| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spaceman
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103 |
 |
|
doug wrote:
[quote]Lloyd wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
dkel...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:33 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Relativity = Stupidity"
That is a very difficult equation to teach.
We are only using one example to teach the subject. Past
experience of Professor Androcles on teaching this subject has
shown that pupils learn extremely slowly, if at all. This series
of classes hopes to teach this difficult subject on a step by
step basis.
Example 1: Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest
with respect to one another. Clock rates are of course equal.
Let frame M with clock M now move with respect to E, with
relative constant velocity v.
In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M
did not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much
pain, but eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.
We skip "R=S 102" since the course material teaches that the rate
of clock E in frame E did not change after the external clock M
moved. It is common sense that since no change occurred in frame
E, then no change must occur in the rate of clock E. Of course,
the course "R=S 102" may be opened for those who are having
difficulty in the succeeding course.
Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change
after it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did
not change after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the
conclusion must be that clocks E and M are in synch before and
after the M clock moved.
Let me repeat the argument:
Rates of clocks E and M did not change after clock M moved. Since
the rates were equal before the move, then the rates must be equal
after the move. In short, the clocks stay in synch.
The floor is now open for questions...
Hi
The problem is that experiments have shown that the clocks ARE no
longer in sync when brought back together in the same location.
Clock malfuctions are older than relativity.
It is nice how you ignore the history of clocks to support
a theory that is also ignorant of clock malfunctions
So far, relativity has predicted exactly how much those clocks
should have shifted, with precission.
Relativity fails to correctly predict ALL clocks rate changes.
Specify which ones.
Spaceman thinks that all clocks except the one in Greenwich
malfunction and change rates. He says that is the reason that
GMT is used as a time reference. (Seriously, he says this).
[/quote]
Nice how Doug always needs to make up what others think.
It is also sad he thinks he is actually stating truths when he does
such.
Then again, Doug is a lying con man so that figures.
[quote]
Relativity fails to understand history of clock and the history of
more than one type of clock.
Theories do not understand anything. They are not alive.
Sounds a lot like spaceman.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103 |
|
|
Lloyd wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 1:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
dkel...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:33 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Relativity = Stupidity"
That is a very difficult equation to teach.
We are only using one example to teach the subject. Past experience
of Professor Androcles on teaching this subject has shown that
pupils learn extremely slowly, if at all. This series of classes
hopes to teach this difficult subject on a step by step basis.
Example 1: Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest
with respect to one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let
frame M with clock M now move with respect to E, with relative
constant velocity v.
In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M
did not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much
pain, but eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.
We skip "R=S 102" since the course material teaches that the rate
of clock E in frame E did not change after the external clock M
moved. It is common sense that since no change occurred in frame
E, then no change must occur in the rate of clock E. Of course,
the course "R=S 102" may be opened for those who are having
difficulty in the succeeding course.
Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change
after it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did not
change after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the
conclusion must be that clocks E and M are in synch before and
after the M clock moved.
Let me repeat the argument:
Rates of clocks E and M did not change after clock M moved. Since
the rates were equal before the move, then the rates must be equal
after the move. In short, the clocks stay in synch.
The floor is now open for questions...
Hi
The problem is that experiments have shown that the clocks ARE no
longer in sync when brought back together in the same location.
Clock malfuctions are older than relativity.
It is nice how you ignore the history of clocks to support
a theory that is also ignorant of clock malfunctions
So far, relativity has predicted exactly how much those clocks
should have shifted, with precission.
Relativity fails to correctly predict ALL clocks rate changes.
Specify which ones.
[/quote]
One is enough.
A pendulum clock
another makes it more wrong.
water clocks.
and yet another makes it so wrong it is stupid to
say relativity predicts all clocks.
sandclocks.
[quote]Relativity fails to understand history of clock and the history of
more than one type of clock.
Theories do not understand anything. They are not alive.
[/quote]
Oh ya, I should have said.
The morons that think relativity works for all clocks fail
to understand the history of all clocks and also fail to understand
what the most important function of a clock is. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Bostwick
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: Time is shown to be a constant |
|
|
In article <b9ab5a37-1937-4611-95b6-fac668e91333@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 1:32=A0pm, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
What the f ck is wrong with you?
Is it not yet obvious that he is not interested in learning and wants
to soak up your time in shit like this?
[/quote]
Yep, trolls are like that. Time to ignore the drivel and the driveler. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lloyd
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103 |
|
|
On Oct 9, 10:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
[quote]Lloyd wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
dkel...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:33 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Relativity = Stupidity"
That is a very difficult equation to teach.
