CONVENIENCE for determining geometry of location.If
>you don't recognise multiple answers it means the Earth is cylindrical
>,similar to a mercator projection but if you do recognise the multiple
>results what can be said of the difficulties that George correctly
>points out that would emerge ,the same one Einstein recognised but in
>a different fashion ?.
So you're saying that because navigators ignore the differences in clock
rates with latitude, relativity is falsified?
tj Frazir
run slower . Big deal .
Time dont change the rate of energy does .
The mass changes time dont.
99.9 % of the energy of the universe is not mass and expanding and
people cant figet gravity as a low energy presure around non expanding
mass . G wiss
Oriel36
> In article <273f8e06.02053...@posting.google.com>,
> Oriel36 <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
> >news:<ad3tu3$do4$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu>...
> >> In article <ufajlag...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:ad2lba$a2g$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> >> In article <uf8atje...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but...
> >> >>
> >> >> >6: The Earth is not cylindrical shaped.
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh? Where'd that come from?
> >> >
> >> >It comes from relativity and standards of it's measurement actually.
> >>
> >> Could you explain in considerably more detail?
> >
> >If Speicher is back to calling spacetime a mathematical abstraction
> >you'd better believe there is something up besides you wrote back in
> >March;
>
> [astonishingly many words snipped...]
That I could snip 100 years of articulate nonsense so easily.
>
> >How do you exclude/ignore multiple cross polar time differences from
> >your answer(s) while not excluding geometry of the same clocks that
> >measure time AS A CONVENIENCE for determining geometry of location.If
> >you don't recognise multiple answers it means the Earth is cylindrical
> >,similar to a mercator projection but if you do recognise the multiple
> >results what can be said of the difficulties that George correctly
> >points out that would emerge ,the same one Einstein recognised but in
> >a different fashion ?.
>
>
> So you're saying that because navigators ignore the differences in clock
> rates with latitude, relativity is falsified?
Who are you kidding,I already wrote that SR is a cartoon and as such
should be treated like one.
By the time the aetherist figures out that the relativist will turn SR
back into a mathematical abstraction while GR relects rotation from
acceleration, they will be left holding the check so to speak.For my
part that is a good tradeoff as I am aware that interest in the
novelistic 'time' factor of SR is waining with nothing new to take its
place but there is no way to mask the difficulties in seperating SR
from GR.
In other words,your true opponents have yet to emerge but when they do
it will all be played out on geometric lines,in this respect it will
be pitting so-called 'free creations of the mind' against the ability
to put observational data in proper context and I will tell you now
that you will lose.At present relativity is set off against aether but
aether was never the answer and I well recognise that SR cannot stand
on its own.
You probaly mistake sincerity for naivity or idealism and nothing I
have presented emerges from idealistic views,they rely solely on the
geometry of the Earth and how clocks are subservient to this
geometry,if for 100 years it was thought otherwise you and those who
came before you are and were badly mistaken.
Gregory L. Hansen
Oriel36 <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
>> >How do you exclude/ignore multiple cross polar time differences from
>> >your answer(s) while not excluding geometry of the same clocks that
>> >measure time AS A CONVENIENCE for determining geometry of location.If
>> >you don't recognise multiple answers it means the Earth is cylindrical
>> >,similar to a mercator projection but if you do recognise the multiple
>> >results what can be said of the difficulties that George correctly
>> >points out that would emerge ,the same one Einstein recognised but in
>> >a different fashion ?.
>>
>>
>> So you're saying that because navigators ignore the differences in clock
>> rates with latitude, relativity is falsified?
>
>Who are you kidding,I already wrote that SR is a cartoon and as such
>should be treated like one.
>
>By the time the aetherist figures out that the relativist will turn SR
>back into a mathematical abstraction while GR relects rotation from
>acceleration, they will be left holding the check so to speak.For my
>part that is a good tradeoff as I am aware that interest in the
>novelistic 'time' factor of SR is waining with nothing new to take its
[...]
But is that the argument? That navigators ignore the differences in clock
rates with latitude, therefore relativity can't be right? If I'm wrong,
please correct me.
As for the rest, I suppose time will tell.
Randy Poe
(Oriel36) wrote:
>Despite Randy's insistence,I recognise velocity/speed/acceleration as
>secondary terms and as outriggers of distance and clocks,the primary
>term being 'distance covered' alone,the geometry of the Earth and how
>clocks and their subdivisions are combined.
Are you ready yet to give me an actual prediction of the
results of one of my stopwatch experiments?
That would be a number, in hours, minutes and seconds. Not
"there are 23 answers". If you like give 23 answers in hours
minutes and seconds, though I'm willing to settle for any
two.
>> Rubbish. Answer Randy's question - how long does it take to bounce
>> a ball of a wall in another timezone. I'll give you a hint - you
>> can try it and count your heartbeats to find out.
>
>How do you exclude/ignore multiple cross polar time differences from
>your answer(s) while not excluding geometry of the same clocks
Then include them and give an answer.
- Randy
Oriel36
> On 30 May 2002 15:08:42 -0700, geraldk...@hotmail.com
> (Oriel36) wrote:
> >Despite Randy's insistence,I recognise velocity/speed/acceleration as
> >secondary terms and as outriggers of distance and clocks,the primary
> >term being 'distance covered' alone,the geometry of the Earth and how
> >clocks and their subdivisions are combined.
>
> Are you ready yet to give me an actual prediction of the
> results of one of my stopwatch experiments?
You would do well to look at the real men who are working their way
through another spherical rotating system - the gyroscope.
>
> That would be a number, in hours, minutes and seconds. Not
> "there are 23 answers". If you like give 23 answers in hours
> minutes and seconds, though I'm willing to settle for any
> two.
I'm sorry you will have to settle for a definite 23 for only then will
you recognise 360 degrees geometry as a complete translation of a
clock in equivalent terms of 86 400 seconds.Again,the men working on
the gyroscope will start to leave you behind with your cartoon
concept.
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ciclfucmrab42cmgr...@4ax.com>...
> > On 30 May 2002 15:08:42 -0700, geraldk...@hotmail.com
> > (Oriel36) wrote:
> > >Despite Randy's insistence,I recognise velocity/speed/acceleration as
> > >secondary terms and as outriggers of distance and clocks,the primary
> > >term being 'distance covered' alone,the geometry of the Earth and how
> > >clocks and their subdivisions are combined.
> >
> > Are you ready yet to give me an actual prediction of the
> > results of one of my stopwatch experiments?
>
> You would do well to look at the real men who are working their way
> through another spherical rotating system - the gyroscope.
I have no idea what that sentence is saying. Do you?
> >
> > That would be a number, in hours, minutes and seconds. Not
> > "there are 23 answers". If you like give 23 answers in hours
> > minutes and seconds, though I'm willing to settle for any
> > two.
>
> I'm sorry you will have to settle for a definite 23
OK, I'll settle for the definite 23. And they are... ?
- Randy