Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dlo - 08 Jul 2008 15:23 GMT
"Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"

    The Einsteinhoax Website was setup to counter an intellectual "fast
shuffle" which used Dr. Einstein's Special Relativity (which is easily seen
to be a mathematical copy of the earlier Lorentz Transformations Aether
Theory) to propagate the idea that our physical reality was too subtle to be
understood by mortal men and could only be dealt with using sophisticated
mathematics. This ploy served the academic community very well. The quote
was made that Dr. Einstein's principle contribution was not Special
Relativity but rather the showing that mathematics could used to make
advances in the physical sciences and "it was no longer necessary to wait
for "the few great minds that arise in each century" to make progress. Since
the availability of such intelligent men could not be expanded but
mathematics can be taught to anyone, the approach not only made the physical
sciences more mysterious, but allowed an unlimited expansion of the
contributing scientific community.

    The phenomena associated with both Special and General Relativity seem,
to a large degree, to be incomprehensible and the conclusions contradictory.
There is a simple reason for this. The explanations which are provided lead
the mind to recognize inherent contradictions which are not apparent in the
mathematics. Since the contradictions do not appear in the mathematics it
was considered obvious that did not exist! These contradictions have led to
the continuous confusion appearing in the Newsgroups and elsewhere. The
reality is that, when an expert(s) cannot explain his(their) knowledge to an
intelligent layman (laymen), there can only be one explanation. The
expert(s) do not actually understand their subject matter. IT IS NOT BECAUSE
OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE LAYMEN.

"The Einstein Hoax"

    http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm was written to provide an
understanding of our physical reality which is in agreement with all known
physical observations and mathematical logic and , most importantly, pass
the "intelligent layman" test. The chapters of "The Einstein Hoax" are
listed below:

Chapter Titles

    1. - Introduction
    2. - Historical Background
    3. - The Nature of the Einstein Hoax
    4. - Does the Aether Exist?
    5. - The Resurrection of Absolute Velocity by Quantum Experiments
    6. - The Nature of Reality
    7. - Applying the Lorentz Transformations Properly
    8. - Generating the Gravity Transformations
    9. - Dr. Einstein's Error and the Introduction of Curved Space
    10. - Gravitational Contraction and Collapse
    11. - Gravitational Collapse and the Creation of a Universe
    12. - The Space Time Continuum
    13. - The Nature of Particles
    14. - Adding Quantum Effects to Our Understanding
    15. - Changing the Paradigms
    16. - What Can We Conclude?</h4>

There are 57,000 words and 53 illustrations.</h4>

"Gravity"

    A correct derivation of gravitational theory described is provided in
"Gravity" at http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity/htm. The test for its validity
is whether it agrees with both the results of observation and the results of
theoretical derivations. The material presented passes this test. It agrees
with the observations which are alleged to have verified General Relativity.
The Sun's gravitational field is about 5 orders of magnitude too weak to
reveal the difference between the two approaches. Observations of strong
gravitational fields, such as around neutron stars, cannot differentiate
between the theories without a close up observations of orbital parameters.
Such a verification must await the availability of Star Trek's Warp Drive.

    The advantage of the revised approach is that, among other results, it
reveals the source of gravitational energy (force), allows the total energy
of the Universe to remain constant over time, eliminates the idea of a
singularities (no black holes), and explains the creation of Universes. The
topics covered are:

Chapter Titles

    1: - Introduction
    2: - Laying the Groundwork
    3: - Evaluating the Gravitational Conversion Factors
    4: - Comparison with the "Real World"
    5: - The Complete Gravitational Field

    There are 50,000 words and 22 diagrams.</h4>

"Corrections to Errors in Special Relativity"

    This text is provided to correct residual errors in Special Relativity
by using the transformations provided by Special Relativity to eliminate the
rather foolish "Right Angle Lever Paradox" and to reveal the nature of
inertial mass.

