Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spaceman
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
 |
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 10:28 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 10:09 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:59 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:25 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
messagenews:ZY-dnS9STYLb7uDVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
messagenews:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
messagenews:opOdnSTr7oW2UeHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
An observer at rest will measure an acceleration of
the object. The object itself feels no forces
so long as it is allowed to move inertially
(responding only to gravity).
Feels no forces, yet is under acceleration.
Right.
Actually it is changing it's force during the acceleration
since the acceleration is increasing or changing its
velocity.
A freely falling body feels no force due to gravity
(weight).
So you have 0 acceleration occuring then,
No, the object is following an inertial trajectory
which is accelerating according to observers in
other inertial frames. That trajectory involves a
changing velocity with respect to those observers.
You are totally lost.
True Inertial trajectories are physically straight lines.
True inertial trajectories don't have any force
on the moving body.
Correct, so if you see them curve at all.
You found a force that made it no longer "inertial".
:)
Which side of the moon is the rocket motor
located which causes it to move along a curve?
The orginal inertia of the "straight" line is being
changed by a 90 degree "force" to it's inertial path.
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
The Center of Gravity Sue.
Where else does Gravity come from?
Sheesh!
The acceleration and any curve at all proves
it left "inertia" to join with another force
that is not "inertial" at all.
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
When an SRist does not get the answer,
they will turn into a Parrot.
Poor Sue the parrot.
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
|
The *focus* would be on the "force" of Gravity
The force that is actually ineterfering with the inertial
force.
Sheesh.. again.
You skipped classical physics huh?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 3:25 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 2:32 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Light doesn't follow a straight line so why should
anything else?
Why would it not follow a straight line is more the question
that you like to ignore then right?
The tactical answer is:
The people that would tell you clocks and twins are
affected by motion would like you to believe light
moves like a bullet under the influence of inertia.
This notion is almost as convincing today as it
was 300 years ago.
Their case crumbles when we examine the way light
really moves.
http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html
Light travels in waves, just like any other waves
No not like mechancal waves. EM waves have a push and a pull
so the net mechanical force is zero.
No,
You are somehow thinking they can not "move things"
yet they do, they knock around elecrons silly in some cases.
Like how the microwave works.
It actually does have mechanical energy being transfered
to the electrons in turn creating the heat that cooks
the food or boils the water.
Why do you wish to "ignore" mechanical physics when
it has never been "physically" proven wrong at all?
something needs to change the direction of the waves
The antenna determines the direction.
Inhomogenous conductors and dielectrics along the path
shape the path.
Ok,
At least you are partially on the right "path" with that statement.
but of course you have added the word "conductors" and that
is a mechanical (materielistic) thing all over again.
and also dielectric is also mechanical (materialistic) thing.
Why would you remove mechanics and then add mechanics
again after removing such?
So again, you have "physical" causes that curve the lightwave
and at least you have not "fallen" for the curvature of spacetime crap.
:)
or they will travel straight as long as a straight path
actually exists for them to do such.
They travel outward. But not isotropically.
http://www-antenna.ee.titech.ac.jp/~hira/hobby/edu/em/staticem/static...
Not actually true,
Lightwaves travel outward from the source at the same speed unless something
blocks or diverts the paths and/or slows down/interferes with the
isotropical projections.
|
That's a fair statement. But somewhat misleading.
We may put something in the path to enhance it.
A lens or optical fibre.
| Quote: |
They do not just "change direction" on thier own.
Especially since they are not self controlled.
Light waves follow a favourable path. And it not always
the path favourable to humans so we fabricate
lenses, parabolic reflectors, wave guides and
fibre optics etc.
As I said,
They follow a path that is allowed by the medium.
If the medium does not have the "straight" path,
they will curve or bounce of whatever.
And that still makes them "non truly inertial" once such has occured.
|
I won't introduce tunneling just for the sake of
argument.
Light is massless so it has no inertial properties.
Throw a rock in the pond. Does the water that
contacts the rock move to the shore?
Of course not. But masses near the shore move
up and down. Those masses don't weigh anymore
after the wave passes. Eh?
Atoms can absorb energy from light and
increase in mass but that is beyond pond physics.
Sue...
| Quote: |
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 3:25 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
No,
You are somehow thinking they can not "move things"
yet they do, they knock around elecrons silly in some cases.
Like how the microwave works.
