 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008361 clocks vs 1 moving clock
Lets have fun as usual with clocks. We take 360 clocks and set them up on a level circlular platform. The circle is 1 mile in circumferance. Each clock will sit at 1 degree of the circle. We will sync all these clocks from a single clock in the middle by using the same length wires from the middle to each clock. So now we have 361 clocks all running at the same rate We now will take a clock we will call the "dork" clock. We will sync the dork clock with the center clock in the 360 degree clock platform then we will start to move it around the circle. We get the clock up to 1000 miles per second according to the synced 361 clocks. (1000' trips around the circle per second shown on any and all of the 361 other clocks.) Will this "dork" clock show 1000 revolutions every second in it's own inertial frame? :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman news:yYWdndNH4KPeXhHVnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com... > Lets have fun as usual with clocks. Apostrophe's and they're use's, moran. > news:yYWdndNH4KPeXhHVnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> Lets have fun as usual with clocks. > > Apostrophe's and they're use's, moran. Moran? Ok sure. I think you should change your nickname to King of the ignorance of physics :) BTW: Do you always ignore the evidence stated and point at the apostrophe problems instead? That is pretty sad for the King of "physics". :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman > Lets have fun as usual with clocks. http://pixdaus.com/pics/1217190925451lyt5.jpg ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > Lets have fun as usual with clocks. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > We get the clock up to 1000 miles per second according > to the synced 361 clocks. All right. But what makes you think it now ticks at the came rate as the other 361 clocks? > (1000' trips around the circle per second shown on any > and all of the 361 other clocks.) > Will this "dork" clock show 1000 revolutions every second > in it's own inertial frame? No, because it ticks slower than the center clock. Therefore, it will do more than 1000 revolutions every second. The dork clock will disagree with both the center clock and the other clocks on the circumference. The physical difference between the dork clock and the other clocks on the circumference is the centripetal force. In order for the dork clock to travel in a circle, a force is required to keep the dork clock moving in that circle. Without that extra force, it would travel in a straight line and leave that circle. I don't care what is used to apply the centripetal force. Maybe its the road. The other clocks, not traveling in a circle, need no force to keep them on that circle. If the earth would disappear, your 361 clocks would stay in place by inertia alone. They would remain in the same spot relative to each other. However, your dork clock would move in a straight line away from the other clocks. The dork clock is "malfunctioning," if you insist. It "malfunctions" because of the centripetal force. It does not agree with the other clocks. However, there are several ways to correct for its anomalous behavior without referring to the other clocks. One way is use an accelerometer to measure its centripetal acceleration, then calculate the relative velocity with the center clock using this acceleration. Then one uses the Lorentz time dilation formula to find the correct time relative to the "center clock." It been fun to argue with you. However, I will stop unless you make a comment about the centripetal force. I have presented you with an argument. I am not responsible for your understanding |:-) >> Lets have fun as usual with clocks. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> We get the clock up to 1000 miles per second according >> to the synced 361 clocks. > All right. But what makes you think it now ticks at the came > rate as the other 361 clocks? I don't think such. That is the problem. and 361 clocks are saying it is malfunctioning. :) >> (1000' trips around the circle per second shown on any >> and all of the 361 other clocks.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > disagree with both the center clock and the other clocks on the > circumference. So it first failed to know that curcumference did not change physically at all. and... It will think it has traveled 1 mile when it has physically traveled more than such if the clock is truly running slower. and... of course 361 other clocks prove it is wrong. > The physical difference between the dork clock and the other > clocks on the circumference is the centripetal force. In order for the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > make a comment about the centripetal force. I have presented you with > an argument. I am not responsible for your understanding |:-) So Why would you "correct the clock" Do you actually think the clock IS malfunctioning and the relative timing is wrong? If it is wrong then fixing the clock will simply be accepting that the 361 other clocks are correct. Or do you wish to dissagree with the 361 clock proving it has malfunctioned and just use it so you can crash into planets once you leave the circle to travel to other worlds that could care less abotu your clock malfunctioning? :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 27, 5:39 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > It been fun to argue with you. However, I will stop unless you > > make a comment about the centripetal force. I have presented you with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why would you "correct the clock" Do you actually think > the clock IS malfunctioning and the relative timing is wrong? Malfunctioning