Summary of "Corrections to Special Relativity"

    1.-  Introduction
    2.-  Groundwork of the Discussion
    3.-  A Comparison of the Velocity Difference Between Velocity
         Reference Frames B and C as Observed in Reference Frame B
         and as Observed in Reference Frame A
    4:-  Determination of the Lorentz Transformation for Incremental Mass
and
         for Force Between Reference Frames Having Relative Velocity
References
    5:-  The Balance of Moments Applied to a Right Angled Lever in Velocity
         Reference Frame B Moving with Velocity 'V' with Respect to
Velocity
         Reference Frame A as Observed in Reverence Frames A and B
    6:-  The Conventional Lorentz Transformation for Transverse Force as
         Related to the Right Angle Lever Thought Experiment
    7:-  The Lorentz Transformation for Parallel and Transverse Force as
         Related to a Compressed Spring Thought Experiment

    The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm 
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

    All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

    Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

    E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

    The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
Uncle Al - 08 Jul 2008 16:44 GMT
> "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
[snip crap]

Google Images (SafeSearch disabled)
goatse

> E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com.

Idiot.

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Marvin Barley - 09 Jul 2008 08:04 GMT
> > "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>  (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

OH.

So get an example.

One twin travels near speed of light. The other one remains staying.
So the twin brother traveling near the speed of light ages more
slowly.

Ooops. But there is relativity! There is no reference point in
Universe! Then: Which brother travels near the speed of light, and
should age slower?

So, there is no twin paradox, or the inertial systems aren't relative
to each other at all?
Androcles - 09 Jul 2008 10:39 GMT
| > > "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
| >
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
| So, there is no twin paradox, or the inertial systems aren't relative
| to each other at all?
Androcles - 09 Jul 2008 10:51 GMT
| > > "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
| >
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
|
| One twin travels near speed of light.

Relative to what? All velocities are relative :-)

| The other one remains staying.
| So the twin brother traveling near the speed of light ages more
| slowly.

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Ref:  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.

According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?

| Ooops. But there is relativity! There is no reference point in
| Universe!

Correct, so what is the speed of light relative to?

|  Then: Which brother travels near the speed of light, and
| should age slower?

Yep... but you see, "time" (in quotation marks) is not time,
so the traveling brother ages "slower" but not slower.
Einstein was very careful to use quotation marks in his third postulate.

| So, there is no twin paradox, or the inertial systems aren't relative
| to each other at all?

Einstein was very careful NOT to say inertial.
In fact he said:
"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line" so this inertial crap is a fake version
of relativity.
Spaceman - 09 Jul 2008 15:05 GMT
> So get an example.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> So, there is no twin paradox, or the inertial systems aren't relative
> to each other at all?

Yup, no paradox, just morons that do not know
how clocks work and like to ignore the clock malfunctions
that make it "slow" down at all.
:)

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

lithium@nbnet.nb.ca - 10 Jul 2008 18:43 GMT
On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
> > So get an example.
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

Dale wrote:Yes but the problem with the broken clock theory is that it
imply s that all clocks are broken no matter how they keep time I mean
really even your pulse is a sort inaccurate and do you really mean
that even your heartbeat would become broken.How could you rationalize
this.
You really do need to think this out more.
Spaceman - 10 Jul 2008 18:53 GMT
> On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> this.
> You really do need to think this out more.

First of all, it is not a "broken clock"
broken clocks don't even work.
It is a clock malfunction in it's proper operation.
It is a simple fact about clocks that has been known
since clocks were invented.
For some reason, the rubber ruler kingdom want to
think the atomic clock is immune to g-force problems
associated with any clock that was moved.
There is nothing more to think about eccept to
find the "physical" cause that made the clock malfunction.
Ignoring it as a malfunction will never find the fact about
why it DID malfunction.

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

lithium@nbnet.nb.ca - 10 Jul 2008 19:39 GMT
On Jul 10, 10:53 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
> lith...@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

Dale Trynor wrote:
You can easily use examples where the forces of acceleration get to be
a smaller and smaller part of or percentage of the total for a longer
and longer journeys so even if what you say were right you get into a
problem with these other types of examples.
Yes its true that when I first started to try to figure this all out I
used to think there  might be a sort of tag your it effect, where the
act of accelerating in the first place might have tanged your clocks
to be as you say broken but the problem was is after you were
accelerated you are then only coasting effectively motionless in your
frame of reference. On longer and longer journeys you get more and
more time where you still feel no acceleration yet the time slowdown
on return should total the same percentage.The Tag your it hypothesis
where like you think, your clocks become permanently broken or even,
just tag your it and must now become the slower clock just could not
work in all arguments.
lithium@nbnet.nb.ca - 10 Jul 2008 19:46 GMT
On Jul 10, 10:53 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
> lith...@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