It actually does have mechanical energy being transfered
to the electrons in turn creating the heat that cooks
the food or boils the water.
|
That is angular momentum. It has little relation
to the path it took to the popcorn.
| Quote: |
Why do you wish to "ignore" mechanical physics when
it has never been "physically" proven wrong at all?
|
If I push on the front of the wagon and you pull
on the front of the wagon can we ignore its motion?
There is nothing interesting happening mechanically.
If the wagon can spin like an atom, then it is interesting.
In EM positve motions are usually balance by negative
motions so we usually ignore them.
Sue...
> Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 10:44 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 10:28 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 10:09 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:59 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:25 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
messagenews:ZY-dnS9STYLb7uDVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
messagenews:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote
in
messagenews:opOdnSTr7oW2UeHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
An observer at rest will measure an acceleration of
the object. The object itself feels no forces
so long as it is allowed to move inertially
(responding only to gravity).
Feels no forces, yet is under acceleration.
Right.
Actually it is changing it's force during the
acceleration since the acceleration is increasing or
changing its velocity.
A freely falling body feels no force due to gravity
(weight).
So you have 0 acceleration occuring then,
No, the object is following an inertial trajectory
which is accelerating according to observers in
other inertial frames. That trajectory involves a
changing velocity with respect to those observers.
You are totally lost.
True Inertial trajectories are physically straight lines.
True inertial trajectories don't have any force
on the moving body.
Correct, so if you see them curve at all.
You found a force that made it no longer "inertial".
:)
Which side of the moon is the rocket motor
located which causes it to move along a curve?
The orginal inertia of the "straight" line is being
changed by a 90 degree "force" to it's inertial path.
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
The Center of Gravity Sue.
Where else does Gravity come from?
Sheesh!
The acceleration and any curve at all proves
it left "inertia" to join with another force
that is not "inertial" at all.
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
When an SRist does not get the answer,
they will turn into a Parrot.
Poor Sue the parrot.
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
The *focus* would be on the "force" of Gravity
The force that is actually ineterfering with the inertial
force.
Sheesh.. again.
You skipped classical physics huh?
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
OK It looks somewhere between 0 and 180 degrees
so 90 degrees is probably close enough.
Collect your gold star and your milk and cookies.
|
Woot Woot!
Thanks.
:)
| Quote: |
If you get closer to a planet, the gravataional
force increases, Eh?
What happens if you fly a ship between
two equal planets? Does the escape
velocity change if they are really close?
|
Actually yes,
You would basically have 2 G forces to escape from.
your distance from each CoG would make a difference
which one was pulling more at that time but both
would always be combining.
They would in fact "combine" to each other
just as 2 magnetic fields or 2 static electric fields
would.
There would be one "straight path" through the center
of the two worlds that would maintain a constant
Combination of the forces on each side of you,
and at one single place in the exact center of both CoG's
both g-forces would balance.
:)
No path "except" a physically straight path, is inertial.
any curve or deviation in a "physically" straight path is a
change in the inertial motion and is no longer truly inertial
motion only.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 11:11 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 10:44 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 10:28 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 10:09 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 9:59 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:25 am, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in
messagenews:ZY-dnS9STYLb7uDVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote
in
messagenews:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote
in
messagenews:opOdnSTr7oW2UeHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
An observer at rest will measure an acceleration of
the object. The object itself feels no forces
so long as it is allowed to move inertially
(responding only to gravity).
Feels no forces, yet is under acceleration.
Right.
Actually it is changing it's force during the
acceleration since the acceleration is increasing or
changing its velocity.
A freely falling body feels no force due to gravity
(weight).
So you have 0 acceleration occuring then,
No, the object is following an inertial trajectory
which is accelerating according to observers in
other inertial frames. That trajectory involves a
changing velocity with respect to those observers.
You are totally lost.
True Inertial trajectories are physically straight lines.
True inertial trajectories don't have any force
on the moving body.
Correct, so if you see them curve at all.
You found a force that made it no longer "inertial".
:)
Which side of the moon is the rocket motor
located which causes it to move along a curve?
The orginal inertia of the "straight" line is being
changed by a 90 degree "force" to it's inertial path.
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
The Center of Gravity Sue.
Where else does Gravity come from?
Sheesh!
The acceleration and any curve at all proves
it left "inertia" to join with another force
that is not "inertial" at all.
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
When an SRist does not get the answer,
they will turn into a Parrot.
Poor Sue the parrot.
