| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Bob Einstein" |
| Date: |
22 May 2004 08:01:01 AM |
| Object: |
Syncronized atomic clocks |
You all know about the sync atomic clock, the aeroplane and our earth.
Why should the clock in the aeroplane slow down? Why not the one left at
earth instead?
Relativity says we define both earth and the plane moving relative the
other. Both works. So how can we possibly decide that the aeroplane clock
slows down?
Helloooo Einsten..
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
23 May 2004 12:55:24 AM |
|
|
"Bob Einstein" <stupid_spammer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:haIrc.93108$dP1.296061@newsc.telia.net...
You all know about the sync atomic clock, the aeroplane and our
earth.
Why should the clock in the aeroplane slow down? Why not the one
left at
earth instead?
Relativity says we define both earth and the plane moving relative
the
other. Both works. So how can we possibly decide that the aeroplane
clock
slows down?
You are exceedingly unoriginal. This question has been raised more
than a dozen times since I have participated in this ng.
Please read the Relativity FAQ intead of starting the whole lot up yet
again.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
24 May 2004 11:28:04 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c8pecb$k6i$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Bob Einstein" <stupid_spammer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:haIrc.93108$dP1.296061@newsc.telia.net...
You all know about the sync atomic clock, the aeroplane and our
earth.
Why should the clock in the aeroplane slow down? Why not the one
left at
earth instead?
Relativity says we define both earth and the plane moving relative
the
other. Both works. So how can we possibly decide that the aeroplane
clock
slows down?
You are exceedingly unoriginal. This question has been raised more
than a dozen times since I have participated in this ng.
Please read the Relativity FAQ intead of starting the whole lot up yet
again.
Franz
When no one has a good answer all they can do is shout or blame. That is
just a symptom of narrow mindedness.
I have found 90% of the people here to act that way. That is not a good
personality of a creative and openminded scientist.
In fact time dilation is controversial. You better study and read between
the lines. Not just let yourself be fed with empty words and numbers.
Good luck
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
25 May 2004 10:01:30 AM |
|
|
"John" <Johnsss@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<oopsc.93339$dP1.297594@newsc.telia.net>...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c8pecb$k6i$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
When no one has a good answer all they can do is shout or blame. That is
just a symptom of narrow mindedness.
I have found 90% of the people here to act that way. That is not a good
personality of a creative and openminded scientist.
In fact time dilation is controversial. You better study and read between
the lines. Not just let yourself be fed with empty words and numbers.
The high likelihood is that the DHR's DON'T HAVE a good answer. That
is why the shouting , abuse, and endless repetition of the same old
mantra and links-----
they are following a "religious faith", and there is little else to
sustain them.
For example, Paul C prefers to instruct children. He can convince
their trusting, gullible little minds, and later on threaten to fail
them at exam time if they do not reproduce the jargon word perfect.
Mature minds which prefer to look at the logic (NOT circular) of an
arguement, and are not impressed by religious instruction and
assumptions applied to science, will continue to question Einstein's
Relativity.
Al Canute, Paul Canute, Dirk Canute, and all the other ranters in
their coven
will not be able to prevent this tide from drowning Relativity. Roll
on in!
Jim G
and then reject
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
25 May 2004 10:10:24 AM |
|
|
You are wrong Jim.... Physicists, teachers, learners are always questioning,
but in the case of Einstein's Relativity, that empirical data just keeps
confirming that it is correct... over and over and over.
Physical reality is based on the empirical results of observation and
experiment. You should know that. Science isn't done by opinion. For you,
Jim, you should invest in learning physics. It is just fascinating!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
26 May 2004 02:51:40 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B361CF.629E9C23@mchsi.com>...
You are wrong Jim.... Physicists, teachers, learners are always questioning,
but in the case of Einstein's Relativity, that empirical data just keeps
confirming that it is correct... over and over and over.
Physical reality is based on the empirical results of observation and
experiment. You should know that. Science isn't done by opinion. For you,
Jim, you should invest in learning physics. It is just fascinating!
I forgot you Sam! Your approach is to generally be oh so reasonable
and condescending, that you forget you are not the Pope talking to the
faithfull.
