Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spaceman
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
 |
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:dZOdnTsql-i_W-HVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:Xp6dnUybX-g2KeHVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:17 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
PD wrote:
OK, so it appears you can't decide between the time dilation
being due to g-forces or due to relativistic mass.
Saying such a statement proves that you will never think
on your own.
Hey, I'm just trying to clear up what YOU'RE saying, since you've
given two different accounts. If you can't tolerate people asking
questions about your claims, then what makes you ask questions of
theirs?
The g-force changes (both acceleration and the good old center of
Gravity) acceleration changes the tick rate and distance away from
center fo Gravity also changes the tick rate.
Wow, another set of mysterious, hand-wavy effects. Please
do tell us how distance from the center of gravity affects
clock rates (distance, not gravitational field potential).
Distance is the reason for gravitational field potential
differences Greg.
U= -GMm/r
That little silly r thing is the distance Greg.
The G, M and m do not change.
The r (distance) does.
Then why didn't you say so, rather than implying some
different effect?
|
It is still the same dang effect, a g-force change.
Sheesh Greg.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 15, 10:30 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
OK, so why do two particles traveling through the *same* beampipe
and so have the same g-forces encountered, have *different* time
dilations?
Speed differences causing the different g-force changes
to the frequency count
Ah, so why does SPEED through the g-force changes produce different
time dilations?
|
Look at what I just posted to you below.
The speed affects the frequency outcome.
| Quote: |
What is the frequency rate of a car going over 50 hills
and down 50 hills within one minute.
What is the frequency rate of a car going over 50 hills
and down 50 hills within one hour.
Same path (beampipe)
Same g-forces encountered
yet a different time frame during the whole thing..
Different "tick" rates.
The speed caused the g-force changes to change thier
rate of change.
Sheesh PD.
Wake up.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:opOdnSTr7oW2UeHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
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.
| Quote: |
Silly Greg.
You set your accelerometer wrong yet again.
If you set it at 0 while you are falling, you will
never know you "are" falling.
|
Correct. In fact, it will then always read zero
when you are falling, no matter in what gravity
field. Even falling towards the Sun, which has
a much larger field than Earths. Or towards the
Moon, which has a much smaller one. That is a
characteristic fresfall, and is due to the
equivalence principle of gravitational and
inertial masses.
| Quote: |
If you say yes, you just found out the acceleration
that changes the clocks rate via - g-force changes and
center of G distance changes during the fall and
maybe you will wake up after you find such out about
freefalling still subject to g- forces.
Take a basketball with a chunk of gum stick to
it and spin it and let it fall, unless you spin it perfectally
horizontal, you will notice a rate change from the imbalance simply
because
at one point in the spin, the gum will be fighting gravity during
it's spin. It is a wonderfull fact about classical mechanics and a
good
amount of Newton fun to find out about.
Show your math.
Show the math that proves such a case will not cause
a variation in (frequency) for the accelerating object.
You know math more than I do.
Go ahead. show it.
|
No time like the present to learn then. Let's see
your attempt, and we can help you along with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:88mdnXPbLYAGUeHVnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:dZOdnTsql-i_W-HVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:Xp6dnUybX-g2KeHVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com
PD wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:17 pm, "Spaceman"
space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
PD wrote:
OK, so it appears you can't decide between the time dilation
being due to g-forces or due to relativistic mass.
Saying such a statement proves that you will never think
on your own.
Hey, I'm just trying to clear up what YOU'RE saying, since you've
given two different accounts. If you can't tolerate people asking
questions about your claims, then what makes you ask questions of
theirs?
The g-force changes (both acceleration and the good old center of
Gravity) acceleration changes the tick rate and distance away from
center fo Gravity also changes the tick rate.
Wow, another set of mysterious, hand-wavy effects. Please
do tell us how distance from the center of gravity affects
clock rates (distance, not gravitational field potential).
Distance is the reason for gravitational field potential
differences Greg.
U= -GMm/r
That little silly r thing is the distance Greg.
The G, M and m do not change.
The r (distance) does.
Then why didn't you say so, rather than implying some
different effect?
It is still the same dang effect, a g-force change.
|
So why obfuscate? You haven't answered that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:4qadnTXFr8QWSuHVnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
PD wrote:
On Jul 15, 10:30 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
PD wrote:
OK, so why do two particles traveling through the *same* beampipe
and so have the same g-forces encountered, have *different* time
dilations?
Speed differences causing the different g-force changes
to the frequency count
Ah, so why does SPEED through the g-force changes produce different
time dilations?
Look at what I just posted to you below.
The speed affects the frequency outcome.
What is the frequency rate of a car going over 50 hills
and down 50 hills within one minute.
What is the frequency rate of a car going over 50 hills
and down 50 hills within one hour.
|
Sorry, but the gravitational field is not oscillating
up and down over the trajectory of the particles. It
is changing uniformly.