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
Which foci did you use to get 90 degrees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse
The *focus* would be on the "force" of Gravity
The force that is actually ineterfering with the inertial
force.
Sheesh.. again.
You skipped classical physics huh?
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
OK It looks somewhere between 0 and 180 degrees
so 90 degrees is probably close enough.
Collect your gold star and your milk and cookies.
Woot Woot!
Thanks.
:)
If you get closer to a planet, the gravataional
force increases, Eh?
What happens if you fly a ship between
two equal planets? Does the escape
velocity change if they are really close?
Actually yes,
You would basically have 2 G forces to escape from.
your distance from each CoG would make a difference
which one was pulling more at that time but both
would always be combining.
What? Gravity can pull me off a planet?
|
I did not say that would happen in the "same sized"
worlds thought you gave at all.
But in reallity, gravity would pull both you and your
Planet at the same "acceleration rate".
You would not leave the ground unless something else
was holding your planet away from the other planet
and your own" center of gravity was further away
from the "extra" force holding your planet away from
the one pulling you off the ground.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 4:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
http://www-antenna.ee.titech.ac.jp/~hira/hobby/edu/em/staticem/static...
Not actually true,
Lightwaves travel outward from the source at the same speed unless
something blocks or diverts the paths and/or slows down/interferes
with the isotropical projections.
That's a fair statement. But somewhat misleading.
We may put something in the path to enhance it.
A lens or optical fibre.
That is again a material (mechanical based) diversion of
the path.
|
What is *mechanically* moving in a lens ?
(charges don't count because they don't obey
Newton's laws)
| Quote: |
The inertia is forced down that path os not longer under
inertia only, but also under the force of that path.
Just as a water pipe forces the waters initial inertia to take the
path we make it take.
|
If you think light has a coupling to inertia then you
need to help PD sell his snake oil.
<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational [inertial by equivalence] field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml
| Quote: |
They do not just "change direction" on thier own.
Especially since they are not self controlled.
Light waves follow a favourable path. And it not always
the path favourable to humans so we fabricate
lenses, parabolic reflectors, wave guides and
fibre optics etc.
As I said,
They follow a path that is allowed by the medium.
If the medium does not have the "straight" path,
they will curve or bounce of whatever.
And that still makes them "non truly inertial" once such has occured.
I won't introduce tunneling just for the sake of
argument.
Tunneling is simply just as it is called,
a hole that something can travel through.
|
But it does. You need to build a magnet to
understand how.
| Quote: |
Light is massless so it has no inertial properties.
Throw a rock in the pond. Does the water that
contacts the rock move to the shore?
Light waves can be treated as "having mass" also,
it is just way too small of a number with much more
math than anyone wants to use to find the outcome
of the energy transmitted.
Of course not. But masses near the shore move
up and down. Those masses don't weigh anymore
after the wave passes. Eh?
Right, the energy comes from kinetic energy
the motion of the mass, the mass never changes
onyl the amount of energy put in and taken out.
Atoms can absorb energy from light and
increase in mass but that is beyond pond physics.
Not really,
Each atom absorbs the motion and when too much
is absorbed it will transmit it, almost like a rubber ball
would do but in such lesser absorbtion, we call it a liquid
or solid.
Pond are made of atoms also so the same physics applies.
Just as any matter is made of "mass" so all such matter is subject
to Newtons 3 physics Laws.
|
No... Atomic absorbion is not described by Newton's laws.
| Quote: |
:)
SR has lost this "matter creates forces" cause and effect chain.
They have replaced it with "math" doing the force instead of
actually finding the "physical" cause for the curvature
of a light beam.
|
Well... at least you call light a *beam* instead of particle or
ray.
<<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between
the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light>>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
That is all SR has to say... and it does.
| Quote: |
Just as they have left the "physical" cause for gravity without
a cause at all.
|
Induction gravty comes with a pretty good
mechanism but it is not widely accepted.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6
Sue...
| Quote: |
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Sue...
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 4:12 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 3:25 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
No,
You are somehow thinking they can not "move things"
yet they do, they knock around elecrons silly in some cases.
Like how the microwave works.
It actually does have mechanical energy being transfered
to the electrons in turn creating the heat that cooks
the food or boils the water.
That is angular momentum. It has little relation
to the path it took to the popcorn.