I (and others) am not impressed - ***** is much the same in any
guise. The math on which Relativity is based is (humanly) flawed, the
logic upon which it is based is a laff, and those young minds upon
whom it is foisted are being done an incredible disservice (apart from
mental gymnastics)
Regards
Jim G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
26 May 2004 10:58:34 AM |
|
|
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B361CF.629E9C23@mchsi.com>...
You are wrong Jim.... Physicists, teachers, learners are always questioning,
but in the case of Einstein's Relativity, that empirical data just keeps
confirming that it is correct... over and over and over.
Physical reality is based on the empirical results of observation and
experiment. You should know that. Science isn't done by opinion. For you,
Jim, you should invest in learning physics. It is just fascinating!
I forgot you Sam! Your approach is to generally be oh so reasonable
and condescending, that you forget you are not the Pope talking to the
faithfull.
I (and others) am not impressed - ***** is much the same in any
guise. The math on which Relativity is based is (humanly) flawed, the
logic upon which it is based is a laff, and those young minds upon
whom it is foisted are being done an incredible disservice (apart from
mental gymnastics)
Regards
Jim G
Jim, I usually assume the the first interest of participants is to learn
about the physics [in a physics newsgroup] and if you look back at all of
our interactions, you might notice that I've tried to steer you toward
resources to help you.
But you quickly adopted the characteristics of cranks and troll, choosing,
instead of gaining deeper insight, to try to argue against sound physics
and conventions. Just what is it you want from a newsgroup? It is not a
place were we are going to "start over" constructing the results of
physics... The starting point is that great body of knowledge that tens
of thousands have contributed to over several millennia.
There is NOTHING flawed about the mathematicS used in relativity. The flaw
is in your thinking... get over it and start to appreciate the beauty of
a theory that has been so successful.
Suggestion... review basic algebra. I wish you well Jim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
27 May 2004 02:07:57 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B4BEA7.7C6C120B@mchsi.com>...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B361CF.629E9C23@mchsi.com>...
You are wrong Jim.... Physicists, teachers, learners are always questioning,
but in the case of Einstein's Relativity, that empirical data just keeps
confirming that it is correct... over and over and over.
Physical reality is based on the empirical results of observation and
experiment. You should know that. Science isn't done by opinion. For you,
Jim, you should invest in learning physics. It is just fascinating!
Jim, I usually assume the the first interest of participants is to learn
about the physics [in a physics newsgroup] and if you look back at all of
our interactions, you might notice that I've tried to steer you toward
resources to help you.
Surely amongst all that info there would be ONE natural negative
entity!
I've looked till I am blind, and there is not. I must have missed
them; please just put a couple here.......
But you quickly adopted the characteristics of cranks and troll, choosing,
instead of gaining deeper insight,
absolutely to the contrary, it is the gaining of deeper insight,
as against the current "democratic" Relatavistic line, to which I
strive. A fatally flawed mantra, built up by ever so many mathematical
adepts, cannot change mistaken "beliefs" into realities.
to try to argue against sound physics
and conventions. Just what is it you want from a newsgroup? It is not a
place were we are going to "start over" constructing the results of
physics... The starting point is that great body of knowledge that tens
of thousands have contributed to over several millennia.
It won't happen over night, but in the future Relativity will be
smiled at, and people will wonder HOW so many apparently high IQs
could be so mislead and convinced
There is NOTHING flawed about the mathematicS used in relativity. The flaw
is in your thinking... get over it and start to appreciate the beauty of
a theory that has been so successful.
There are probably many bodies in the universe travelling at very high
speed. The larger will NEVER fit inside the smaller, due to velocity.
Suggestion... review basic algebra. I wish you well Jim.
Been there, done that! Circular logic is OUT.
(the bit which says that the ruler is shorter due to velocity; this
was arrived at because velocity alters time; because time is different
the ruler is shorter;
......and so Relativity "proves" Relativity).
You know what annoys me most? The academic cowardice! The same posters
who claim light speed (photons) cannot be compared because 0/0 is
"undefined", are quite happy to contemplate an "infinite" universe
(1/0). This is obviously a wriggle to avoid EVER comparing two
photons. Once comparisons are made, Relativity is dead, so DHR's seem
determined to avoid it all costs.
