Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 13 Aug 2005 11:03 <russell(a)mdli.com> wrote in message news:1123942938.750764.132390(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... | Jeff Root wrote: | > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: | | [snip] | | > > The prediction is that the top clock, although CONNECTED to the axle, | > > will read a different elapsed time than the bottom one. | > | > I now see that you have confused two different scenarios: | > | > 1) A rotating axle with a mark on each end (like clock hands) | > to show its rotation. This is the case which you refer to the | > clocks as being "connected to the axle". | > | > 2) A rotating axle with a clock at each end. This is the case | > in which the clocks read different elapsed times. | > | > > Therefore, (which the dumbest rat would understand), the | > > axle twisted. I say it doesn't happen, | > | > You are right: The axle does not become twisted. Notice that | > everyone has agreed all along that the axle does not become | > twisted. | | Well, in at least one person's presentation of (2) the | clocks were assumed to have unlimited power, and to be | regulated by identical atomic clocks. That was I, Androcles. I used big old fashioned church tower clocks and regulated them with modern clocks. | If you tried to | connect the top clock's hands to the bottom clock's with | an axle, something would have to give. Presumably the | axle, since the clocks have sufficient power to turn | themselves -- and anything attached to them -- at the | local atomic clock rate. So in that specific scenario | I *do* say the axle gets twisted. That's ok, you can say whatever you like, but you are not a physicist. You can say the moon is made of green cheese if you like, a 5-year-old might believe you. | Greenfield so far seems to be leaving out the unlimited | power detail, and that's his mistake. He seems to think | that an atomic clock can twist an axle without doing any | work that requires extra power to be supplied. It's this | extra power that twists his axle, not the clock per se. No extra power is needed for the axle to twist. The advance of perihelion of Mercury is a solely mathematical effect in GR, not a physical one. Because Mercury is moving in the empty space that the speed of light is constant in, "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", it gets time dilated compared to the time of the empty space around it. Kepler's second law says equal areas are swept in equal times, E = M-e.sin(E). Because the clock on Mercury slows down, it makes the longitude of perihelion in the frame of Mercury slightly behind its stationary position in the empty space, equal areas (the whole ellipse) have to be swept through in equal times. Thus the rotation of longitude of perihelion of Mercury is physically retarded, like all the people that believe Einstein are mentally retarded. | [snip] | | > > Rubbish! Paul rabbitted on about the earth's spin; now I've | > > suggested to try the experiment in a non-rotating (moon) | > > situation, he has disappeared down the burrow. | | Oh dear, does Greenfield really think the moon doesn't | rotate? It is worse than I thought. It is no worse than I thought. People with no understanding of mathematics will dream up the preposterous and call it fact. That includes Einstein, but in his case he knew enough mathematics to mischieviously perpetrate a hoax, and you don't think at all, you are a phuckwit. Androcles
From: jgreen on 16 Aug 2005 22:01 Androcles wrote: > <russell(a)mdli.com> wrote in message > news:1123942938.750764.132390(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > | Jeff Root wrote: > | > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > | > | [snip] > | > | > > The prediction is that the top clock, although CONNECTED to the > axle, > | > > will read a different elapsed time than the bottom one. > | > > | > I now see that you have confused two different scenarios: > | > > | > 1) A rotating axle with a mark on each end (like clock hands) > | > to show its rotation. This is the case which you refer to the > | > clocks as being "connected to the axle". > | > > | > 2) A rotating axle with a clock at each end. This is the case > | > in which the clocks read different elapsed times. > | > > | > > Therefore, (which the dumbest rat would understand), the > | > > axle twisted. I say it doesn't happen, > | > > | > You are right: The axle does not become twisted. Notice that > | > everyone has agreed all along that the axle does not become > | > twisted. > | > | Well, in at least one person's presentation of (2) the > | clocks were assumed to have unlimited power, and to be > | regulated by identical atomic clocks. > > That was I, Androcles. I used big old fashioned church > tower clocks and regulated them with modern clocks. > > | If you tried to > | connect the top clock's hands to the bottom clock's with > | an axle, something would have to give. Presumably the > | axle, since the clocks have sufficient power to turn > | themselves -- and anything attached to them -- at the > | local atomic clock rate. So in that specific scenario > | I *do* say the axle gets twisted. > > That's ok, you can say whatever you like, but you are not > a physicist. You can say the moon is made of green cheese > if you like, a 5-year-old might believe you. > > > | Greenfield so far seems to be leaving out the unlimited > | power detail, and that's his mistake. He seems to think > | that an atomic clock can twist an axle without doing any > | work that requires extra power to be supplied. It's this > | extra power that twists his axle, not the clock per se. > > No extra power is needed for the axle to twist. > The advance of perihelion of Mercury is a solely mathematical > effect in GR, not a physical one. > Because Mercury is moving in the empty space that the speed of > light is constant in, > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", > it gets time dilated compared to the time of the empty space around it. > Kepler's