Actually it has lots to do with it along with the position
the popcorn kernal is sitting in to produce the
path it pops towards.
|
Explain how 700 watts from the left differs
from 700 watts from the right, as viewed
by cooking oil under popcorn.
| Quote: |
Why do you wish to "ignore" mechanical physics when
it has never been "physically" proven wrong at all?
If I push on the front of the wagon and you pull
on the front of the wagon can we ignore its motion?
Of course not.
Why do you come up with that about what I stated at all?
There is nothing interesting happening mechanically.
If the wagon can spin like an atom, then it is interesting.
The atom spinning is mechanical.
|
No... it can only be measured electromagnetically.
| Quote: |
Why don't you know that?
Do you think mechanics is limited in direction of motions?
|
It is limited to objects with spatial descriptions
unless you are including quantum mechanics.
| Quote: |
In EM positve motions are usually balance by negative
motions so we usually ignore them.
But you should not.
That is the problem with never finding a true physical cause
for such "balanced motion".
and..
In mechanics..
That is a 2 gear system.
Two motions balanced, but stick something in between the two
and you will find it should never be ignored or you could end
up with an electron (wrench) in the face.
Just because it is balanced motion, does not mean it is
has no "energy" being used and in fact if it has 2 spinning motions
that match and balance each other it should show you it is
very mechanical in it's nature.
|
We don't consider the motions of electrons as mechanical
because they do not obey Newton's laws.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
Sue...
| Quote: |
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
I see. So if there was a planet on my house I could
get there with an aerosol can. But if it moved
away, I might need larger and larger thrusters
the farther away it got.
|
If there was a planet ON your house,
you could get there by jumping.
| Quote: |
When does this "inertia" stuff ever help us?
It is a straight line between the centers
of mass?
|
It does not "keep you straight" it only wants to
move straight.
and when forces change such, it is no longer
an inertial motion alone.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 5:00 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Induction gravty comes with a pretty good
mechanism but it is not widely accepted.
Static field theories are more reality than anything else
so far.
(a mass of sub particles that "fill" space)
closer to the Dirac Sea type thoughts than anything
SR or GR related.
|
Induction gravty comes with a pretty good
mechanism but it is not widely accepted.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6
;-)
| Quote: |
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 8:27 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 12:05 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
I see. So if there was a planet on my house I could
get there with an aerosol can. But if it moved
away, I might need larger and larger thrusters
the farther away it got.
If there was a planet ON your house,
you could get there by jumping.
When does this "inertia" stuff ever help us?
It is a straight line between the centers
of mass?
It does not "keep you straight" it only wants to
move straight.
and when forces change such, it is no longer
an inertial motion alone.
I'll have to think for a while about that.
Sue...
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
|
Couldn't find anything even remotely plausible on the search engine
quote & link mines? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 12:05 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
I see. So if there was a planet on my house I could
get there with an aerosol can. But if it moved
away, I might need larger and larger thrusters
the farther away it got.
If there was a planet ON your house,
you could get there by jumping.
When does this "inertia" stuff ever help us?
It is a straight line between the centers
of mass?
It does not "keep you straight" it only wants to
move straight.
and when forces change such, it is no longer
an inertial motion alone.
I'll have to think for a while about that.
|
Ok.
When you put it all together along with any other
known classical laws of physics.
It all makes the world so wonderful and keeps it very logical
at the same time instead of the non-logics of "time travel,
wormholes, point particles, zero point energy.
and curvature of spacetime" crap.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 12:38 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 12:05 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
I see. So if there was a planet on my house I could
get there with an aerosol can. But if it moved
away, I might need larger and larger thrusters
the farther away it got.
If there was a planet ON your house,
you could get there by jumping.
When does this "inertia" stuff ever help us?
It is a straight line between the centers
of mass?
It does not "keep you straight" it only wants to
move straight.
and when forces change such, it is no longer
an inertial motion alone.
I'll have to think for a while about that.
Ok.
When you put it all together along with any other
known classical laws of physics.
It all makes the world so wonderful and keeps it very logical
at the same time instead of the non-logics of "time travel,
wormholes, point particles, zero point energy.
and curvature of spacetime" crap.
When a planet was on my house, I was weightless.
When I was in eliptical orbit. I was weightless.
If I was at the center of this planet, I would be weightless.
|
So you had "no gravity" causing you to have weight?
Or.. did you have a balance of gravitational forces causing to
to not move one direction or the other?
| Quote: |
So I am having a bit of trouble seeing what straight
or curved lines have to do with it. None of
those three situations involves a straight line.
|
None of those "weightless situations" have anything to
do with "inertial motion either.