is a value laden word. The important thing is navigation. If I use clocks that disagree with each other, I would get lost and maybe have an accident. I don't care if the dork was "correct" or the 361 clocks are "correct." However I perform my navigation calculations, I have to deal with the disagreement that was predicted according to relativity. > If it is wrong then fixing the clock will simply be accepting that > the 361 other clocks are correct. I suppose if one defines "correct" that way. In any case, I have to make a second adjustment in order to get agreement. The dork clock is exactly the same as the 361 clocks except for centripetal force. The fact they tick at different rates can thus be in a sense attributed to the centripetal force. The amount I have to adjust the "dork" clock is determined by the centripetal force. Which clock is "correct" and which clock "malfunctioned" is beyond my Asperger riddled brain to determine. I merely worry about the differences between clocks, I don't pronounce a moral judgment on them. I just want to get home. The real question is how to use the clocks in navigation. Do you agree or disagree that there is a difference in the performance of the dork clock? You haven't seemed to disagree with me as to the behavior of the clock, you just made a moral judgment on the poor little ticker. Sure, he malfunctioned. Sure it is incorrect. What does insulting it do for navigation? > Or do you wish to dissagree with the 361 clock proving > it has malfunctioned and just use it so you can crash into > planets once you leave the circle to travel to other > worlds that could care less abotu your clock malfunctioning? > :) I would "correct" the dork clock. That is what they do with GPS. They correct for the different rates the clocks tick. If the engineers didn't use relativity in their GPS devices, then missiles cars and spaceships could crash into each other. You haven't made any comment about centripetal force yet. Please make some meaningful comment on centripetal force in this problem, or I will stop sharing my insight with you. A good troll knows when to get out from under the bridge. > On Jul 27, 5:39 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Why would you "correct the clock" Do you actually think >> the clock IS malfunctioning and the relative timing is wrong? > Malfunctioning is a value laden word. The important thing is > navigation. If I use clocks that disagree with each other, I would get > lost and maybe have an accident. I don't care if the dork was > "correct" or the 361 clocks are "correct." However I perform my > navigation calculations, I have to deal with the disagreement that was > predicted according to relativity. If you don't care if the dork clock is correct or not why would you try and "correct" it at all. You seem to be dealing with the disagreement as if the dork clock is the problem? I hope you realize the dork clock is the problem. because if you don't. You are planet dust. >> If it is wrong then fixing the clock will simply be accepting that >> the 361 other clocks are correct. > I suppose if one defines "correct" that way. In any case, I have > to make a second adjustment in order to get agreement. The dork clock [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > poor little ticker. Sure, he malfunctioned. Sure it is incorrect. What > does insulting it do for navigation? The clock is malfunctioning and 361 clocks prove such. You even agree and are goign to try and "adjust to the proper time of the 361 other clocks. I am not insulting the clock, I am laughing at morons that think time changed rate even though 361 clocks are proving the clock simply malfunctioned and time did not change rate at all. >> Or do you wish to dissagree with the 361 clock proving >> it has malfunctioned and just use it so you can crash into [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > didn't use relativity in their GPS devices, then missiles cars and > spaceships could crash into each other. Wrong, Relativity is not the "only way" to correct the malfunctioning clocks I see you are stuck in the GPS works "because of relativity. That is sad and again proves that relativity even has a clue that the clocks are "malfunctioning". Sad.. GPS proves "time" did not change rate and they actually fix the clocks for it to work at all. :) > You haven't made any comment about centripetal force yet. Please > make some meaningful comment on centripetal force in this problem, or > I will stop sharing my insight with you. > A good troll knows when to get out from under the bridge. I need not talk about centripital force, it is not even a true force by itself, it is a combination of forces. Not a true force by itself at all. Do you not understand what centripital force actually is? SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l123/scarleteyes_666/trip/gag.jpg <snipped sad reply by an ignorant pawn that thinks he is a king> You don't like simple proof that the clock malfunctioned huh? Your rubber ruler house of cards is shaking so much you need to jump on the insult train and get the hell out of dodge quickly. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman http://pixdaus.com/pics/1217190925451lyt5.jpg http://pixdaus.com/pics/1217190925451lyt5.jpg On Jul 27, 6:11 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 5:39 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman And with all that, I guess it must finally be time for you to don your big black hat, stick your hand inside your overcoat, and walk into the sunset muttering something about your defeat at Waterloo. > On Jul 27, 6:11 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > big black hat, stick your hand inside your overcoat, and walk into the > sunset muttering something about your defeat at Waterloo. Hmm? No that would be the relativists job. Too bad you still don't get it. Must be a defect in the RAM section of your brain. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 27, 8:25 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 6:11 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman RAM section of my brain? Maybe there's something wrong with your prehensile tail. > On Jul 27, 8:25 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > RAM section of my brain? Maybe there's something wrong with your > prehensile tail. See, I knew you did not have any RAM left. That is a very old joke, must be one of the extra things that clutter up your relativity ROM. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 27, 6:11 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 5:39 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > I need not talk about centripital force, it is not even a true > force by itself, it is a combination of forces. > Not a true force by itself at all. You are confusing centrifugal with centripetal. Centrifugal is the pseudoforce that exists only in the rotating reference frame. The centrifugal force is equal in magnitude as and opposite in direction to the centripetal force, which exists in all frames. Centrifugal force does not exist in an inertial frame, and can't be associated with another body even in the rotating frame. Centripetal force is a true force that exists in the inertial frame. The centripetal force is real in the sense that it can always be associated with another body or field in the inertial frame. The centripetal force causes the body it acts upon to travel in a curved path. If the path is circular, the centripetal force is the force that makes the body travel in that circular path. > Do you not understand what centripetal force actually is? Yes. Centripetal force is the sum of real forces. It can always be called something else, since centripetal really isn't defined in terms of what causes the force. It is defined in terms of the trajectory the force causes. For a car on a circular racetrack, the centripetal force is the frictional force between wheels of the care and the ground. It is centripetal only because the force causes the car to revolve in a circle. However, you can also call the centripetal force in this case as a frictional force. Friction refers to the thing causing the force (in this case, the track). Centripetal refers to the racetrack. Centrifugal force refers to the "imaginary" force that the driver perceives. It exists only in the rotating reference frame of the driver. The question of whether the centrifugal force is real, or whether the drivers mind is "malfunctioning," is rather stupid. I acknowledge that if those wheels slip on the road, the driver dies painfully. Before he dies, he will think "that was some centrifugal force." However, the viewer on the stands doesn't see a centrifugal force. He sees a car slipping on the road, and maybe scuff marks on the road caused by the frictional centripetal force. In the Hefele Keating experiment, the centripetal force was the difference between of the weight of the clock and the contact force magnitude of the seat of the plane the clock was resting on. The centripetal force was real, as was the weight and contact force. Okay, I'm out of the discussion. Goodbye. > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 27, 6:11 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > centripetal force was real, as was the weight and contact force. > Okay, I'm out of the discussion. Goodbye. Please do leave this discussion If you truly believe that centripetal force is not a conbination of other forces that cause it. You apparently don't get that the other forces are the "real" forces and just like centrifugal, centripetal force is also just a combination of other "real" forces and not a force of it's own. Sheesh. You will never understand a simple clock malfunction if you can't even find out such a fact about centripetal force not being a force all on it's own.. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 28, 11:18 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 6:11 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > If you truly believe that centripetal force is not a conbination > of other forces that cause it. Okay, I don't want to leave misrepresented. I never said that centripetal wasn't a combination of forces. In fact, I actually described what the other forces were. You said that centripetal force wasn't real. I did not. > You apparently don't get that the other forces are the "real" > forces and just like centrifugal, centripetal force is also > just a combination of other "real" forces and not a force > of it's own. Interesting. In your mind, being a combination is the same as not being real. You just said that one can't make a real thing out of a combination of other real things. Example: A house is real. Now, a house is always a combination of the materials that make it. For example, you may live in house made of cinder blocks. Your walls may be padded. The house also has electrical wiring, windows made of glass, with wooden frames, etc. etc. All these things are real. However, the house is also real. One can legitimately ask what the total mass of the house is. The mass of the house would be the sum of the masses of all these other components: cinder blocks, pads, wiring, glass, wood, etc. The house is real. I said that centripetal force is real. You said that centripetal force isn't real. I mentioned the real forces that combine to make centripetal force. A centripetal force on a body is the component of force perpendicular to the tangential line of that body, irregardless of what causes that force. I stated that the cause of the "permanent" time dilation in the Hefele Keating experiment. Time dilation in the HK