Crank taxonomy
PD
Usually self-published or with some manuscript in preparation, this
species has a metamorphosis transition in its life cycle, commonly
occurring late -- within the last third of the lifespan. This
transition is so abrupt that it is referred to as the Stunning
Revelation, after which the adult's sense of self-importance leaps
enormously. Ironically, in this stage the species is blind. As a
result, it spends its days in its nest, repeating the same song
endlessly until it expires. The song can be long and complex but with
many repetitions of "nexteinstein" or "einsteinwrong".
Needlus idlii:
Commonly called the "wandering tradesman", this species spends its
early life quite busy as a plumber or welder or garage mechanic or
crane operator, but later in life drops significantly in activity, and
so it wanders far out of its familiar territory. Though innocuous, it
actually *aims* to be a pest in its new environments. It survival
strategy involves mimicking the territory inhabitants' vocalizations
to encourage them to focus attention on itself, with no purpose other
than to exhaust those with whom it is engaged, at which point it moves
to the next inhabitant. It needs no sustenance in this stage in life
other than this activity.
Ferocis blusteris:
Also a migrant species, blusteris usually enters a new territory with
a lunging movement, accompanied by a loud and raucous cackling sound.
The fur on its neck is permanently standing on end, and it can puff
itself up to twice its real size while making its screeching, cackling
call. It is genetically disposed to indigestion and regurgitated bile,
which it blames on everyone else. Not very tall in stature, it
confronts opponents by attempting to dig the earth from under the
opponents feet, an action it calls "taking them down a peg". It has an
exceptionally small braincase and has been known to walk headlong into
trees.
Prettificus obscurii:
Related to chameleons and cuttlefish, the survival strategy of this
species is disguise and self-adornment. Unconfrontational by nature,
it spends most of its time on the forest floor preening and strutting
in circular patterns, pretending to be what it assuredly is not. Its
face-masks and body camouflage are not well-constructed, however, and
so this species is rare due to predation. When it senses a predator,
it emits a sniffing sound and ducks quickly into the underbrush.
Practice exercise:
Identify the following specimens according to their species. (NB: Not
all of these specimens are in fact living organisms. Some may be
merely rocks that look like organisms.)
Androcles
Spaceman
Ken Seto
Archimedes Plutonium
NoEinstein
Andre Michaud
Marcel Luttgens
Louis Savain
Pentcho Valev
Strich9
Henry Wilson
Robert Winn
Koobee Wublee
Mike
Lester Zick
Brian Jones
Dirk Van de moortel
577bebb0-2a16-4f9e...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
As usual, very nice :-)
Of course most of us perfectly know who (or what) goes where.
I think a much more interesting and surprising exercise would be
for *them* to tell us to which species (singular *or* plural!) they
think *they* belong according to *us*, but I don't think that any
one of them will have the guts to do that...
Dirk Vdm
John Park
phenomena as Strich9's recent silence. I'm not sure if it's because
people started ignoring him or because he's over at <physicsbanter.com>
gloating over the success of his new "Einstein's Empire" thread. . . . Well
maybe not exactly gloating.
--John Park
Dono
Grandioses earnestis:
-Ken Shito
-Juan Alvarez Gonzalez
-Ajay Sharma
-Reg Cahill
-Tom Van Flandern
-Vertner Vergon
-Erik Baird
-Stephen Crothers
-Harry Ricker III
xxein
xxein: You forgot the largest group. Ignoramus, ignoramus.
John Kennaugh
>On Sep 12, 9:46 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>xxein: You forgot the largest group. Ignoramus, ignoramus.
>
is certainly a substantial sub group of
Einsteinian Arrogantimus
Sub group - Ignoramus, ignoramus - These have a pathetic knowledge of
relativity and where it comes from but their arrogance is inversely
proportional to their knowledge. They aspire to be grouped with the
relativists they look up to and believe that by jumping in and verbally
abusing anyone who refuses to profess the 'one true faith' this will be
gain them acceptance. They are the 'football hooligans' of relativity
who feel they are serving their club by beating up the fans of rival
clubs. With 'friends' like these defending it, relativity hardly needs
critics.
Another subgroup of Einsteinian Arrogantimus is
Muleius Blinkerous - These refuse to look at, think about, or discuss
anything which they are worried might undermine their faith. Their way
of staying pure is to avoid anything which might corrupt. They tend to
repeat well worn phrases and snip large chunks of postings they are not
prepared to risk getting involved with; frequently leaving a single
sentence without its context which they then attack from within their
comfort zone. Such people tend to recycle other peoples idea and quote
'what it says in the book' as if it were their own while in truth not
wishing to risk being original. By this means they hope to be mistaken
for an authority on the subject.
