"Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
|
|
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.
|
|
|