We are only using one example to teach the subject. Past experience
of Professor Androcles on teaching this subject has shown that
pupils learn extremely slowly, if at all. This series of classes
hopes to teach this difficult subject on a step by step basis.
Example 1: Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest
with respect to one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let
frame M with clock M now move with respect to E, with relative
constant velocity v.
In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M
did not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much
pain, but eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.
We skip "R=S 102" since the course material teaches that the rate
of clock E in frame E did not change after the external clock M
moved. It is common sense that since no change occurred in frame
E, then no change must occur in the rate of clock E. Of course,
the course "R=S 102" may be opened for those who are having
difficulty in the succeeding course.
Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change
after it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did not
change after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the
conclusion must be that clocks E and M are in synch before and
after the M clock moved.
Let me repeat the argument:
Rates of clocks E and M did not change after clock M moved. Since
the rates were equal before the move, then the rates must be equal
after the move. In short, the clocks stay in synch.
The floor is now open for questions...
Hi
The problem is that experiments have shown that the clocks ARE no
longer in sync when brought back together in the same location.
Clock malfuctions are older than relativity.
It is nice how you ignore the history of clocks to support
a theory that is also ignorant of clock malfunctions
So far, relativity has predicted exactly how much those clocks
should have shifted, with precission.
Relativity fails to correctly predict ALL clocks rate changes.
Specify which ones.
One is enough.
A pendulum clock
another makes it more wrong.
water clocks.
and yet another makes it so wrong it is stupid to
say relativity predicts all clocks.
sandclocks.
Relativity fails to understand history of clock and the history of
more than one type of clock.
Theories do not understand anything. They are not alive.
Oh ya, I should have said.
The morons that think relativity works for all clocks fail
to understand the history of all clocks
[/quote]
Would that be the sum of all paths of clocks then?
[quote]and also fail to understand
what the most important function of a clock is.
[/quote]
Yelling "cuckoo" when necessary? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103 |
|
|
Lloyd wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 10:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Lloyd wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
dkel...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:33 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Relativity = Stupidity"
That is a very difficult equation to teach.
We are only using one example to teach the subject. Past
experience of Professor Androcles on teaching this subject has
shown that pupils learn extremely slowly, if at all. This series
of classes hopes to teach this difficult subject on a step by
step basis.
Example 1: Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest
with respect to one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let
frame M with clock M now move with respect to E, with relative
constant velocity v.
In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M
did not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much
pain, but eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.
We skip "R=S 102" since the course material teaches that the rate
of clock E in frame E did not change after the external clock M
moved. It is common sense that since no change occurred in frame
E, then no change must occur in the rate of clock E. Of course,
the course "R=S 102" may be opened for those who are having
difficulty in the succeeding course.
Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change
after it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did
not change after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the
conclusion must be that clocks E and M are in synch before and
after the M clock moved.
Let me repeat the argument:
Rates of clocks E and M did not change after clock M moved. Since
the rates were equal before the move, then the rates must be
equal after the move. In short, the clocks stay in synch.
The floor is now open for questions...
Hi
The problem is that experiments have shown that the clocks ARE no
longer in sync when brought back together in the same location.
Clock malfuctions are older than relativity.
It is nice how you ignore the history of clocks to support
a theory that is also ignorant of clock malfunctions
So far, relativity has predicted exactly how much those clocks
should have shifted, with precission.
Relativity fails to correctly predict ALL clocks rate changes.
Specify which ones.
One is enough.
A pendulum clock
another makes it more wrong.
water clocks.
and yet another makes it so wrong it is stupid to
say relativity predicts all clocks.
sandclocks.
Relativity fails to understand history of clock and the history of
more than one type of clock.
Theories do not understand anything. They are not alive.
Oh ya, I should have said.
The morons that think relativity works for all clocks fail
to understand the history of all clocks
Would that be the sum of all paths of clocks then?
[/quote]
Clocks that have worked correctly compared to the standard,
will always match the sum of the standard clock when returned
to the starting point if moved.
You truly do not get that huh?
[quote]and also fail to understand
what the most important function of a clock is.
Yelling "cuckoo" when necessary?
[/quote]
Actually.
Yes. that is an important function of a clock.
Of course, you also must not get that either if you
think "time" changes rate at all instead of a clock malfunction
occuring.
:) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Strich.9
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103 |
|
|
This discussion is continued in the following thread:
The Nature of Physical Reality - Analyzing the Properties of Space-
time
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/89c54bc4ad1f20a4?scoring=d& |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