"This fruit is yellow; lemons are yellow; therefore this yellow fruit
is a lemon". That, in a lemon peel, is the level of logic which
sustains SR, and I require better math than that! So should you.
Clear thoughts
Jim G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
27 May 2004 09:01:12 AM |
|
|
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B4BEA7.7C6C120B@mchsi.com>...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B361CF.629E9C23@mchsi.com>...
You are wrong Jim.... Physicists, teachers, learners are always questioning,
but in the case of Einstein's Relativity, that empirical data just keeps
confirming that it is correct... over and over and over.
Physical reality is based on the empirical results of observation and
experiment. You should know that. Science isn't done by opinion. For you,
Jim, you should invest in learning physics. It is just fascinating!
Jim, I usually assume the the first interest of participants is to learn
about the physics [in a physics newsgroup] and if you look back at all of
our interactions, you might notice that I've tried to steer you toward
resources to help you.
Surely amongst all that info there would be ONE natural negative
entity!
I've looked till I am blind, and there is not. I must have missed
them; please just put a couple here.......
But you quickly adopted the characteristics of cranks and troll, choosing,
instead of gaining deeper insight,
absolutely to the contrary, it is the gaining of deeper insight,
as against the current "democratic" Relatavistic line, to which I
strive. A fatally flawed mantra, built up by ever so many mathematical
adepts, cannot change mistaken "beliefs" into realities.
to try to argue against sound physics
and conventions. Just what is it you want from a newsgroup? It is not a
place were we are going to "start over" constructing the results of
physics... The starting point is that great body of knowledge that tens
of thousands have contributed to over several millennia.
It won't happen over night, but in the future Relativity will be
smiled at, and people will wonder HOW so many apparently high IQs
could be so mislead and convinced
There is NOTHING flawed about the mathematicS used in relativity. The flaw
is in your thinking... get over it and start to appreciate the beauty of
a theory that has been so successful.
There are probably many bodies in the universe travelling at very high
speed. The larger will NEVER fit inside the smaller, due to velocity.
Suggestion... review basic algebra. I wish you well Jim.
Been there, done that! Circular logic is OUT.
(the bit which says that the ruler is shorter due to velocity; this
was arrived at because velocity alters time; because time is different
the ruler is shorter;
.....and so Relativity "proves" Relativity).
You know what annoys me most? The academic cowardice! The same posters
who claim light speed (photons) cannot be compared because 0/0 is
"undefined", are quite happy to contemplate an "infinite" universe
(1/0). This is obviously a wriggle to avoid EVER comparing two
photons. Once comparisons are made, Relativity is dead, so DHR's seem
determined to avoid it all costs.
"This fruit is yellow; lemons are yellow; therefore this yellow fruit
is a lemon". That, in a lemon peel, is the level of logic which
sustains SR, and I require better math than that! So should you.
Clear thoughts
Jim G
Jim, if Galileo were alive today writing about the "Dialogue
Concerning Two Chief Systems of Relativity" or some similar
title, you might be one of his characters, say, SIIMPLICIO.
Have a good read:
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
27 May 2004 10:21:45 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B5F4A4.CC5AB30A@mchsi.com>...
our interactions, you might notice that I've tried to steer you
toward
resources to help you.
Surely amongst all that info there would be ONE natural negative
entity!
I've looked till I am blind, and there is not. I must have missed
them; please just put a couple here.......
But you quickly adopted the characteristics of cranks and troll, choosing,
instead of gaining deeper insight,
absolutely to the contrary, it is the gaining of deeper insight,
as against the current "democratic" Relatavistic line, to which I
strive. A fatally flawed mantra, built up by ever so many mathematical
adepts, cannot change mistaken "beliefs" into realities.
to try to argue against sound physics
and conventions. Just what is it you want from a newsgroup? It is not a
place were we are going to "start over" constructing the results of
physics... The starting point is that great body of knowledge that tens
of thousands have contributed to over several millennia.