Then Definitely not a subgroup Einsteinian Arrogantimus there is
Hereticus Courteous.
This species believes that debates should be conducted in a courteous
and well mannered way even when it is unlikely the two sides will ever
agree. They can be a little tedious and predictable as their arguments
tend to be repeated on the grounds that they have not been refuted. This
species is extremely rare and tends to have a short half life before
decaying into Hereticus Uncourteous or worse due to bombardment and
abuse suffered at the hands of Einsteinian Arrogantimus Sub group -
Ignoramus, ignoramus.
I am too polite to name names.
--
John Kennaugh
"Conformity may even bring you a university chair, but all advance comes
from non conformity. If there had been no troublemakers, no dissenters,
we should still be living in caves" - A J P Taylor (historian)
Androcles
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11uLHZHn...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
Not even John Kennaugh, Hereticus Courteous?
Or Androcles, Scientificus Arrogantimus Discourteous Sapiens Sapiens?
John Kennaugh
--
John Kennaugh
Androcles
Oh yes, we have more than our fair share of those. They are what the film
industry calls "extras", put there by the director to fill in the background
but every one of them hopes to be noticed and wants star billing with
their name on the credits, basking in Einstein's lime light. They turn out
to
be stooges.
gabydewilde
> Needlus idlii:
> Commonly called the "wandering tradesman", this species spends its
> early life quite busy as a plumber or welder or garage mechanic or
> crane operator, but later in life drops significantly in activity, and
> so it wanders far out of its familiar territory. Though innocuous, it
> actually *aims* to be a pest in its new environments. It survival
> strategy involves mimicking the territory inhabitants' vocalizations
> to encourage them to focus attention on itself, with no purpose other
> than to exhaust those with whom it is engaged, at which point it moves
> to the next inhabitant. It needs no sustenance in this stage in life
> other than this activity.
>
oh? I'm flattered....
What really flatters a man is that you think him worth flattering -
George Bernard Shaw
xxein
xxein: I wish George Bernard Shaw would/could have taken an interest
in the physic.
mL
.. maybe he did (if you mean "an interest in physics"?):
bjones
>Grandioses earnestis:
==SNIP==
>Louis Savain
>Pentcho Valev
>Strich9
>Henry Wilson
>Robert Winn
>Koobee Wublee
>Mike
>Lester Zick
>Brian Jones
==SNIP==
F-Y-I
Libel is a "false or unjustified injury to someone's reputation."
Your first problem is that you have given no evidence that
anything that I have written is "crackpotish."
Your second problem is that you have no evidence that anything
that I have written is "crackpotish."
And your third problem is the fact that I - on the other hand -
can prove that I am not a crank by challenging you and your
buddy Dirk with the following clock transport case:
Clock transport will be used to prove that special relativity
not only has no explanation for time dilation, but that it cannot
have an explanation.
This will be done by comparing _slow_ clock transport with
_rapid_ clock transport.
Given an inertial frame A with clock C1 at its origin, and
clock C2 at point (x,0,0), with the clocks related by standard
(Einsteinian) synchronization, we will compare the "stationary"
clocks' readings with those of a slowly transported clock C3.
As C3 slowly passes C1, they both read zero. When C3 passes C2,
they will have almost identical readings.
However, when we switch to the rapidly transported clock, C4,
even if C4 matches C1 in passing, it will _not_ match C2 when
it passes C2.
In terms of people, C1 is old, whereas C4 is young when they
meet.
But the theory of special relativity has no physical cause for
this physical difference.
Both C3 and C4 traveled along the same straight path at steady
speeds. (All acceleration can be eliminated if we let C4 get
up to speed prior to passing the origin clock C1.)
Special relativity advocates have tried to "explain" this via
the odometer example, but the above shows this to be worthless
at best. As mentioned, the traveling clocks C3 and C4 took the
same path between the two comparison events. They do not go to
New York, NY from San Diego, California via different routes.
The closest relativity theory has come to an "explanation" is
when its advocates state that the clocks read differently (or
the people aged differently) because they were in different
frames. But why should merely being in different frames make
people age differently?
It should be clear to anyone by now that the only physical
reason for the different ages of twins or triplets who are
in different inertial frames is the simple fact that they
move at different speeds through space.