So, your diversion of inertial motion conversation
to the "weightless" conversation is noted.
Again,
Inertial motion is "physically straight motion" and once
the "straight" motion is no longer "straight".
You are udner the force of something other than inertial motion
alone.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 1:08 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 12:38 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 12:05 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
I see. So if there was a planet on my house I could
get there with an aerosol can. But if it moved
away, I might need larger and larger thrusters
the farther away it got.
If there was a planet ON your house,
you could get there by jumping.
When does this "inertia" stuff ever help us?
It is a straight line between the centers
of mass?
It does not "keep you straight" it only wants to
move straight.
and when forces change such, it is no longer
an inertial motion alone.
I'll have to think for a while about that.
Ok.
When you put it all together along with any other
known classical laws of physics.
It all makes the world so wonderful and keeps it very logical
at the same time instead of the non-logics of "time travel,
wormholes, point particles, zero point energy.
and curvature of spacetime" crap.
When a planet was on my house, I was weightless.
When I was in eliptical orbit. I was weightless.
If I was at the center of this planet, I would be weightless.
So you had "no gravity" causing you to have weight?
Or.. did you have a balance of gravitational forces causing to
to not move one direction or the other?
So I am having a bit of trouble seeing what straight
or curved lines have to do with it. None of
those three situations involves a straight line.
None of those "weightless situations" have anything to
do with "inertial motion either.
So, your diversion of inertial motion conversation
to the "weightless" conversation is noted.
Again,
Inertial motion is "physically straight motion" and once
the "straight" motion is no longer "straight".
You are udner the force of something other than inertial motion
alone.
That is silly. If a bullet moves a-> b-> c
At point b, it doesn't "remember" how it moved
from a to b and calculate the heading to c
to compliment the angle.
|
You again are diverting.
No "memory" is required for a bullet to
follow a path forced upon it.
That is like saying the bullet has to "remember"
it hit a wall and bounced off it to follow the new path.
Sheesh.
Where do you come up with such diversion tactics
at all?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
Light doesn't follow a straight line so why should
anything else?
|
Why would it not follow a straight line is more the question
that you like to ignore then right?
Light travels in waves, just like any other waves
something needs to change the direction of the waves
or they will travel straight as long as a straight path
actually exists for them to do such.
They do not just "change direction" on thier own.
Especially since they are not self controlled.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:25 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 2:32 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Light doesn't follow a straight line so why should
anything else?
Why would it not follow a straight line is more the question
that you like to ignore then right?
The tactical answer is:
The people that would tell you clocks and twins are
affected by motion would like you to believe light
moves like a bullet under the influence of inertia.
This notion is almost as convincing today as it
was 300 years ago.
Their case crumbles when we examine the way light
really moves.
http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html
Light travels in waves, just like any other waves
No not like mechancal waves. EM waves have a push and a pull
so the net mechanical force is zero.
|
No,
You are somehow thinking they can not "move things"
yet they do, they knock around elecrons silly in some cases.
Like how the microwave works.
It actually does have mechanical energy being transfered
to the electrons in turn creating the heat that cooks
the food or boils the water.
Why do you wish to "ignore" mechanical physics when
it has never been "physically" proven wrong at all?
| Quote: |
something needs to change the direction of the waves
The antenna determines the direction.
Inhomogenous conductors and dielectrics along the path
shape the path.
|
Ok,
At least you are partially on the right "path" with that statement.
but of course you have added the word "conductors" and that
is a mechanical (materielistic) thing all over again.
and also dielectric is also mechanical (materialistic) thing.
Why would you remove mechanics and then add mechanics
again after removing such?
So again, you have "physical" causes that curve the lightwave
and at least you have not "fallen" for the curvature of spacetime crap.
:)
Not actually true,
Lightwaves travel outward from the source at the same speed unless something
blocks or diverts the paths and/or slows down/interferes with the
isotropical
projections.
| Quote: |
They do not just "change direction" on thier own.
Especially since they are not self controlled.
They follow a favourable path. And it not always
the path favourable to humans so we fabricate
lenses, parabolic reflectors, wave guides and
fibre optics etc.
|
As I said,
They follow a path that is allowed by the medium.
If the medium does not have the "straight" path,
they will curve or bounce of whatever.
And that still makes them "non truly inertial" once such has occured.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