Try a different analogy. What is the station that the
car's radio is tuned to over the path? Does it change
because the car is going faster? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 1:25 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:ZY-dnS9STYLb7uDVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news: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.
Which side of the moon is the rocket motor
located which causes it to move along a curve?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass#Derivation_of_center_of_mass
Sue...
| Quote: |
I see you still have found out what straight means
nor inertial forces.
Sad.. just sad.
No wonder you are stupid enough to set a known
acceleration rate such as freefall to a zero acceleration.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: |
What frequency outcome? There is one hill in a straight pipe. Whether
it is done fast or done slow, there is still only one hill. So if you
have clocks that is ticking, say, 1000 times a second, and you send
clocks through this pipe with one hill through at different speeds,
please show how the time dilation (the change of that 1000 times a
second) is related to how fast the clock encounters the one hill.
Preferably, show a little formula that shows *how much* encountering
that one hill at different speeds will change the frequency.
|
equation?
Yuck!
Think Newton's first law,
and second Law about such.
Then think the "unbalanced forces" of Newton1 are each motion through
the gravitational potential radius change.
Moving faster through the potential differences (radius changing faster)
will cause the different rate change than it would if slower through the
same
path.
Think about a chunk of gum on a golfball,
and that gum will be the frequency count each spin it makes
around the golfball.
As it goes through the g-potential it will change rate,
if it goes through it faster, it will change rate less because
it has less time to be effected by each potential change.
and of course, if it goes slower through the potential changes
it will change rate slower.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news: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.
| Quote: |
Silly Greg.
You set your accelerometer wrong yet again.
If you set it at 0 while you are falling, you will
never know you "are" falling.
Correct. In fact, it will then always read zero
when you are falling, no matter in what gravity
field.
|
Then you most definitely set it wrong.
If you have an accelerometer that can not detect
the fall itself and is set at 0 even when it is accelerating
then you are stupid.
You basically have an accelerometer that does not
measure acceleration correctly at all.
Sheesh,
How stupid is that accelerometer.
Hint: very stupid.
| Quote: |
Even falling towards the Sun, which has
a much larger field than Earths. Or towards the
Moon, which has a much smaller one. That is a
characteristic fresfall, and is due to the
equivalence principle of gravitational and
inertial masses.
|
And only a person that is stupid would set an accelerometer
for 0 when they know the rate it is fallign is not zero.
You must set your scale in the bathroom to start at 5 lbs
also huh?
Sheesh.
| Quote: |
No time like the present to learn then. Let's see
your attempt, and we can help you along with it.
|
I don't want any help from people that set a freakin
accelerometer for a 0 when it is definitely accelerating.
Freakin moron physics is what that is.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news: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). It would if it were being prevented from
falling freely. Then it would feel the resistance
force. Also, since all bodies repond to gravity in
the same way, no new inter-body forces due to gravity
in a freefalling system arise.
Whether or not the acceleration due to gravity changes
over a given trajectory depends upon the details of
the particular gravitational field the body is
traversing. A falling body near the surface of the
Earth, for example, follows an essentially canstant
acceleration of about 9.8 m/s^2. Over relatively small
changes in height the acceleration due to Earth's
gravity is essentially constant.
| Quote: |
Silly Greg.
You set your accelerometer wrong yet again.
If you set it at 0 while you are falling, you will
never know you "are" falling.
Correct. In fact, it will then always read zero
when you are falling, no matter in what gravity
field.
Then you most definitely set it wrong.
If you have an accelerometer that can not detect
the fall itself and is set at 0 even when it is accelerating
then you are stupid.
|
Blame Nature. An accelerometer in freefall can detect
no forces to measure. Now, you can choose to set the
freefall acceleration reading to be anything you want,
but it will always read that same value no matter where
the accelerometer is set into freefall.
| Quote: |
You basically have an accelerometer that does not
measure acceleration correctly at all.
|
Why don't you tell us how you think an acceleromter
works? Start by naming which of Newton's laws is
involved.
| Quote: |
Sheesh,
How stupid is that accelerometer.
Hint: very stupid.
Even falling towards the Sun, which has
a much larger field than Earths. Or towards the
Moon, which has a much smaller one. That is a
characteristic fresfall, and is due to the
equivalence principle of gravitational and
inertial masses.
And only a person that is stupid would set an accelerometer
for 0 when they know the rate it is fallign is not zero.
|
How are they to set reading on the accelerometer without
an accelerometer to set the reading by?
Imagine that you are in a sealed laboratory adrift in
space. There are no windows, and no communications to
the outside of the lab. Your task is to build an
accelerometer. You have no idea whether you are floating
in intergalactic space far from any large masses, or
plunging towards a planet in freefall. How would you
construct and calibrate your acceleromter?
| Quote: |
You must set your scale in the bathroom to start at 5 lbs
also huh?
|
No, why do you do that?
| Quote: |
No time like the present to learn then. Let's see
your attempt, and we can help you along with it.