But this was why I stated above that the theory of special
relativity not only has no explanation, but cannot have one.
It cannot have one because it denies all meaning to the notion
of motion in space (or absolute movement).
(quoting Einstein)
"... and as the prime factor involved in this contraction we
find, not the motion in itself, to which we cannot attach any
meaning, but the motion with respect to the body of reference
chosen in the particular case in point."
["Relativity," Chapt. 16] http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html
As I said, the OP (and/or his pal, Dirk) need(s) to provide
solid evidence of any crackpottery in my case, and/or meet the
given challenge, or take my name off of their list.
/bjones/
RustyJames
> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 577bebb0-2a16-4f9e-8a0e-df575d50d...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
ok take the biological element out of the equation for the use of
clocks and use radioactive isitopes as the time peace,lets use This
is the type of decay associated with nuclear decay and capacitor
discharge. In nuclear decay, each atom has a set probability of
decaying over a given time period.
dx/dt = -kx
This, in English, means that the rate of disappearance of x will
depend of the amount of x you have left, with k as a rate constant. We
can solve this differential equation by inspection, simply by the
thought process:
"What, differentiated, gives minus k times itself?"
The answer is, of course Ae-kt, thus we recieve the equation x=Ae-kt
giving us values of x for varying t.
For values of the constants, we can put t=0, ie when the system
begins. For the radioactive decay, at t=0, x is equal to however many
atoms you begin with, or x0. k is the decay constant, given in s-1
(This is frequently written as a lambda). T1/2 (the half life of your
sample) can be found by the equation T1/2=ln(2)/k.
If you have N 0 atoms of a radioactive isotope at time 0, the number N
which you have at time t is given by the equation:
N = N0 e-λ t
Here lambda is the "decay constant", a measure of how fast the isotope
decays. It is equal to (ln 2) divided by the half-life.
The equation above can be derived from the fact that since each atom
of a radioactive isotope has an equal probability of decaying in a
given time period, the rate of decay is proportional to the number of
radioactive atoms present, i.e.:
dN/dt = -λ N.
so The isotope Polonium 214 has a half-life of 164 microseconds,(164 x
10 to the -6 or, .000164 of ONE SECOND!!!) This means that the
granites ABSOLUTELY, HAD to form in less than .001148 of ONE SECOND!!!
so using its half life decay speed and by calculating the speed it
travels relitive to slower speeds time dialation can be calculated by
tghe difference in its atomic wheight at different speeds.
RustyJames
>
> Here lambda is the "decay constant", a measure of how fast the isotope
> decays. It is equal to (ln 2) divided by the half-life.
>
> The equation above can be derived from the fact that since each atom
> of a radioactive isotope has an equal probability of decaying in a
> given time period, the rate of decay is proportional to the number of
> radioactive atoms present, i.e.:
>
>
> so The isotope Polonium 214 has a half-life of 164 microseconds,(164 x
> 10 to the -6 or, .000164 of ONE SECOND!!!) This means that the
> granites ABSOLUTELY, HAD to form in less than .001148 of ONE SECOND!!!
> so using its half life decay speed and by calculating the speed it
> travels relitive to slower speeds time dialation can be calculated by
>
> - Show quoted text -
ok take the biological element out of the equation for the use of
clocks for proving time dialation in time frame reference and use
radioactive isotopes as the time peace, lets use Polonium 214 This
type isotope has a decay associated with nuclear decay. In nuclear
decay, each atom has a set probability of decaying over a given time
period.
dx/dt = -kx
This, in English, means that the rate of disappearance of x will
depend of the amount of x you have left, with k as a rate constant.
We
can solve this differential equation by inspection, simply by the
thought process:
"What, differentiated, gives minus k times itself?"
The answer is, of course Ae-kt, thus we receive the equation x=Ae-kt
giving us values of x for varying t.
For values of the constants, we can put t=0, ie when the system
begins. For the radioactive decay, at t=0, x is equal to however many
atoms you begin with, or x0. k is the decay constant, given in s-1
(This is frequently written as a lambda). T1/2 (the half life of your
sample) can be found by the equation T1/2=ln(2)/k.
If you have N 0 atoms of a radioactive isotope at time 0, the number
N
which you have at time t is given by the equation:
N = N0 e-ë t
Here lambda is the "decay constant", a measure of how fast the
isotope
decays. It is equal to (ln 2) divided by the half-life.
