Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spaceman
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
 |
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 3:25 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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.
|
That is again a material (mechanical based) diversion of
the path.
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.
| 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.
| 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.
| Quote: |
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.
| Quote: |
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.
:)
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.
Just as they have left the "physical" cause for gravity without
a cause at all.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
| Quote: |
Sue...
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
| 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?
| Quote: |
There is nothing interesting happening mechanically.
If the wagon can spin like an atom, then it is interesting.
|
The atom spinning is mechanical.
Why don't you know that?
Do you think mechanics is limited in direction of motions?
| 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.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:00 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 4:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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)
|
Atoms.
but wait...
You are saying charges don't obey newtons laws?
You best re-think that a lot.
They obey them very well.
| 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.
|
The waves are made via an electro/magnetic vibration.
Why do you think they are not?
Do you think you can make "light" without an electro/magnetic
frequency occuring to do such?
Total crap Sue.
If it were true, the light would not "bend" in gravity at all.
| Quote: |
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.
|
What?
I did not say "tunneling" could not happen.
Again, why do you extract such stuff from a statement
that does not come close to saying such?
| Quote: |
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.
|
Poor Sue.
You truly need to start waking up.
You have now said that all this stuff proves everyone
of Newtons laws to have been violated.
I can tell you never really studied Newtons laws when
you say such stuff.
If any single thing could violate newtons laws.
There would be working perpetual motion machines
all over the place by now.
| 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.
|
a laser that can do any damage at all is a particle ray.
a laser that only shines light and barely does damage or
no "damage at all" is a concentrated light beam.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Sr is full of "non physical causes" for effects it basically
has not "explained at all" since they actually do lack the
physical causes completely.
| 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.
|
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.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 4:12 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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.
|
What the F are you talking about.
Do you even know how things "heat" up
at all?
| Quote: |
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.
|
OMG, you are totally withut a clue about mechanics huh?
| 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.
|
Spacial descriptions is how you would learn about the
structure of the electrons and etc...
If you don't find out such "structure" you have found
nothing "physical" about it at all yet.
This is one reason mechanics do not "smash" your car
into a wall at high speeds to fix or find out how they work.
:)
| 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.
|
Bzzzzzzttt!
Wrong.
If they did not obey all 3 Newton laws, we would have
electric perpetual motion machines built by now.
You truly think Newtons laws have been violated don't you?
Wow.. you need a refresher course in classical physics.
You have read too many "anti-Newton" papers that are only
written to support a theory that has no physical causes
tied to it at all. (the being SR and GR)
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:14 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 12:05 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
|
But you can't give us any examples in nature
where nature knows what straight is.
Yes... We could consider the hypothetical
two charge universe. Wiggle one charge and
straight-line coupling causes the other charge
to wiggle via Coulomb coupling.
But put two more charges in the system and
all bets are off about what path an action
takes. Wiggle one, they all wiggle. But
in ways that would seem strange to a person familiar
with springs, strings and billiard balls.
Your rules become useless in a four particle
universe. More particles aren't going to
make your rules work any better.
I think your notions about nature's knowlege
of straight lines might find a better fit
in the radial lines of diagrams like these:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/isq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
You have consistantly associated your
"straight lines" with forces that diminish by
the inverse square law. ( 1/r^2 )
Magnetic force diminishes by the cube (1/r^3)
and particle trajectories are not straight lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
You don't honestly think Newton even knew
why his television needed focusing coils
do you ?
Sue...
| Quote: |
--
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