second law says equal areas are swept in equal times, > E = M-e.sin(E). > Because the clock on Mercury slows down, it makes the longitude > of perihelion in the frame of Mercury slightly behind its stationary > position in the empty space, equal areas (the whole ellipse) have > to be swept through in equal times. > Thus the rotation of longitude of perihelion of Mercury is physically > retarded, like all the people that believe Einstein are mentally > retarded. > > | [snip] > | > | > > Rubbish! Paul rabbitted on about the earth's spin; now I've > | > > suggested to try the experiment in a non-rotating (moon) > | > > situation, he has disappeared down the burrow. > | > | Oh dear, does Greenfield really think the moon doesn't > | rotate? It is worse than I thought. > > It is no worse than I thought. People with no understanding > of mathematics will dream up the preposterous and call it fact. > That includes Einstein, but in his case he knew enough mathematics > to mischieviously perpetrate a hoax, and you don't think at all, > you are a phuckwit. > > Androcles Don't you just love it, when the DHR's, with their 'deep' and God-given understanding of GR, cannot even agree on such a simple proposition as to whether the axle will twist or not?? What shall they do with this FREE energy?? Obviously, if the axle is being twisted by a force, one could apply a friction brake to one end, and harnesss the heat!!! I give up on Root; I made it perfectly clear that my referal to the moon was the nearest situation to zero rotation, and that the discussion involves change of gravity sans spin of the environment in which the experiment is performed. Another rabbitter about a once a month spin is obviously pathetically hiding within obfuscation, and has NO intention of addressing the real arguement as to what happens to the clocks/axle operating in an alterring gravitational field. Jim G c'=c+v
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 16 Aug 2005 22:44 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1124242198.755107.268820(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... | | Androcles wrote: | > <russell(a)mdli.com> wrote in message | > news:1123942938.750764.132390(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... | > | Jeff Root wrote: | > | > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: | > | | > | [snip] | > | | > | > > The prediction is that the top clock, although CONNECTED to the | > axle, | > | > > will read a different elapsed time than the bottom one. | > | > | > | > I now see that you have confused two different scenarios: | > | > | > | > 1) A rotating axle with a mark on each end (like clock hands) | > | > to show its rotation. This is the case which you refer to the | > | > clocks as being "connected to the axle". | > | > | > | > 2) A rotating axle with a clock at each end. This is the case | > | > in which the clocks read different elapsed times. | > | > | > | > > Therefore, (which the dumbest rat would understand), the | > | > > axle twisted. I say it doesn't happen, | > | > | > | > You are right: The axle does not become twisted. Notice that | > | > everyone has agreed all along that the axle does not become | > | > twisted. | > | | > | Well, in at least one person's presentation of (2) the | > | clocks were assumed to have unlimited power, and to be | > | regulated by identical atomic clocks. | > | > That was I, Androcles. I used big old fashioned church | > tower clocks and regulated them with modern clocks. | > | > | If you tried to | > | connect the top clock's hands to the bottom clock's with | > | an axle, something would have to give. Presumably the | > | axle, since the clocks have sufficient power to turn | > | themselves -- and anything attached to them -- at the | > | local atomic clock rate. So in that specific scenario | > | I *do* say the axle gets twisted. | > | > That's ok, you can say whatever you like, but you are not | > a physicist. You can say the moon is made of green cheese | > if you like, a 5-year-old might believe you. | > | > | > | Greenfield so far seems to be leaving out the unlimited | > | power detail, and that's his mistake. He seems to think | > | that an atomic clock can twist an axle without doing any | > | work that requires extra power to be supplied. It's this | > | extra power that twists his axle, not the clock per se. | > | > No extra power is needed for the axle to twist. | > The advance of perihelion of Mercury is a solely mathematical | > effect in GR, not a physical one. | > Because Mercury is moving in the empty space that the speed of | > light is constant in, | > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c | > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", | > it gets time dilated compared to the time of the empty space around it. | > Kepler's second law says equal areas are swept in equal times, | > E = M-e.sin(E). | > Because the clock on Mercury slows down, it makes the longitude | > of perihelion in the frame of Mercury slightly behind its stationary | > position in the empty space, equal areas (the whole ellipse) have | > to be swept through in equal times. | > Thus the rotation of longitude of perihelion of Mercury is physically | > retarded, like all the people that believe Einstein are mentally | > retarded. | > | > | [snip] | > | | > | > > Rubbish! Paul rabbitted on about the earth's spin; now I've | > | > > suggested to try the experiment in a non-rotating (moon) | > | > > situation, he has disappeared down the burrow. | > | | > | Oh dear, does Greenfield really think the moon doesn't | > | rotate? It is worse than I thought. | > | > It is no worse than I thought. People with no understanding | > of mathematics will dream up the preposterous and call it fact. | > That includes Einstein, but in his case he knew enough mathematics | > to mischieviously perpetrate a hoax, and you don't think at all, | > you are a phuckwit. | > | > Androcles | | Don't you just love it, when the DHR's, with their 'deep' and God-given | understanding