The equation above can be derived from the fact that since each atom
of a radioactive isotope has an equal probability of decaying in a
given time period, the rate of decay is proportional to the number of
radioactive atoms present, i.e.:
dN/dt = -ë N.
So the isotope Polonium 214 has a half-life of 164 microseconds, (164
x
10 to the -6 or, .000164 of ONE SECOND!!!) This means that the
granites ABSOLUTELY, HAD to form in less than .001148 of ONE
SECOND!!!
so using its atomic weight change after half life decay in respect to
speed you accelerate the particle and by calculating the difference in
speed relative to slower speeds. time dialation can be calculated by
the difference in its atomic weight at different speeds are plotted
out from zero to 99.9 percent the speed of light which can be obtained
by jets of ionized gas or plasma moving at up to 99.9 percent of the
speed of light
PD
> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 577bebb0-2a16-4f9e-8a0e-df575d50d...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
>
> ==SNIP==
> >Louis Savain
> >Pentcho Valev
> >Strich9
> >Henry Wilson
> >Robert Winn
> >Koobee Wublee
> >Mike
> >Lester Zick
> >Brian Jones
>
> ==SNIP==
> F-Y-I
>
> Libel is a "false or unjustified injury to someone's reputation."
You don't know your law very well. The above definition is not
actionable.
>
> Your first problem is that you have given no evidence that
> anything that I have written is "crackpotish."
Nor do I intend to.
>
> Your second problem is that you have no evidence that anything
> that I have written is "crackpotish."
That's your opinion, I'm sure.
>
> And your third problem is the fact that I - on the other hand -
> can prove that I am not a crank by challenging you and your
> buddy Dirk with the following clock transport case:
Oh, I don't know what a dare proves. It presumes that you have the
reasonable expectation of a response to your challenge.
I personally do not find dares from crackpots compelling.
Nor do I find any conclusion that you would draw from my failure to
take up the dare to be compelling. That is the presumption of a
childish dare in the first place, that your dare matters.
[sssssssnip]
Androcles
"bjones" <nip...@4sure.com> wrote in message
news:YBJGk.41697$Nu3....@newsfe14.iad...
I'm disappointed that I'm not ON their list. Perhaps my name was
snipped. Being called a crackpot by a bigot is a complement.
The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend but he could be
an ally.
bjones
-{a very lame reply}-
For the record:
The OP, PD, insists upon labeling me a crank even
while insisting that he has no intentions of showing
any evidence.
He also refused to defend the theory of special
relativity against my simple challenge to it.
Speaking of which, here is an extension for those
who may not have found it so simple:
The numerous advocates of the theory of special
relativity seem to believe that physical clock
rates do not actually vary; consider the following
comments:
---------------------------------------------------
[quote]
"And in the twin paradox there are no changes in
the clocks, in terms of their actual rates, etc."
Tom Roberts
http://tinyurl.com/4qve6k
---------------------------------------------------
[quote - laden w/sarcasm]
"If two odometers on cars traveling between
Greenville and Columbia record different distances,
then the odometer is malfunctioning, because the
science of distance says that there is one distance
between Greenville and Columbia, and if those two
don't agree, then it is obvious that one of them is
malfunctioning. ...
It's the speed. Everybody knows that speed affects
odometers. If one of them hits a tree at high speed,
the odometer stops working. If you hit it at low
speed, it still works. Speed affects odometers."
PD
http://tinyurl.com/43q9rw
---------------------------------------------------
PD and TR claim that speed does not affect the
physical rate of a clock; however, my simple
clock transport example proves otherwise.
Let clocks A and B be on the x axis of an inertial
frame.
{A}-------------------------------------------{B}
A and B are related via Einstein's definition of
"synchronization." ("standard synchronization")
We now very slowly transport clock C from A to B,
with C matching A at the start.
When C passes B, they will read the same time (for
all practical purposes).
So, if it took 15 years per B (and, by extension, A),
then it also took 15 years per C.
Thus far, PD's and TR's claim has not been shot down.
But now we switch to rapid transportation, and we rapidly
send clock D from A to B, with D matching A at the start.
Unlike the case with the slowly transported clock C, we
find that when D passes B, they will NOT read the same
time.
However, if PD and TR are correct in claiming that mere
speed does not affect a clock's physical rate, then all
three clocks (A, B, and D) should agree at the end.
If it took 2 years per B (and, by extension, A), then it
should also take 2 years per D, but D will not agree with
B at the end.
Between the same two events, we have clocks recording two
different time spans. If people were involved, then we
would have people aging differently after simply moving
at different speeds.