I don't want any help from people that set a freakin
accelerometer for a 0 when it is definitely accelerating.
Freakin moron physics is what that is.
|
Your choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:04 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news: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,
NOT!
So you ignore F=ma so you can have a 0 force
only because you set your (a) in such to zero like only
an idiot would if they know the acceleration rate is occuring
for real.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:ZY-dnS9STYLb7uDVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news: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.
What is different about this form of acceleration and
that caused by applying other arbitrary forces is that
all bodies accelerate at the same rate when responding
to gravity. This would not happen if, for example,
you were to apply a force of 100 N to various bodies;
They'd all accelerate at different rates according to
their individual masses.
Freefall in a gravitational field results in what is
called a locally inertial frame of reference. Physics
in a locally inertial frame behaves just as it would in
a regular inertial frame travelling in a straight line
at a constant velocity far from gravitating masses.
| Quote: |
NOT!
So you ignore F=ma so you can have a 0 force
only because you set your (a) in such to zero like only
an idiot would if they know the acceleration rate is occuring
for real.
|
You've missed the point, again, as usual.
Suppose you had a hollow sphere and within the
sphere was a small object at rest in the center
of the sphere, floating in a perfect vacuum. The
sphere is more massive than the object within (or
at least has a different mass).
If you somehow applied a force F to the sphere and
the obect within simultaneously, the object would
accelerate with respect to the sphere (it is less
massive so accelerates more quickly in response to
the force F) and eventually it would strike the
inside of the sphere.
If you took the same setup and released it into
freefall in a gravitational field, the small interior
object would remain at rest with respect to the sphere
and stay at its center just as though the gravitational
field wasn't there, even though the whole assemblage
is accelerating with respect to the field (or the planet,
say, that is causing the field).
No self-contained apparatus that relies on the relative
motions of its parts, or on forces engendered between
its parts by externally induced accelerations (F = M*A)
would register any influence by the gravitational field
as long as it is in freefall. An accelerometer will
not "see" any acceleration in freefall. You could
arbitrarily set it to read a certain value in freefall
(technically an offset value) but it would read that same
value for all time during freefall, even as it approached
a planet and its acceleration actually increased.
You are invited to propose a design or conceptual method
of construction for a self-contained accelerometer that
would be able to be able to detect the "actual" acceleration
of a freefalling body. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:25 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:ZY-dnS9STYLb7uDVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news: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.
I see you still have found out what straight means
nor inertial forces.
Sad.. just sad.
No wonder you are stupid enough to set a known
acceleration rate such as freefall to a zero acceleration.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:_6udnSTlx9PSG-DVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:ZY-dnS9STYLb7uDVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:_OKdnZoIGt9d_-DVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com
Greg Neill wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news: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.
|
No! You've had this explained to you before. An inertial
trajectory is simply one that moves according to its own
inertia (no active propulsion of any form), whether or
not does this in a gravitational field. Because the path
may end up curved due to gravity does *not* mean that the
object was not travelling according to inertia alone.
You are confusing (still!) intertial motion with what
are called inertial frames of reference as used in
Newtonian mechanics and Special Relativity.
| Quote: |
I see you still have found out what straight means
nor inertial forces.
Sad.. just sad.
No wonder you are stupid enough to set a known
acceleration rate such as freefall to a zero acceleration.
|
Hey James, what does your tire pressure guage read
when the tire is completely flat (or the guage is not
connected to a tire)? What's the air pressure in the
room? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
| Quote: |
No! You've had this explained to you before. An inertial
trajectory is simply one that moves according to its own
inertia
|
Yes,
and gravity is not its own inertia.
Gravity can speed it up or slow it down.
Inertia does not have such problems.
A true inertial object will not slow down or
change course at all.
It will stay a constant velocity until something
changes the inertial motion.
Gravity changes inertial motion.
So Greg.
Wake up and Use the Newton stuff correct and
then someday you might understand it.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg Neill
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:F5ydnVCyf9l_F-DVnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@comcast.com
| Quote: |
Greg Neill wrote:
No! You've had this explained to you before. An inertial
trajectory is simply one that moves according to its own
inertia
Yes,
and gravity is not its own inertia.
Gravity can speed it up or slow it down.
Inertia does not have such problems.
A true inertial object will not slow down or
change course at all.
|
It will in a gravitational field, while still
moving inertially.
| Quote: |
It will stay a constant velocity until something
changes the inertial motion.
|
That something does not include responses to the
gravitational field it is in.
| Quote: |
Gravity changes inertial motion.
|
Gravity changes the inertial trajectory from a
straight path to a curved path. |
|
| 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
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