It won't happen over night, but in the future Relativity will be
smiled at, and people will wonder HOW so many apparently high IQs
could be so mislead and convinced
There is NOTHING flawed about the mathematicS used in relativity. The flaw
is in your thinking... get over it and start to appreciate the beauty of
a theory that has been so successful.
There are negative positions (numbers) in SR "proof". There are NO
negative ANYTHINGS in nature. Therefore SR (and GR) postulates are
UNnatural, and just plain wrong
There are probably many bodies in the universe travelling at very high
speed. The larger will NEVER fit inside the smaller, due to velocity.
Suggestion... review basic algebra. I wish you well Jim.
Been there, done that! Circular logic is OUT.
(the bit which says that the ruler is shorter due to velocity; this
was arrived at because velocity alters time; because time is different
the ruler is shorter;
.....and so Relativity "proves" Relativity).
You know what annoys me most? The academic cowardice! The same posters
who claim light speed (photons) cannot be compared because 0/0 is
"undefined", are quite happy to contemplate an "infinite" universe
(1/0). This is obviously a wriggle to avoid EVER comparing two
photons. Once comparisons are made, Relativity is dead, so DHR's seem
determined to avoid it all costs.
"This fruit is yellow; lemons are yellow; therefore this yellow fruit
is a lemon". That, in a lemon peel, is the level of logic which
sustains SR, and I require better math than that! So should you.
Clear thoughts
Jim G
Jim, if Galileo were alive today writing about the "Dialogue
Concerning Two Chief Systems of Relativity" or some similar
title, you might be one of his characters, say, SIIMPLICIO.
Have a good read:
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
For some time, astronomers have been observing gas and dust clouds
travelling very close to "c". Those clouds are NOT SHRUNKEN, nor do
they appear so. Given such obvious evidence of a faulty theory, what
simpleton could possibly hold to his beliefs? Just the SAM W's of this
brainwashed world!
Jim G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
27 May 2004 11:18:14 PM |
|
|
Jim Greenfield wrote:
For some time, astronomers have been observing gas and dust clouds
travelling very close to "c". Those clouds are NOT SHRUNKEN, nor do
they appear so. Given such obvious evidence of a faulty theory, what
simpleton could possibly hold to his beliefs? Just the SAM W's of this
brainwashed world!
Jim G
Relativistic motion toward or away from us is measured by Doppler shift
which is hardly lends itself to measuring the front and back of a cloud
of gas.
Tangential relativistic motion inferred from successive photographic
plates is not along the direction of contraction for us as observers.
Nothing faulty with the theory.. as every measurement to date is in
agreement.
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Read the literature Jim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
31 May 2004 10:58:00 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B6BD83.DE5A8C09@mchsi.com>...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
For some time, astronomers have been observing gas and dust clouds
travelling very close to "c". Those clouds are NOT SHRUNKEN, nor do
they appear so. Given such obvious evidence of a faulty theory, what
simpleton could possibly hold to his beliefs? Just the SAM W's of this
brainwashed world!
Jim G
Relativistic motion toward or away from us is measured by Doppler shift
which is hardly lends itself to measuring the front and back of a cloud
of gas.
Zip to do with this- the cloud is photographed CROSSING our view, so
Doppler NOT involved
Tangential relativistic motion inferred from successive photographic
plates is not along the direction of contraction for us as observers.
As I've said numerous, this shows categorically that SR is based on an
illusionary mistaken presumption. Have a look at ANY of the literature
you post as links, and the views are from the SIDE, as in the view of
this cloud. Show me by which light rays hitting our eye, we can "see"
the train?????? As you correctly point out in this wriggle, SR depends
on a view from FRONT or BACK ONLY. If you had this uninterrupted view
of the train (as we have of this cloud), you would see that the train
DOES NOT SHRINK!!! (If you are looking along the line of travel only,
you can never see anything but the grill or towbar- all else is
obscured, and the observer sees f*a- but being a DHR, still claims to
know what's happening)
Nothing faulty with the theory.. as every measurement to date is in
agreement.