The people (and the clocks) traveled along identical paths,
so the odometer analogy fails.
There was no acceleration.
Why should people in different (inertial) frames age
differently?
The theory of special relativity cannot tell us because in
order to do so, it must admit to the absolute motion that
causes physical time dilation.
But this is not the worst of it for the theory.
The worst of it is the fact that physically slowed clocks
cannot give correct results. Only a clock that is at rest
in space runs unslowed.
Given an unslowed clock (along with an uncontracted ruler),
the Michelson-Morley experiment would have a non-null result.
(If the clock and ruler are moving through space, then all we
have to do is correct for the distortions.)
Also, given two unslowed and absolutely synchronous clocks
(along with an uncontracted ruler), the one-way light speed
experiment would have a non-null result.
Given slowed, absolutely asynchronous clocks along with
physically contracted rulers, we unfortunately obtain the
meaningless mess known as the relativistic transformation
equations plus the relativistic velocity composition case.
Where exactly did the theory of special relativity take the
wrong turn?
It did this at the start by ignoring the very important fact
that --- despite the famous MMx null result --- light is still
an absolute frame.
Given its unchanging and known speed through space, light is
the perfect absolute frame.
The MMx failure was not due to light, but to the use of bad
(or physically distorted) instruments.
There is no way that we can tell up front if a given clock or
ruler is distorted or not, so we cannot win by repeating the
MMx.
However, the one-way experiment is fundamentally different,
and can reveal our motion through space as long as we use
(absolutely) synchronous clocks even if they are slowed.
Yes, the Galilean velocity addition formula is essentially
correct. All we need to correct for is the distortions,
and we can do this because they are related in a known way
to our speed through space.
Given slowed clocks and a shrunken ruler, with the clocks
being (absolutely) synchronous, instead of light's one-way
speed being the Galilean light speed = c+/-v, we would get
the similar but less simple light speed = c^2/(c+/-s), where
s is our speed through space.
For example, if s is 0.6c, then we would measure light's one-
way approaching speed as 2.5c, and its departing speed as only
0.625c. Using unslowed clocks and an uncontracted ruler, we
would of course get the Galilean 1.6c and .4c.
/bjones/
Spaceman
It's simple really,
All relativists suffer from Multiple Standards Syndrome.
MSS.
It is a brainwash effect of the relativity religion.
They have been brainwashed into ignoring the most important
function of a clock.
and that function is of course to never change rate.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
PD
wrote:
> bjones wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:21:24 -0700 (PDT), PD
Well, there's always your approach: Any universal crappy standard is
better than a local standard.
PD
Spaceman
That is not my approach.
My approach is to use a single standard.
You are approach is the MSS (Multiple Standard Syndrome)
It is sad you have lost the science of measurement just because
you can not understand a clock malfunction.
:)
PD
wrote:
Right. A crappy clock for a single standard.
A clock that is plagued by all the factors that you say cause clock
malfunctions.
Good plan.
Spaceman
Why, a single atomic clock is crappy now?
Oh ya. it has to be because it proves you are full of shit.
LOL
PD
Is it free of all those factors you say cause clock malfunctions?
Spaceman
Of course not. that would be an impossible clock, it simply
has the least of all those factors involved so it is the best
standard.
We know you can not grasp using a single standard because
of your MSS (Multiple Standard Syndrome) but maybe there
will be a drug that can cure you some day.
PD
Heck, it isn't even that. Even you acknowledged that a clock on Pluto
would be subject to less of these malfunction-causing factors, and
still you say GMT is the best one available. You speak with forked
tongue.
Spaceman
No,
You said you wanted to use Pluto.
I said go ahead.
The thing is you still need to adjust Plutos clock to
match the Earth based standard if you wish to scientifically
time things.
Again you prove you have no clue how to scientifically time things
at all.
You speak with brainwashed and drained brain.
You really should learn the most important function of a clock.
You may actually learn a tiny bit about the science of measurement
after you do.
Right now, you are clueless just as all relativists are.
"MSS" Multiple Standard Syndrome is your biggest weakness
in science.
You are one sad con man.
PD
Why match the Earth clock, since it's a crappier clock? Why on earth
would you advocate matching to a crappy clock just because it's on
Earth?
PD
PD
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:21:24 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -{a very lame reply}-
>
> For the record:
> The OP, PD, insists upon labeling me a crank even
> while insisting that he has no intentions of showing
> any evidence.
Yes, indeed. Did you look up libel law about that?