Dale Trynor wrote:
You can easily use examples where the forces of acceleration get to be
a smaller and smaller part of or percentage of the total for a longer
and longer journeys so even if what you say were right you get into a
problem with these other types of examples.
Yes its true that when I first started to try to figure this all out I
used to think there  might be a sort of tag your it effect, where the
act of accelerating in the first place might have tanged your clocks
to be as you say broken but the problem was is after you were
accelerated you are then only coasting effectively motionless in your
frame of reference. On longer and longer journeys you get more and
more time where you still feel no acceleration yet the time slowdown
on return should total the same percentage.The Tag your it hypothesis
where like you think, your clocks become permanently broken or even,
just tag your it and must now become the slower clock just could not
work in all arguments.
Spaceman - 10 Jul 2008 20:08 GMT
> On Jul 10, 10:53 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> just tag your it and must now become the slower clock just could not
> work in all arguments.

Difference in the gravitational potential (further away from the planet
and closer to the planet) also effect the clock.
It is still a clock malfunction. 100%.
:)

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

lithium@nbnet.nb.ca - 10 Jul 2008 23:39 GMT
On Jul 10, 12:08 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
> lith...@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 10:53 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
[quoted text clipped - 73 lines]
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

Dale Trynor wrote:
Well then ok if thats true then all we have is malfunctioning clocks
and the most we can hope for is equally malfunctioning clocks that
malfunction in the same malfunctioning way.Physicist long ago decided
that it was unlikely to have any clock not malfunction is such a way
as to give you a preferred frame of reference where it would always
show the correct time because if it did it would not keep the same
time as other clocks. If that happed your clock would speed up rather
than slow down in a gravity well and we on earth would have to arrive
early for our dinnertime using such a clock.Thats still considered a
malfunctioning clock so you now have the choice of all clocks being
malfunctioning and there being no such thins as a clock that dose not
malfunction.
About the best you can hope for in the way of a preferred clock is the
one where the time of the creation of our universe is used as a
reference so that everyone using the same formula and observations
would end up with the same time since creation.But its got a problem
that unless you got a worm hole how would you be able to communicate
with our distant observers to confirm that the time was the same
because when the light signal arrives its already in the past.
I already posted that I had to wonder if an actual worm hole worked
assuming it was possible might have a component of time travel to them
in such a way that you always end up traveling in time to where the
universe was the same age.
Spaceman - 11 Jul 2008 04:02 GMT
> Dale Trynor wrote:
> Well then ok if thats true then all we have is malfunctioning clocks
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> in such a way that you always end up traveling in time to where the
> universe was the same age.

If you think wormholes are gonna happen at all, you really
are lost in rubber ruler land.
Sheesh
Nevermind.
:)

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

lithium@nbnet.nb.ca - 10 Jul 2008 23:39 GMT
On Jul 10, 12:08 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
> lith...@nbnet.nb.ca wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 10:53 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
[quoted text clipped - 73 lines]
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

Dale Trynor wrote:
Well then ok if thats true then all we have is malfunctioning clocks
and the most we can hope for is equally malfunctioning clocks that
malfunction in the same malfunctioning way.Physicist long ago decided
that it was unlikely to have any clock not malfunction is such a way
as to give you a preferred frame of reference where it would always
show the correct time because if it did it would not keep the same
time as other clocks. If that happed your clock would speed up rather
than slow down in a gravity well and we on earth would have to arrive
early for our dinnertime using such a clock.Thats still considered a
malfunctioning clock so you now have the choice of all clocks being
malfunctioning and there being no such thins as a clock that dose not
malfunction.
About the best you can hope for in the way of a preferred clock is the
one where the time of the creation of our universe is used as a
reference so that everyone using the same formula and observations
would end up with the same time since creation.But its got a problem
that unless you got a worm hole how would you be able to communicate
with our distant observers to confirm that the time was the same
because when the light signal arrives its already in the past.
I already posted that I had to wonder if an actual worm hole worked
assuming it was possible might have a component of time travel to them
in such a way that you always end up traveling in time to where the
universe was the same age.
Uncle Al - 10 Jul 2008 19:03 GMT
> On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> this.
> You really do need to think this out more.