No> Every time a frequency change is noted, it is just wrongly
attributed to DOPPLER. When a monochromatic source shows a change in
wavelength, it is showing right there that the source has begun to
move ref the observer. (sans gravity in vacuum). That has been seen a
zillion times, and STILL not recognised as a real change in the photon
velocity. Did you ever understand that frequency is actions/time AT A
FIXED POINT? Therefore a slower moving photon exhibits a longer
wavelength, and two photons with differing wavelengths can be
indistinguishable when travelling at different velocities. When this
is understood, perhaps science can move on from the Relativity morass.
.......and as for using the velocity of light to define the length of a
meter, and then turn around and use that meter rule to see how far
light travelled in a second..........what a crock!!!!!!!
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Read the literature Jim.
.......some real pearlers! I especially like the one which uses a light
operated clock to check that the speed of light isn't exceeded
(pi0)............
Here's an experiment for you Sam: put me in a box with a light source
of fixed frequency. Outside have the same light source in a fixed
position. I'll sleep well while the box is accellerated, so when I
awake I wont have any idea of my velocity. Let me drill a hole in the
box in order to look at the outside source, and by comparing the
frequency differences in the two beams, I'll tell you just how fast I
am travelling compared to journey's start. (because "c"=c+v )
Jim G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
31 May 2004 11:04:20 PM |
|
|
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Here's an experiment for you Sam: put me in a box with a light source
of fixed frequency. Outside have the same light source in a fixed
position. I'll sleep well while the box is accellerated, so when I
awake I wont have any idea of my velocity. Let me drill a hole in the
box in order to look at the outside source, and by comparing the
frequency differences in the two beams, I'll tell you just how fast I
am travelling compared to journey's start. (because "c"=c+v )
Jim G
You will be able to tell your relative velocity with respect to the
light beam by its Doppler frequency shift
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
01 Jun 2004 08:59:05 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40BC003D.F95A835F@mchsi.com>...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Here's an experiment for you Sam: put me in a box with a light source
of fixed frequency. Outside have the same light source in a fixed
position. I'll sleep well while the box is accellerated, so when I
awake I wont have any idea of my velocity. Let me drill a hole in the
box in order to look at the outside source, and by comparing the
frequency differences in the two beams, I'll tell you just how fast I
am travelling compared to journey's start. (because "c"=c+v )
Jim G
You will be able to tell your relative velocity with respect to the
light beam by its Doppler frequency shift
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html
WRONG!!!!!!!! I will have my little laboratory "velocity of light
measurer", and it will show that the two beams have different speeds.
Surprise, surprise! The difference will be exactly that of the box
since beginning its acelleration.
(You are well aware that an experiment using comparisons of such beams
has NEVER been done. and before you claim quasars as "proof", forget
it. Actual tests of the speed of light from such objects has NOT been
done- only assumptions made about changes in frequencies)
Jim G
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
28 May 2004 10:06:47 AM |
|
|
Jim Greenfield wrote:
For some time, astronomers have been observing gas and dust clouds
travelling very close to "c". Those clouds are NOT SHRUNKEN, nor do
they appear so. Given such obvious evidence of a faulty theory, what
simpleton could possibly hold to his beliefs? Just the SAM W's of this
brainwashed world!
Link please?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
26 May 2004 03:04:01 AM |
|
|
Jim Greenfield wrote:
I (and others) am not impressed - ***** is much the same in any
guise. The math on which Relativity is based is (humanly) flawed, the
logic upon which it is based is a laff, and those young minds upon
whom it is foisted are being done an incredible disservice (apart from
mental gymnastics)
Tell the people who were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the math is
flawed.. they might disagree with you.. also anyone that has ever used a laser
in any form.. yep those lasers sure don't seem to care that the math is flawed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Vajk" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
24 May 2004 01:16:10 PM |
|
|
John wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c8pecb$k6i$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Bob Einstein" <stupid_spammer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:haIrc.93108$dP1.296061@newsc.telia.net...
You all know about the sync atomic clock, the aeroplane and our
earth.
Why should the clock in the aeroplane slow down? Why not the one
left at
earth instead?
Relativity says we define both earth and the plane moving relative
the
other. Both works. So how can we possibly decide that the aeroplane
clock
slows down?
You are exceedingly unoriginal. This question has been raised more
than a dozen times since I have participated in this ng.