experiment is just as real as the centripetal force that causes it. In the case of the HK experiment, the centripetal force on the clock is the combination of all vertical forces on the clock. I may have made a mistake by omitting air pressure. The centripetal force on the clock in the HK experiment is a combination of the weight (by definition vertical down), the contact force of the seat, and the vertical component of air pressure (i.e., the buoyant force). Others may find other significant components of force, such as applied by the seat belt. The nice thing about theories like relativity is the exact details, such as what the vertical force is composed of, doesn't really effect the final results of the theory. All that matters is the combination of forces, which in this case is the centripetal force. One doesn't have to explicitly mention the force at all, it is all taken care of in the choice of inertial frame. > Sheesh. > You will never understand a simple clock malfunction You are using the word malfunction in an entirely novel way, which some may call wrong. If using a theory knows ahead of time the exact behavior of the device is known, and and that behavior is compensated for, it is not called a malfunction. The GPS satellites use relativity to predict the behavior of their clocks ahead of the time they are to be used. Since this calculation is part of the regular operation of the GPS, one can not call that behavior a malfunction. In fact, how does the word malfunction add anything to science? It doesn't add any fundamental understanding, and it can't be used to build a better clock. I think you meant it as a shock word, to gain attention. You want to use it, fine. If you insist, I will even start referring to the "Lorentz time dilation" as the "Lorentz time malfunction." Fine. I will use the same formulas, I will refer to the same forces, and the variables, as I have used before. The time dilation in an inertial frame depends on relative velocity, as before, and can be calculated ahead of use by the Lorentz time dilation formula. Only now instead of dilation, it will be called malfunction. The time dilation malfunction formula is: t'2-t'1=(t2-t1)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) Gee, nothings changed. Relativity is still correct. > if you can't even find out such a fact about centripetal force > not being a force all on it's own. I don't know what you mean by "not being a force on its own." Are you living on your own? In any case, you haven't yet made a meaningful statement about the centripetal force. You have merely insulted it. This is what I find interesting about your trolls. Most trolls insult only people. You seem to go out of your way to insult inanimate quantities. The time dilation is a malfunction. And now the centripetal force is not a "force on its own." I would love to see a cartoon showing a centripetal force (components labeled) being told by its parents that it should start existing on its own. I don't know who its parents are. Maybe its components? > On Jul 28, 11:18 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > described what the other forces were. You said that centripetal force > wasn't real. I did not. I said it is not a force on it's own, I did not say it was not a "real" force, I said it was a conbined force just like centrifugal force is. You said I am confusing it. You are the one confusing it for being a force of it's own. Nevermind You will never get it. Since you have made up your ROM already and you have no RAM to accept a new program at all. I feel sorry for you. Bye bye. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman > On Jul 27, 5:39 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote:> Darwin123 wrote: > A good troll knows when to get out from under the bridge. Indeed! (Still, I think you have the situation reversed, in that a good troll know when to go back under the bridge.) Harry C. On Jul 27, 1:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > James M Driscoll Jr > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Just want to remind you that "stuff falls because of gravity" is not a theory of gravity. And "if clocks don't keep time with each other it's because at least one of them is malfunctioning" is not a clock malfunction theory. Now, when you can come up with an account of the exact cause of a clock's malfunction and can show how to calculate HOW MUCH that clock's rate will be affected as a function of the presence of that cause, THEN you will have a clock malfunction theory. If you're happy to have a sig file that reads ==================== James M Driscoll Jr Creator of Bonehead Assertions Spaceman ==================== that's just fine. PD > On Jul 27, 1:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > because at least one of them is malfunctioning" is not a clock > malfunction theory. You can make up your own "theories" about what is a theory. I don't care. But of course, that is your theory about my theory not being a theory. :) > Now, when you can come up with an account of the exact cause of a > clock's malfunction and can show how to calculate HOW MUCH that > clock's rate will be affected as a function of the presence of that > cause, THEN you will have a clock malfunction theory. The cause is simple. The clock malfunction is caused by any g changes that effect the clocks tick rate. It is not my fault you fail to understand the use of single standards of time and distance in science. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 28, 1:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 1:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The clock malfunction is caused by any g changes that effect > the clocks tick rate. Good. Then let's suppose that the g changes by 0.1 m/s^2 (that is, it goes from 9.8 m/s^2 to 9.7 m/s^2) over a time interval of 0.3 seconds. Now, by how much should the rate of the clock change, in percent? A theory would be able to tell you that. Do you have a theory? > It is not my fault you fail to understand the use of single > standards of time and distance in science. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 28, 1:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > goes from 9.8 m/s^2 to 9.7 m/s^2) over a time interval of 0.3 seconds. > Now, by how much should the rate of the clock change, in percent? I told you, You use GR and SR to find out such stuff. Sheesh! don't you even read things at all anymore. > A theory would be able to tell you that. My theory is based upon GR and SR, You love those so I based it all upon such since it is infallable. The only difference is my theory does not say time changed It says the clock malfunctioned when it is a clock and the action/re-action rate changed when it is not a clock. Sheesh PD get a clue. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 28, 3:58 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 28, 1:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > My theory is based upon GR and SR, Nu-uh. SR and GR *derive* their calculations of the effects on the clocks from a wholly different reason than "g forces". You cannot simply say, "Hey, use the end formulas that SR and GR produce, but say they come from different reasons entirely!" Scientists don't buy that kind of flim-flam. For that matter, neither do 5th graders. > You love those so I based it all upon such since > it is infallable. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 28, 3:58 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Scientists don't buy that kind of flim-flam. For that matter, neither > do 5th graders. Sheesh, You can't even follow the theory correctly. No wonder you can't see where SR and GR are wrong about clocks and thier malfunctions and treat them as "time slowing down instead". LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 28, 5:10 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 28, 3:58 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > about clocks and thier malfunctions and treat them > as "time slowing down instead". But if they're wrong about them, then their equations are wrong, and so are their predictions. Which means if you have a BETTER explanation, then you will be able to derive your OWN predictions from your own explanation. What does your theory predict, Spaceman? What's the matter? Got a splutter stuck in your mouth? > LOL > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 28, 5:10 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > But if they're wrong about them, then their equations are wrong, and > so are their predictions. No, Thier equations can be right, just thier "causes" are wrong. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 29, 9:30 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 28, 5:10 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > No, > Thier equations can be right, just thier "causes" are wrong. How can the equations be right, if they are DERIVED from causes that are wrong? Do you have any idea how those equations are derived? No, I didn't think so. > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 29, 9:30 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > are wrong? Do you have any idea how those equations are derived? No, I > didn't think so. If I use Newtons equations to find a force and then I say the force is caused by blue fairies to begin with, does that make the equations wrong? Sheesh PD. Get a feakin clue some year. On Jul 29, 10:35 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 9:30 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Sheesh PD. > Get a feakin clue some year. No, but if you *derive* Newton's equations with the assumption of blue fairies, then yes the equations are wrong. PD > On Jul 29, 10:35 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > No, but if you *derive* Newton's equations with the assumption of blue > fairies, then yes the equations are wrong. The equations are not wrong, your assumption is wrong, just as the assumption of "space time" being a cause. Poor PD. He will never get it. Stuck in the "spacetime" box without any walls and still can not find his way out. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 29, 12:02 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 10:35 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > The equations are not wrong, How do you know that? They were *derived* from the assumptions you say are wrong. Start with YOUR assumptions, and show that you can *derive* the same equations, and thus show that they are not wrong. > your assumption is wrong, > just as the assumption of "space time" being a cause. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 29, 12:02 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > How do you know that? They were *derived* from the assumptions you say > are wrong. Who cares what they were derived from. If the equations work and then you find a better "physical" cause for such, why still think the blue fairies are still the cause? :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 29, 12:29 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 12:02 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > Who cares what they were derived from. Scientists do. Most rational people do. > If the equations work and then you find a better "physical" cause > for such, Scientists do not make up a "physical cause" and blindly say they account for the effects they see. Science requires that the effects are *shown* to be caused by the claimed "physical cause". This is the whole point of science, to *show* that certain causes are responsible for certain effects and that the