Clocks for stoooopid Spaceshit,

<http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativistic-time-delay/>
clocks in orbit - by an undergrad
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment for Spaceshit
http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
Clock for Spaceshit
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Clocks for Spaceshit
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504017
Clocks for Spaceshit.
http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
The distorted cube
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Spaceshit emulator
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
Chew on it
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf

Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn?

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Spaceman - 10 Jul 2008 19:11 GMT
>> On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Clocks for stoooopid Spaceshit,

Poor Unlce Al.
Silly Unlce Al thinks atomic mass should behave differently
in gravity than a larger amount of atomic mass would.
But we all know a million kilgrams of atomic mass
falls at the same speed that a single atom would fall at, in vacuum.
the force needed to change its motion from such motion is the
only difference.
LOL

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Uncle Al - 11 Jul 2008 00:03 GMT
> >> On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> >> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

Hey stooopid Spaceshit - gill in the following (the first one is mercy
humped):

(+1)(+1) = +1
(-1)(+1) = ?
(+1)(-1) = ?
(-1)(-1) = ?

SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT
CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!  

Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn?

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Spaceman - 11 Jul 2008 04:03 GMT
>>>> On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>>>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>
> Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn?

Hey Al, what makes an atomic clock immune to g-forces
Hint: nothing..
Does it really burn that much Al?
LOL

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Uncle Al - 11 Jul 2008 16:38 GMT
> >>>> On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> >>>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

(+1)(+1) = +1
(-1)(+1) = ?
(+1)(-1) = ?
(-1)(-1) = ?

Do it stooopid Spaceshit, do it do it do it.  HA HA HA!  SPACESHIT
CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT
CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!

<http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativistic-time-delay/>
clocks in orbit - by an undergrad
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment for Spaceshit
http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
Clock for Spaceshit
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Clocks for Spaceshit
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504017
Clocks for Spaceshit.
http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
The distorted cube
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Spaceshit emulator
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
Chew on it
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Spaceman - 11 Jul 2008 17:25 GMT
>>>>>> On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman"
>>>>>> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 73 lines]
> CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT
> CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!

Uncle Al uses the old diversion tactic instead of actually
thinking about the fact stated.
Isn't that specially relative.
:)

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Uncle Al - 11 Jul 2008 20:32 GMT
> >>>>>> On Jul 9, 7:05 am, "Spaceman"
> >>>>>> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> So get an example.
[snip]

> >>>>>>> Yup, no paradox, just morons that do not know
> >>>>>>> how clocks work and like to ignore the clock malfunctions
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman

(+1)(+1) = +1
(-1)(+1) = ?
(+1)(-1) = ?
(-1)(-1) = ?

Do it stooopid Spaceshit, do it do it do it.  HA HA HA!  SPACESHIT
CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT
CAN'T DO ONESIES!  SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!

<http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativistic-time-delay/>
clocks in orbit - by an undergrad
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment for Spaceshit
http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
Clock for Spaceshit
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Clocks for Spaceshit
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504017
Clocks for Spaceshit.
http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
The distorted cube
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Spaceshit emulator
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
Chew on it
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

The Ghost In The Machine - 12 Jul 2008 18:04 GMT
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote
on Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:25:30 -0400
<DuOdnXarT9YdFOrVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>:

[snippage]

>>> Hey Al, what makes an atomic clock immune to g-forces
>>> Hint: nothing..
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Isn't that specially relative.
>:)

Spaceman might have a point, but that's easily worked
around by assuming the clock is shut off for the duration
of the launch (lots of vibration in a launch anyway, so
one would want to ensure no damage of a more mundane sort).

In any event, all launched clocks (to the same orbit)
show the same "damage", despite the fact that some of
the clocks are cesium-based, some rubidium-based, and
some quartz-based.

Signature

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #11823822:
signal(SIGKILL, catchkill);
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Spaceman - 13 Jul 2008 03:43 GMT
> In sci.physics, Spaceman
> <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> the clocks are cesium-based, some rubidium-based, and
> some quartz-based.

Yes, but of course, those are all "atomic" based clocks
Bring the other clocks in and you get all sorts
of "wrong times".
and .. of course.. figure out what caused the "differences"
and you again get science that used "single standards for time
and distance" instead of multiple standards for time and distance
like the non science of the relativity church does.
:)

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

The Ghost In The Machine - 13 Jul 2008 20:31 GMT
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote
on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:43:59 -0400
<wfydnSyG08ll9uTVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@comcast.com>:
>> In sci.physics, Spaceman
>> <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Yes, but of course, those are all "atomic" based clocks

Quartz isn't atomic.

