Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sue...
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
 |
|
On Jul 16, 9:59 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:25 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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
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
Sue...
| Quote: |
It is not in an true inertial path.
It is in a path that is keeping force moving it in a curve.
You truly don't know what an "inertial path" is huh Sue?
I think SR has infected you a bit too much also,
OR you just skipped the classical parts of physics.
and learned something you had no previous "knowledge" to say
and know it was wrong.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 10:09 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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 message
news: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
Sue...
| Quote: |
Sheesh again.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 10:28 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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
Sue....
| Quote: |
For some reason she can not grasp the constant force
needed to keep the "ellipse". (the same 90 degree force
that would keep a "perfect" orbit only the forward
motion speed is changing.
A constant force that points towards the CoG of
Earth. the 90 degree from the surface force that
pulls things towards it (actually pushes in some theories)
is the "non inertial" force being added Sue.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 10:44 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
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?
Sue.,..
| Quote: |
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 11:11 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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?
Sue...
| Quote: |
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
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 11:23 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote:
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.
|
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.
When does this "inertia" stuff ever help us?
It is a straight line between the centers
of mass?
Sue...
| Quote: |
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:27 pm 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.
|
I'll have to think for a while about that.
Sue...
| Quote: |
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 12:38 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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 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.
Sue...
| Quote: |
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 1:08 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
Bullets don't have enough ram and rom and
Microsoft has the code for it locked in a vault
even if they did.
Sue...
| Quote: |
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 2:05 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote:
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"
|
Light doesn't follow a straight line so why should
anything else?
| Quote: |
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?
|
Those quacks selling a pre EM light model to
keep their twin alive might have some reason
to win an argument with you and further
delude themselves. Maybe they have need of tactics
to do that. But don't attribute tactical argument to
me. If you lie to yourself, you are the looser
and I could care less.
Sue...
| Quote: |
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
On Jul 16, 2:32 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
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
| Quote: |
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.
| 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.
| Quote: |
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/staticem.html
| 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.
Sue...
| Quote: |
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 16, 1:25 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
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.
|
Correct, so if you see them curve at all.
You found a force that made it no longer "inertial".
:)
| Quote: |
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.
It is not in an true inertial path.
It is in a path that is keeping force moving it in a curve.
You truly don't know what an "inertial path" is huh Sue?
I think SR has infected you a bit too much also,
OR you just skipped the classical parts of physics.
and learned something you had no previous "knowledge" to say
and know it was wrong.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:05 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:F5ydnVCyf9l_F-DVnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d@comcast.com
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.
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.
|
There is my proof you have skipped classical physics.
And never understood Newton at all since you
skipped his stuff to learn your rubber ruler kingdoms bible.
LOL
| Quote: |
Gravity changes inertial motion.
Gravity changes the inertial trajectory from a
straight path to a curved path.
|
The straight path was the inertial path,
As soon as you found the path curved by gravity
you lost it's "true" inertial path by having another
force present.
Sheesh.
You really don't know the classical physics meaning
of inertia.
Sad Greg, just sad.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:09 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
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 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
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.
Sheesh again.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
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
message news: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.
For some reason she can not grasp the constant force
needed to keep the "ellipse". (the same 90 degree force
that would keep a "perfect" orbit only the forward
motion speed is changing.
A constant force that points towards the CoG of
Earth. the 90 degree from the surface force that
pulls things towards it (actually pushes in some theories)
is the "non inertial" force being added Sue.
--
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