of GR, cannot even agree on such a simple proposition as | to whether the axle will twist or not?? Bunch of little kids, arguing about how many fairies they've seen today, and each one trying to outdo the other. Tell them there are no fairies and they look at you as if you are the one that's mad. Then they'll come back with "What do YOU think makes rainbows, then, if it's not fairies? You just can't talk to some of them. I plonked a couple today. | What shall they do with this FREE energy?? Obviously, if the axle is | being twisted by a force, one could apply a friction brake to one end, | and harnesss the heat!!! | I give up on Root; I made it perfectly clear that my referal to the | moon was the nearest situation to zero rotation, and that the | discussion involves change of gravity sans spin of the environment in | which the experiment is performed. Another rabbitter about a once a | month spin is obviously pathetically hiding within obfuscation, and has | NO intention of addressing the real arguement as to what happens to the | clocks/axle operating in an alterring gravitational field. | | Jim G | c'=c+v They can't understand tidal lock, it's way over their heads. You have to show some of them how to count fingers and toes. Androcles
From: Jeff Root on 17 Aug 2005 13:18 Jim Greenfield wrote: > I give up on Root; I thought you didn't like people who give up. > I made it perfectly clear that my referal to the moon > was the nearest situation to zero rotation, and that > the discussion involves change of gravity sans spin > of the environment in which the experiment is performed. Yes, but that was never an issue. The rotation of the Earth was merely a convenient reference to use in counting rotations of the axle. It has no effect on your argument one way or another. Since the Moon rotates, too, I don't see why you think it is any better. If you want a planet that doesn't rotate, just posit a planet that doesn't rotate. Nothing wrong with that. If you want certain conditions in a thought experiment, then you have to specify what those conditions are, and not change them from one post to the next without stating clearly what you are doing. The main problems were that you jumped back and forth between describing the rotating axle as a time reference, and using multiple clocks as time references, and you described the clocks as being connected to the axle without saying how they were connected. You also wrote something which appears to be nonsense about clocks being driven by a light ray. If that actually meant anything, I would appreciate an explanation of it. You also wrote what appears to be nonsense about your computer clock and mine being the same clock, and that "they are both physically connected". I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. You did not explain it, and I won't try to guess. Again, if it *does* mean something, I'd appreciate an explanation. Think out your thought experiment, write it out as clearly as possible, then read what you wrote to see whether it says what you intended to say. If it doesn't, re-write it until it does say what you intended. > Another rabbitter about a once a month spin is obviously > pathetically hiding within obfuscation, and has NO intention > of addressing the real arguement as to what happens to the > clocks/axle operating in an alterring gravitational field. As I said in my last post to you, if you clearly state the conditions of the thought experiment, I will reply to the best of my ability. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Paul B. Andersen on 17 Aug 2005 17:09
Jeff Root wrote: > Jim Greenfield wrote: > > >>I give up on Root; > > > I thought you didn't like people who give up. > > >>I made it perfectly clear that my referal to the moon >>was the nearest situation to zero rotation, and that >>the discussion involves change of gravity sans spin >>of the environment in which the experiment is performed. > > > Yes, but that was never an issue. The rotation of the > Earth was merely a convenient reference to use in counting > rotations of the axle. It has no effect on your argument one > way or another. Since the Moon rotates, too, I don't see why > you think it is any better. If you want a planet that doesn't > rotate, just posit a planet that doesn't rotate. Nothing > wrong with that. If you want certain conditions in a thought > experiment, then you have to specify what those conditions > are, and not change them from one post to the next without > stating clearly what you are doing. > > The main problems were that you jumped back and forth between > describing the rotating axle as a time reference, and using > multiple clocks as time references, and you described the > clocks as being connected to the axle without saying how > they were connected. > > You also wrote something which appears to be nonsense about > clocks being driven by a light ray. If that actually meant > anything, I would appreciate an explanation of it. > > You also wrote what appears to be nonsense about your > computer clock and mine being the same clock, and that > "they are both physically connected". I have no idea what > that was supposed to mean. You did not explain it, and I > won't try to guess. Again, if it *does* mean something, > I'd appreciate an explanation. > > Think out your thought experiment, write it out as clearly > as possible, then read what you wrote to see whether it says > what you intended to say. If it doesn't, re-write it until > it does say what you intended. > > >>Another rabbitter about a once a month spin is obviously >>pathetically hiding within obfuscation, and has NO intention >>of addressing the real arguement as to what happens to the >>clocks/axle operating in an alterring gravitational field. > > > As I said in my last post to you, if you clearly state > the conditions of the thought experiment, I will reply > to the best of my ability. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Androcles clearly state something? :-) You are too optimistic! Paul |