Please read the Relativity FAQ intead of starting the whole lot up yet
again.
Franz
When no one has a good answer all they can do is shout or blame. That is
just a symptom of narrow mindedness.
I have found 90% of the people here to act that way. That is not a good
personality of a creative and openminded scientist.
These things are true about the conduct of any number of big mouths
in the sci.* newsgroups, but bear no relationship to the discussion
at hand.
In fact time dilation is controversial. You better study and read between
the lines. Not just let yourself be fed with empty words and numbers.
Good luck
There's a very good reason that the hard sciences deal in "theory." The
fact is that until someone/something comes along and improves on our
understandings of nature the current working, also called accepted,
theory is considered carved in stone.
Questions resulting in new or different views relating to nature have
a tough road to traverse before replacing, or even supplementing, any
existing accepted theory.
EVERYTHING (get that?) in the hard sciences is controversial. That
status is diluted into meaninglessness by its very commonness. In
order to "read between the lines" one first needs to thoroughly
understand them. Frankly there's a dearth of understanding in these
parts however the relativity FAQ Franz is referring to was prepared
by those who actually do understand the subject about as well as
anyone. The best you can actually expect out of many of the
participants in sci.* is puppeting of the words and sometimes
misapplication. (As a parting gift I am omitting the slam at Al
Schwartz that would ordinarily reside at this point in the
discussion. He's his own worse insult anyway. Oops)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
24 May 2004 01:47:40 PM |
|
|
"Bill Vajk" <bill9north@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:4qGdnXyhlfJ2pi_dRVn-tw@comcast.com...
John wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c8pecb$k6i$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Bob Einstein" <stupid_spammer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:haIrc.93108$dP1.296061@newsc.telia.net...
You all know about the sync atomic clock, the aeroplane and our
earth.
Why should the clock in the aeroplane slow down? Why not the one
left at
earth instead?
Relativity says we define both earth and the plane moving relative
the
other. Both works. So how can we possibly decide that the aeroplane
clock
slows down?
You are exceedingly unoriginal. This question has been raised more
than a dozen times since I have participated in this ng.
Please read the Relativity FAQ intead of starting the whole lot up yet
again.
Franz
When no one has a good answer all they can do is shout or blame. That is
just a symptom of narrow mindedness.
I have found 90% of the people here to act that way. That is not a good
personality of a creative and openminded scientist.
These things are true about the conduct of any number of big mouths
in the sci.* newsgroups, but bear no relationship to the discussion
at hand.
In fact time dilation is controversial. You better study and read
between
the lines. Not just let yourself be fed with empty words and numbers.
Good luck
There's a very good reason that the hard sciences deal in "theory." The
fact is that until someone/something comes along and improves on our
understandings of nature the current working, also called accepted,
theory is considered carved in stone.
Questions resulting in new or different views relating to nature have
a tough road to traverse before replacing, or even supplementing, any
existing accepted theory.
EVERYTHING (get that?) in the hard sciences is controversial. That
status is diluted into meaninglessness by its very commonness. In
order to "read between the lines" one first needs to thoroughly
understand them. Frankly there's a dearth of understanding in these
parts however the relativity FAQ Franz is referring to was prepared
by those who actually do understand the subject about as well as
anyone. The best you can actually expect out of many of the
participants in sci.* is puppeting of the words and sometimes
misapplication. (As a parting gift I am omitting the slam at Al
Schwartz that would ordinarily reside at this point in the
discussion. He's his own worse insult anyway. Oops)
Hurry up and die...erm... leave already, Vacuous Vajk. And good riddance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
24 May 2004 07:11:54 PM |
|
|
"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote in message news:<Qrrsc.293$Hi4.68092@news.uswest.net>...
"Bill Vajk" <bill9north@hotmailDITCHTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:4qGdnXyhlfJ2pi_dRVn-tw@comcast.com...
John wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c8pecb$k6i$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Bob Einstein" <stupid_spammer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:haIrc.93108$dP1.296061@newsc.telia.net...
You all know about the sync atomic clock, the aeroplane and our
earth.
Why should the clock in the aeroplane slow down? Why not the one
left at
earth instead?