>
> He also refused to defend the theory of special
> relativity against my simple challenge to it.
It's been a long time since I've responded to 3rd grade dares. I see
you still attempt them. If you could get people to respond to every
idiotic "challenge" you wanted to propose, you could keep people busy
for a very long time. Fortunately, not many people care about your
idiotic "challenges".
[idiotic challenge from a crank snipped]
PD
Spaceman
The Earth clock is what creates a week, a month, a year.
Apparently you love to ignore where time came from when it
was invented by humans on Earth.
You love to prove how clueless you really are huh PD?
PD
Uh-huh. And the Earth clock is a crappier clock, which you
acknowledge. But because this crappier clock is the one where it all
started, then we should stick to referencing things to the crappier
clock?
What, you think the less crappy clock on Pluto would have a difficult
time counting to 60 to mark a minute, counting 60 of those to mark an
hour, counting 24 of those to mark a day, counting seven of those to
mark a week? You think it might miss a count somewhere and we have to
check against the crappy clock on earth to be sure?
The automobile was based the horse-drawn carriage. By your logic, we
should continue to feed hay into cars, because that's where wheeled
family locomotion all started when it was invented by humans on Earth.
PD
Spaceman
I did not state such, again you use your old "you said" trickster bullshit.
You love to prove you have to lie and cheat to keep your faith huh?
LOL
PD
Perhaps I misunderstood you. Let's check our facts.
Do you agree that the GMT clock is subject to the factors that you are
convinced cause clock malfunctions: gravity, gravitational
fluctuations, centrifugal effects, fluctuations in centrifugal
effects, and motion?
Do you agree that a clock on Pluto would be subject to these effects
to a much lesser degree?
- Pluto is smaller so planet's gravity is weaker
- Pluto is farther away from sun so sun's gravity is weaker
- Pluto is moving slower around sun, so motion is less
- Pluto rotates more slowly so centrifugal effects are less
- Pluto does not have moon-caused tides, so gravitational fluctuations
are less
Do you then agree that a clock on Pluto would be subject to less
causes of malfunctions than the GMT clock?
Spaceman
Of course it would be under the effect of such.
But of course.
It is just counting the years as they actually physically occur.
Do you think we should ignore the planets motion around the
Sun as the standard for a year?
> Do you agree that a clock on Pluto would be subject to these effects
> to a much lesser degree?
No actually it would have more problems and
Plutos motion does not determine a year for Earth at all.
Again,
Do you think we should use a different method to determine
1 year?
Is the moton of Earth one time around the Sun not a year?
> - Pluto is smaller so planet's gravity is weaker
> - Pluto is farther away from sun so sun's gravity is weaker
> - Pluto is moving slower around sun, so motion is less
> - Pluto rotates more slowly so centrifugal effects are less
> - Pluto does not have moon-caused tides, so gravitational fluctuations
> are less
>
> Do you then agree that a clock on Pluto would be subject to less
> causes of malfunctions than the GMT clock?
No,
It would be subject to many things we can not keep track of at all.
Pluto has no tides but it's moon is much closer to it's size than
the Earths moon is to the Earth.
Do you really think a clock that is not Earth would be good
for timing Earths motion around the sun?
If you do, why don't you think we should use Earth clocks to
determine the time for clocks around the Earth?
You really love to prove you have no clue about what time is
You prove you do not know what a year is.
You prove you do not know the most important function of
a clock
You prove you do not understand when a clock has malfuntioned.
You prove you accpet a malfunction fo Earths clocks but not
for any other clocks.
You prove you are a relativity rubber ruler worshipping con man.
You prove you have no clue about "precision" when you say
a clock that has changed rate is still keeping "precise" time.
You prove you are either a moron or a con man.
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I misunderstood you. Let's check our facts.
>
> > Do you agree that the GMT clock is subject to the factors that you are
> > convinced cause clock malfunctions: gravity, gravitational
> > fluctuations, centrifugal effects, fluctuations in centrifugal
> > effects, and motion?
>
> Of course it would be under the effect of such.
> But of course.
> It is just counting the years as they actually physically occur.
> Do you think we should ignore the planets motion around the
> Sun as the standard for a year?
Do you think that we are incapable of having a clock count to 60 to
mark a minute, count those to 60 to mark an hour, count those to 24 to
mark a day, and count 7 of those to mark a week? Do you think that is
beyond clock technology, and that the only way we can safely do it is
by checking it now and again against Stonehenge?