> Bring the other clocks in and you get all sorts
> of "wrong times".

Well, grandfather clocks don't work too well in zero gee.

> and .. of course.. figure out what caused the "differences"
> and you again get science that used "single standards for time
> and distance" instead of multiple standards for time and distance
> like the non science of the relativity church does.
>:)

Well, all right then.  What causes the damage?

Signature

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: No such file or directory
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Spaceman - 14 Jul 2008 02:14 GMT
> In sci.physics, Spaceman
> <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> Quartz isn't atomic.

It has no atoms?
Oh crap..
It must be really cool then,
:)
Is it also immune to gravity like all the morons say
about atoms vibrating?
:)

>> Bring the other clocks in and you get all sorts
>> of "wrong times".
>
> Well, grandfather clocks don't work too well in zero gee.

Yup,
they are worse.. because they have even more atoms being
effected and they also have to deal with thier
own internal relative motions also.

>> and .. of course.. figure out what caused the "differences"
>> and you again get science that used "single standards for time
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Well, all right then.  What causes the damage?

The damage is in the brains that are ignoring the "clock
malfunctions completely and coming up with circular
cause like "the clock slowed down because the clock slowed down".
:)

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Eric Gisse - 09 Jul 2008 15:35 GMT
> > > "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> So the twin brother traveling near the speed of light ages more
> slowly.

Says who?

> Ooops. But there is relativity! There is no reference point in
> Universe! Then: Which brother travels near the speed of light, and
> should age slower?
>
> So, there is no twin paradox, or the inertial systems aren't relative
> to each other at all?
Spaceman - 09 Jul 2008 15:57 GMT
>>>> "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Says who?

The relativity church says so,
I thought you were a member, you should know this stuff,
It is part of your bible.
LOL

Signature

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

lithium@nbnet.nb.ca - 10 Jul 2008 18:35 GMT
> > > "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> So, there is no twin paradox, or the inertial systems aren't relative
> to each other at all?

Dale wrote:
Not sure I really understand it all myself but we do know time
differences do occur as they have been measured.But far as I can
figure it all out in what could be my own way, is that its the clock
thats slower for the observer that turns around to catch up with the
other observer.
It could be because both observers will observer their twins at some
point with with a faster time but we will observe the one who turns
around to catch up with us as having a slower time for more of the
time than they will observe of us.
Remember that the act of turning around to go back is in and of itself
a signal that he is returning and that this signal is also speed of
light limited.
But I do think I agree with hanson on some points but to be honest I
never used to that attention to history but am starting to realize its
true importance as science starts to lose its objectivity and all of
thats associated problems.
Another poster pointed out that such people like Hawking are only
interested in observation and math and have no interest in actual
mechanism. That could explain why so much of physics has gone to the
hypothetical dogs as so many are now claiming a lot of hypothesis as
theories rather than as just hypothesis. I really do feel that a lot
of this stuff really should not deserve to be called theories.I
however am mostly only interested in mechanism.
lithium@nbnet.nb.ca - 10 Jul 2008 18:36 GMT
> > > "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> So, there is no twin paradox, or the inertial systems aren't relative
> to each other at all?

Dale wrote:
Not sure I really understand it all myself but we do know time
differences do occur as they have been measured.But far as I can
figure it all out in what could be my own way, is that its the clock
thats slower for the observer that turns around to catch up with the
other observer.
It could be because both observers will observer their twins at some
point with with a faster time but we will observe the one who turns
around to catch up with us as having a slower time for more of the
time than they will observe of us.
Remember that the act of turning around to go back is in and of itself
a signal that he is returning and that this signal is also speed of
light limited.
But I do think I agree with hanson on some points but to be honest I
never used to that attention to history but am starting to realize its
true importance as science starts to lose its objectivity and all of
thats associated problems.
Another poster pointed out that such people like Hawking are only
interested in observation and math and have no interest in actual
mechanism. That could explain why so much of physics has gone to the
hypothetical dogs as so many are now claiming a lot of hypothesis as
theories rather than as just hypothesis. I really do feel that a lot
of this stuff really should not deserve to be called theories.I
however am mostly only interested in mechanism.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.