Relativity says we define both earth and the plane moving relative
the
other. Both works. So how can we possibly decide that the aeroplane
clock
slows down?
You are exceedingly unoriginal. This question has been raised more
than a dozen times since I have participated in this ng.
Please read the Relativity FAQ intead of starting the whole lot up yet
again.
Franz
When no one has a good answer all they can do is shout or blame. That is
just a symptom of narrow mindedness.
I have found 90% of the people here to act that way. That is not a good
personality of a creative and openminded scientist.
These things are true about the conduct of any number of big mouths
in the sci.* newsgroups, but bear no relationship to the discussion
at hand.
In fact time dilation is controversial. You better study and read
between
the lines. Not just let yourself be fed with empty words and numbers.
Good luck
There's a very good reason that the hard sciences deal in "theory." The
fact is that until someone/something comes along and improves on our
understandings of nature the current working, also called accepted,
theory is considered carved in stone.
Questions resulting in new or different views relating to nature have
a tough road to traverse before replacing, or even supplementing, any
existing accepted theory.
EVERYTHING (get that?) in the hard sciences is controversial. That
status is diluted into meaninglessness by its very commonness. In
order to "read between the lines" one first needs to thoroughly
understand them. Frankly there's a dearth of understanding in these
parts however the relativity FAQ Franz is referring to was prepared
by those who actually do understand the subject about as well as
anyone. The best you can actually expect out of many of the
participants in sci.* is puppeting of the words and sometimes
misapplication. (As a parting gift I am omitting the slam at Al
Schwartz that would ordinarily reside at this point in the
discussion. He's his own worse insult anyway. Oops)
Hurry up and die...erm... leave already, Vacuous Vajk. And good riddance.
Take it easy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
24 May 2004 04:03:12 PM |
|
|
John wrote:
In fact time dilation is controversial.
Only on planet Crank. Here on Earth, it is a phenomenom routinely
observed and compensated for.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
24 May 2004 11:53:25 PM |
|
|
John wrote:
When no one has a good answer all they can do is shout or blame. That is
just a symptom of narrow mindedness.
I have found 90% of the people here to act that way. That is not a good
personality of a creative and openminded scientist.
Or maybe its nothing more complicated than an idiot spouting crap.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
22 May 2004 10:31:50 AM |
|
|
"Bob Einstein" <stupid_spammer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:haIrc.93108$dP1.296061@newsc.telia.net...
You all know about the sync atomic clock, the aeroplane and our earth.
Why should the clock in the aeroplane slow down? Why not the one left
at
earth instead?
Relativity says we define both earth and the plane moving relative the
other. Both works. So how can we possibly decide that the aeroplane
clock
slows down?
Helloooo Einsten..
Here's a clue. Which frame of reference is *we* in and which clock
undergoes acceleration?
Phil Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Einstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
22 May 2004 10:34:50 AM |
|
|
"Phil Holman" <philjud@earthlink.not> wrote in message
news:GnKrc.5149$Tn6.1038@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Bob Einstein" <stupid_spammer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:haIrc.93108$dP1.296061@newsc.telia.net...
You all know about the sync atomic clock, the aeroplane and our earth.
Why should the clock in the aeroplane slow down? Why not the one left
at
earth instead?
Relativity says we define both earth and the plane moving relative the
other. Both works. So how can we possibly decide that the aeroplane
clock
slows down?
Helloooo Einsten..
Here's a clue. Which frame of reference is *we* in and which clock
undergoes acceleration?
Phil Holman
Bot can be said to accelerate against each other. Thatīs the BIG point here
and in relativity
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
22 May 2004 12:04:18 PM |
|
|
Bob Einstein wrote:
Here's a clue. Which frame of reference is *we* in and which clock
undergoes acceleration?
Phil Holman
Bot can be said to accelerate against each other. Thatīs the BIG
point here and in relativity
You think so? So if I sit in the plane with my accelerometer, I will
observe the same set of accelerations as you, waiting at the airport
with an identical instrument?
You truly believe that the situation is symmetrical for the traveller
and the stay-at-home?
I'd point you in the direction of some helpful references, but I doubt
you have the intellectual apparatus to understand them.