effects are not due to other, more important causes. It does this by working in two directions -- by showing that the presence of certain causes allows you to *derive* the necessary following of the effects; and by showing in controlled experiment that if you change the supposed cause and change nothing else, then the effect appears or disappears. Your approach, of blindly matching up what you consider to be plausible causes and observed effects, leads to disasters and would get you fired from any job with any impact. PD > why still think the blue fairies are still the cause? > :) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 29, 12:29 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > Scientists do not make up a "physical cause" and blindly say they > account for the effects they see. They did for "time dilation", in fact they have no "physical cause" at all. Lets cut to the chase scene PD. Explain the "physical cause" for the single clock to "show a different time" on it's face then the 361 other clocks. And prove the clock has indeed ""existed" for a lesser time period than the 361 other clocks have. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 29, 12:46 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 12:29 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > They did for "time dilation", in fact they have no "physical cause" > at all. Sure they do. I've been telling Marcel Luttgens all about what the physical cause is. Now, you have a funny limitation on what a "physical cause" is. You say a physical cause must be matter acting on matter, otherwise it's not a physical cause. That is because you are a bonehead with very limited conceptual breadth. The physical cause that is behind time dilation is well documented -- they are the laws of electrodynamics and the fact that laws of physics don't change from inertial frame to inertial frame -- and time dilation is *derived* from these physical causes. You on the other hand have NO derivation of "g forces" acting on clocks and how that produces time dilation. You have a blind guess that those two match up, but that doesn't have any bearing on science. > Lets cut to the chase scene PD. > Explain the "physical cause" for the single clock > to "show a different time" on it's face then the 361 > other clocks. As I said, I'm in the middle of explaining all this in a series of posts on sci.physics.relativity, in conversation with Luttgens. Surely you can go there to catch up. > And prove the clock has indeed ""existed" for a > lesser time period than the 361 other clocks have. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 29, 12:46 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > not a physical cause. That is because you are a bonehead with very > limited conceptual breadth. No, That is because I think physical actually means "physical". The boneheaded one is the morons like you that have no "physical" cause, yet think they do. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 29, 9:48 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 12:46 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > The boneheaded one is the morons like you that have > no "physical" cause, yet think they do. So I take it you are too lazy -- obstinately lazy -- to look up the physical cause for time dilation in another thread on these newsgroups. And you have absolutely no idea how to derive from "g forces" the amount of time dilation to expect. But you feel free to loudly boo and heckle from the peanut gallery. The difference between you and a drunken heckler is that the drunken heckler can always blame his embarrassing behavior on the fact that he's drunk and isn't in control of his actions. What's your excuse? PD > On Jul 29, 9:48 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > physical cause for time dilation in another thread on these > newsgroups. You are not providing any "physical" cause in that thread, Why you think you are is your loss. You are basically coming up with "spacetime" being a cause, that is about as good as the blue fairies. I feel sorry that you can't grasp that. You also have a problem with using such a method of "time changing" because nothing else cares about the time changing on the "one clock" and such changes are not occuring physically at all and that is why the malfunctioning clock's rate will causes crashes if you actually use it as the "correct" time. But of course you are too stupid to look up the history of clocks and problems that cause crashes when a moving clock is "thought" to be the real time. You are a complete utter brainwashed moron with no chance of saving. You are a dipshit that thinks "multiple standards for time" is science. You are one of the most stupid smart people here. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman We keep very good time,and all clocks should be in sync with it. It can only gain or lose one second in 20 million years. Go figure bert On Jul 30, 8:46 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 9:48 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > a cause, that is about as good as the blue fairies. > I feel sorry that you can't grasp that. Why, Spaceman, it's obvious you haven't read a thing I've said in that thread. So now you're just making things up and hoping that no one will notice. How 3rd grade of you. It's by now obvious to everyone that you are a lazy, no-account heckler who is only interested in shouting "Boo!" from the stands. This may be because you can't afford a ticket to a baseball game or a professional wrestling match, and so you take out your pent-up, foamy- lipped frustrations here. Sorry, Spaceman, we can't really help you with the sorry state of your personal circumstances. If you become interested in actually listening and reading as well as shouting "You