>
> > Do you agree that a clock on Pluto would be subject to these effects
> > to a much lesser degree?
>
> No actually it would have more problems and
> Plutos motion does not determine a year for Earth at all.
I'm not asking the clock to mark a Pluto year, and then divide that by
365 to mark a day, and then divide that by 24 to mark an hour, and
then divide that by 60 to mark a minute, and then divide that by 60 to
mark a second. Are you an idiot? Why yes, I believe you are!
> Again,
> Do you think we should use a different method to determine
> 1 year?
> Is the moton of Earth one time around the Sun not a year?
Not any more. That's FAR too crude for today's precision. The way we
used to know (a long time ago) when we had made one lap around the sun
was to mark the day of the solstice or the equinox. That would give us
a precision on the year of about 1 part in 7000. Now the precision on
the year needs to be about one part in 100,000,000,000. To give you an
idea what that means, the Earth's orbit has a circumference of 940
million kilometers. This means to get the precision we need for a year
these days, we'd need to know the location of the earth in that 940
million kilometers to a precision of 10 meters. We don't. So no, the
year is not defined any longer in terms of the time it takes the earth
to go around the Sun, because that's not precise enough for needs. I
know you learned in 3rd grade that the year is defined as the time it
takes for the Earth to go around the sun, and for 3rd graders that's
good enough.
Likewise the meter was originally defined to be 1 ten-millionth of the
distance from the equator to the north pole. That precision was fine
in the days when it was first defined, but it's certainly no longer
used and it's not accurate enough, and if we actually *measure* the
distance from the equator to the pole, it's nowhere near 10,000,000 m.
This doesn't mean that the standard meter is broken. It means that, as
the precision of the standard has to increase, you have to look to
other definitions of the standards.
It doesn't matter at all that you have just gotten used to the things
that you were taught in the 3rd grade and are mad that anyone would
pull the rug out from under you. I happened before you were born.
Tough shit. Get used to it.
>
> > - Pluto is smaller so planet's gravity is weaker
> > - Pluto is farther away from sun so sun's gravity is weaker
> > - Pluto is moving slower around sun, so motion is less
> > - Pluto rotates more slowly so centrifugal effects are less
> > - Pluto does not have moon-caused tides, so gravitational fluctuations
> > are less
>
> > Do you then agree that a clock on Pluto would be subject to less
> > causes of malfunctions than the GMT clock?
>
> No,
> It would be subject to many things we can not keep track of at all.
Ah, so now you say you *don't know* what the causes of clock
malfunctions are at all.
> Pluto has no tides but it's moon is much closer to it's size than
> the Earths moon is to the Earth.
Yes, and the planet is phase-locked with that moon, so there are no
tides.
> Do you really think a clock that is not Earth would be good
> for timing Earths motion around the sun?
Why not? I can take the atomic clock on Pluto that marks seconds, and
multiply them by 60 to get a minute, then multiply those to get an
hour, then multiply those by 24 to get a day, and so on. Those "ding"
marks wouldn't have anything to do with Pluto days or months (in fact
Pluto days are Pluto months), but would certainly have something to do
with Earth minutes, hours, days, weeks, years. Same clock, same
counter.
Are you a bonehead? Why yes, I believe you are!
> If you do, why don't you think we should use Earth clocks to
> determine the time for clocks around the Earth?
Because they're fully of the crappy influences that you say cause
clock malfunctions!
Now tell me, do you REALLY think that the GMT clock looks up in the
sky once a year and checks that the Earth has gone around once around
the Sun? Do you think the GMT clock cares AT ALL where it is placed?
I cannot believe that you think an atomic clock can only measure an
Earth year if it is placed on Earth.
You think that if we placed an atomic clock on Mars that it would wait
until Mars had gone around the Sun once before reporting that year had
gone by?
Are you really that much of an idiot? Why yes, I believe you are!
Spaceman
> On Oct 13, 1:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps I misunderstood you. Let's check our facts.
>>
>>> Do you agree that the GMT clock is subject to the factors that you
>>> are convinced cause clock malfunctions: gravity, gravitational
>>> fluctuations, centrifugal effects, fluctuations in centrifugal
>>> effects, and motion?
>>
>> Of course it would be under the effect of such.
>> But of course.
>> It is just counting the years as they actually physically occur.
>> Do you think we should ignore the planets motion around the
>> Sun as the standard for a year?