But you're no fun. I want Potter, and I want him now. Anyone know where
he's gone?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
22 May 2004 12:26:27 PM |
|
|
"Pyriform" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:40af888f$0$20511$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Bob Einstein wrote:
Here's a clue. Which frame of reference is *we* in and which clock
undergoes acceleration?
Phil Holman
Bot can be said to accelerate against each other. Thatīs the BIG
point here and in relativity
You think so? So if I sit in the plane with my accelerometer, I will
observe the same set of accelerations as you, waiting at the airport
with an identical instrument?
You truly believe that the situation is symmetrical for the traveller
and the stay-at-home?
I'd point you in the direction of some helpful references, but I doubt
you have the intellectual apparatus to understand them.
But you're no fun. I want Potter, and I want him now. Anyone know where
he's gone?
Alas!
He has been tweaking the internal clock of his GPS receiver.
We probably will not see him again.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Einstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
22 May 2004 05:51:02 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:73Mrc.123814$oQ5.6777924@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Pyriform" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:40af888f$0$20511$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Bob Einstein wrote:
Here's a clue. Which frame of reference is *we* in and which clock
undergoes acceleration?
Phil Holman
Bot can be said to accelerate against each other. Thatīs the BIG
point here and in relativity
You think so? So if I sit in the plane with my accelerometer, I will
observe the same set of accelerations as you, waiting at the airport
with an identical instrument?
You truly believe that the situation is symmetrical for the traveller
and the stay-at-home?
I'd point you in the direction of some helpful references, but I doubt
you have the intellectual apparatus to understand them.
But you're no fun. I want Potter, and I want him now. Anyone know where
he's gone?
Alas!
He has been tweaking the internal clock of his GPS receiver.
We probably will not see him again.
Dirk Vdm
The point for time dilation is relative speed. Not acceleration.
So the plane is moving away from earth or the opposite
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
22 May 2004 08:53:30 PM |
|
|
Bob Einstein wrote:
The point for time dilation is relative speed. Not acceleration.
So the plane is moving away from earth or the opposite
You can't even understand refrigerator magnets. Why should anyone try to
discuss time dilation with you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
23 May 2004 05:32:40 AM |
|
|
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:uuTrc.12748$Hh.4569@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Bob Einstein wrote:
The point for time dilation is relative speed. Not acceleration.
So the plane is moving away from earth or the opposite
You can't even understand refrigerator magnets. Why should anyone try to
discuss time dilation with you?
I don't even understand why *anyone* should reply *anything*
to an imbecile who flags his excrement with
"Bob Einstein" <stupid_spammer@hotmail.com>
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
23 May 2004 12:57:32 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
I don't even understand why *anyone* should reply *anything*
to an imbecile who flags his excrement with
"Bob Einstein"
I think it was the sheer level of imbecility that got me... incredible that
somebody like this lives on our flat earth... heh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
23 May 2004 01:18:45 PM |
|
|
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:gC5sc.12901$Hh.7556@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
I don't even understand why *anyone* should reply *anything*
to an imbecile who flags his excrement with
"Bob Einstein"
I think it was the sheer level of imbecility that got me... incredible that
somebody like this lives on our flat earth... heh
Ah well... no problem - I used to try it as well ;-)
Many have a go at these bozo characters, thinking they will finally
be the ones who manage to talk some sense in their empty heads.
I have seen it happen only once in all these years.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Syncronized atomic clocks |
24 May 2004 09:46:24 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9W5sc.125849$xt6.6825019@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:gC5sc.12901$Hh.7556@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
I don't even understand why *anyone* should reply *anything*
to an imbecile who flags his excrement with
"Bob Einstein"
I think it was the sheer level of imbecility that got me... incredible that
somebody like this lives on our flat earth... heh
Ah well... no problem - I used to try it as well ;-)
Many have a go at these bozo characters, thinking they will finally
be the ones who manage to talk some sense in their empty heads.
I have seen it happen only once in all these years.
I believe that you are mistaken. Empty heads can usually be educated.
The heads of the crackpots are filled to the maximum with kookium;
that's why you can't teach them anything, there's no room for any
genuine knowledge to get in.
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