SUCK!" from the peanut gallery, let me know. PD > You also have a problem with using such a method > of "time changing" because nothing else cares about [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > Why, Spaceman, it's obvious you haven't read a thing I've said in that > thread. So now you're just making things up and hoping that no one > will notice. How 3rd grade of you. I have read everything you have said in that thread, You have not once shown any single "physical" cause. You have babbled about all sorts of things but still have not shown one single "physical" cause at all. You are a fool and you are only fooling yourself now. <snipped rest of nothing actually being stated for physical cause> SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 30, 9:12 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > Why, Spaceman, it's obvious you haven't read a thing I've said in that > > thread. So now you're just making things up and hoping that no one > > will notice. How 3rd grade of you. > > I have read everything you have said in that thread, Really? Then quote something I said in that thread. Word for word. Ideally, try to quote the place where I'm talking about the physical causes. > You have not once shown any single "physical" cause. > You have babbled about all sorts of things but still [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 30, 9:12 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ideally, try to quote the place where I'm talking about the physical > causes. That is the point, You have not shown any physical cause. How can I quote something that was never stated? You are a lying sack of sh.t PD. and it is very sad you can not even grasp a science that uses a single standard for time. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman [snip] >That is the point, >You have not shown any physical cause. >How can I quote something that was never stated? >You are a lying sack of sh.t PD. It is a sign of paranoid delusion for someone to turn to such false accusations as these. But then again, paranoia and delusion are both typical of anti relativity crackpots. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But then again, paranoia and delusion are both typical of anti > relativity crackpots. Poor Matthew, Completely brainwashed by the relativity kingdom, He is seeing silken clothed Emporers where there is just a naked pawn. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 30, 9:28 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 9:12 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You have not shown any physical cause. > How can I quote something that was never stated? Then quote ANYTHING I said in that thread. You say you have read everything I said in that thread. Show that you are not a lying sack of sh.t. > You are a lying sack of sh.t PD. > and it is very sad you can not even grasp a science [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 30, 9:28 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You say you have read everything I said in that thread. > Show that you are not a lying sack of sh.t. So even if I went there (again) and showed something you said there that it would make a difference in your lying about the physical proof being shown at all? You truly are one sad assed relativiist PD. LOL On Jul 30, 11:19 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 9:28 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You truly are one sad assed relativiist PD. > LOL Ah, so you ARE a lying sack of sh.t. As well as stupid. As well as obnoxious. Very good. Thanks. Ta-ta. > On Jul 30, 11:19 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Very good. Thanks. Ta-ta. Poor PD thinks I am goign to jump when he rings a bell. Poor PD does not jump himself when I ring one so why should I do such when he does. Poor PD can not grasp a clock malfunction no matter how simple it is explained that when a clock does not keep the same "tick rate" it is malfunctioning. How freakin stupid is PD? He is very stupid and so ignorant he can't even think about how stupid he could be anymore. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman >> Why, Spaceman, it's obvious you haven't read a thing I've said in that >> thread. So now you're just making things up and hoping that no one >> will notice. How 3rd grade of you. > >I have read everything you have said in that thread, >You have not once shown any single "physical" cause. This is patently false. You snipped it with the lying claim that: ><snipped rest of nothing actually being stated for physical cause> But this is a lie: PD already explained to you why the basic theory of electricity and magnetism already implies Special Relativity. >>> Why, Spaceman, it's obvious you haven't read a thing I've said in >>> that thread. So now you're just making things up and hoping that no [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This is patently false. You snipped it with the lying claim that: >> <snipped rest of nothing actually being stated for physical cause> You are on drugs right? PD has not shown "physical" proof at all. He has babbled on and on with statements that it does, but has never actually given such physical proof at all. You are either on drugs or a lyer. Or maybe both. > But this is a lie: PD already explained to you why the basic theory of > electricity and magnetism already implies Special Relativity. You are on drugs I see. The basic theory of electricity and magnetism does not imply blue fairies. (SR) You are truly lost in your rubber ruler land of multiple standards for time and distance. I do feel sorry for you, unless it is drugs, then you deserve to be as stupid as you are showing all. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 30, 10:21 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > In article <h8Wdne6fO6Z46w3VnZ2dnUVZ_jydn...