>
> Do you think that we are incapable of having a clock count to 60 to
> mark a minute, count those to 60 to mark an hour, count those to 24 to
> mark a day, and count 7 of those to mark a week? Do you think that is
> beyond clock technology, and that the only way we can safely do it is
> by checking it now and again against Stonehenge?
Poor PD,
He will never grasp the simple clock malfunction.
He refuses to grasp it so much that he needs to do a super dance
about the clock being used as the standard on Earth.
Poor PD also can not account for the missing ticks of
the traveling twin in the twins paradox.
Poor PD actually thinks a paradox is not a paradox.
LOL
You really love to prove you have no clue about what time is
You prove you do not know what a year is.
You prove you do not know the most important function of
a clock
You prove you do not understand when a clock has malfuntioned.
You prove you accept a malfunction of Earths clocks but not
for any other clocks.
You prove you are a relativity rubber ruler worshipping con man.
You prove you have no clue about "precision" when you say
a clock that has changed rate is still keeping "precise" time.
You prove you are either a moron or a con man.
PD has proven beyond measure how ignorant about his
own multiple standards he truly is.
:)
bjones
> Yes, indeed. Did you look up libel law about that?
Yes, indeed, here it is:
Libel law:
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through
broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the
community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can
bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.
A libel case may be dismissed if the injurious statements were stated as
opinion rather than fact; if they are deemed "fair comments and criticisms";
if they do not actually do injury to the plaintiff's reputation; or if the
statements were true. The plaintiff in a libel case must also prove that the
defendant acted negligently or with malice in order to win a case.
>
>
> > He also refused to defend the theory of special
> > relativity against my simple challenge to it.
>
> It's been a long time since I've responded to 3rd grade dares. I see
> you still attempt them. If you could get people to respond to every
> idiotic "challenge" you wanted to propose, you could keep people busy
> for a very long time. Fortunately, not many people care about your
> idiotic "challenges".
>
> [idiotic challenge from a crank snipped]
>
> PD
For someone who is not equipped to meet a simple challenge,
you sure like calling others "idiotic." Why don't you just
admit that you cannot defend the theory?
/bjones/
Spaceman
PD thinks ignoring the facts given and parroting relativity
bullshit is defending a theory.
Then again he also thinks two clocks running at different
rates are running at the same standard rate.
:)
PD suffers from Multiple Standard Syndrome with a
side effect of Precision Phobia.
:)
PD
Ah, so you realize that you've got no good reason to use the Earth
clock as a standard and have to change the subject back to twins.
Spaceman
I do have good reason.
I have aleady told you.
Earths natural motion around the Sun is how a year is measured.
Again you prove you have no clue what a Natural year is.
The twins are the same "years" old no matter where either of them
goes.
It is amazing you are either too stupid to think about that or
just a sad con man that needs to hide that fact as much as possible.
The twins are the same age according to the entire Universe PD.
Not just the Earth and Sun.
Sheesh you are one sad con man or just freakin ignorant.
.
PD has proven beyond measure how ignorant about his
own multiple standards he truly is.
:)
--
Dirk Van de moortel
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kinston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in message
8CNIk.968$E%3....@newsfe19.iad
I just love this new pseudonym, although it's a bit cryptic.
But it is original!
Dirk Vdm
PD
> On Oct 13, 9:41 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, indeed. Did you look up libel law about that?
>
> Yes, indeed, here it is:
>
> Libel law:
> An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through
> broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the
> community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can
> bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.
And here we get to it....
> A libel case may be dismissed if the injurious statements were stated as
> opinion rather than fact; if they are deemed "fair comments and criticisms";
> if they do not actually do injury to the plaintiff's reputation; or if the
> statements were true.
Exactly.
> The plaintiff in a libel case must also prove that the
> defendant acted negligently or with malice in order to win a case.
Exactly.
>
>
>
> > > He also refused to defend the theory of special
> > > relativity against my simple challenge to it.
>
> > It's been a long time since I've responded to 3rd grade dares. I see
> > you still attempt them. If you could get people to respond to every
> > idiotic "challenge" you wanted to propose, you could keep people busy
> > for a very long time. Fortunately, not many people care about your
> > idiotic "challenges".
>
> > [idiotic challenge from a crank snipped]
>
> > PD
>
> For someone who is not equipped to meet a simple challenge,
> you sure like calling others "idiotic." Why don't you just
> admit that you cannot defend the theory?
Because no one owes you a defense of the theory. The theory is fine.
It does not need to defend itself against the challenges of cranks.
Didn't we already discuss 3rd grade dares and its inefficacy as a
tactic?
PD