@comcast.com>, Spaceman > > says... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > does, but has never actually given such physical proof > at all. You probably mean that I haven't convinced YOU with a proof. This is true. Nor have I convinced my coffee cup, nor the left front tire of my car, nor the neighbor's cat. Of course, none of them are interested in the subject, and neither are you. I would no more be able to convince you (and make you cry "Uncle!") than I would be able to convince a puddle of pee. Nor do I feel compelled to. > You are either on drugs or a lyer. > Or maybe both. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman > On Jul 30, 10:21 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > convince you (and make you cry "Uncle!") than I would be able to > convince a puddle of pee. Nor do I feel compelled to. Poor PD, He has no proof so he just needs to keep yelling he has proof so he will believe it even more. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 30, 11:20 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 10:21 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > so he will believe it even more. > LOL Sorry, dares from puddles of pee are less than compelling. > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory > Spaceman On Jul 30, 9:46 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 29, 9:48 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You are not providing any "physical" cause in that thread, Well, I told you at least five times. The physical difference is the centripetal force. The dork clock has a huge centripetal force applied to it. The 361 clocks do not have a centripetal force acted on it. The reason that no one can give you more detail is because you haven't told us what propells the dork clock. The dork clock is moving in a circle. Is it attached to rocket engines, or is it in gravitational orbit. Maybe the center clock is positively charge while the dork clock is negatively charged. You haven't told us how the clock stays in orbit. However, this detail isn't necessary. All that matters is that there is some force applied to the dork clock that keeps it in a circular orbit. This force comes from bodies other than the dork clock. Whatever causes this force is what causes the difference in clock rate. I call this force centripetal. Some other poster may wish to call this force the radial force, or the axial force, or any one of many names for the centripetal force. If you want to call this a malfunction force, go ahead. If you want to say this force is unreal, I have to disagree. If it was unreal, the dork clock would travel in a straight line. You said the clock was moving in a circle. I have given you the physical reason for the difference in clock rate, regardless of what you decide to call it. > Why you think you are is your loss. > You are basically coming up with "spacetime" being > a cause, that is about as good as the blue fairies. > I feel sorry that you can't grasp that. Others have mentioned space time. Spacetime is one way of representing relativity theory, so I don't disagree with them. My preference in any nonquantum problem is to start with force diagrams. This is another way to represent reality, but it gets mathematically hairy when applied to relativistic problems. It is conceptually easier for me than spacetime, and winds up giving the same answers anyway. At no point have I mentioned space time. Don't misrepresent me. > On Jul 30, 9:46 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > applied to it. The 361 clocks do not have a centripetal force acted on > it. So you agree, the clock malfunctioned then? Or do you think "time" slowed and that clock is still correctly measuring time? SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 30, 12:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 9:46 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > So you agree, the clock malfunctioned then? Sure, why not? > Or do you think "time" slowed and that clock is still > correctly measuring time? Sure, why not? The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. > On Jul 30, 12:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Sure, why not? > The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. You can't have both. If the clock has malfuntioned, it is not showing proper time at all. I can see you really don't have a clue about science anymore. That is sad. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Jul 30, 3:59 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 12:55 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I can see you really don't have a clue about science anymore. > That is sad. Not true. I say that proper time can only be measured by a malfunctioning clock. There is no scientific definition of either the words "proper" or "malfunction." You are the only one who uses the words proper and malfunction in the way you do. The GPS is a useful navigation device using satellites. Each satellite contains a malfunctioning clock. Each clock registers improper time, which the computers use to calculate the proper time. The satellites also include rubber rulers. The GPS system can help missiles find their targets to within a meter, or sometimes much better. Also surveyers of different types. Using differential techniques, a GPS can locate a position within a centimeter (an extra tower is sometimes necessary for differential techniques). All this using malfunctioning clocks, improper time, rubber rulers and relativistic equations. You don't understand GPS. This is sad |:-) > Not true. I say that proper time can only be measured by a > malfunctioning clock. Ok, Bye bye. Have fun in rubber ruler land, |
Reply to this Message |
 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.