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: Henri Wilson on 28 Aug 2005 17:41 On 27 Aug 2005 16:29:19 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 26 Aug 2005 21:01:39 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >> >> >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >> > >> >>> Which do you think is more likely? >> >>> >> >>> 1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, >> >>> and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious >> >>> contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. >> >>> You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to >> >>> people smarter than you, they still don't see them. >> >> >> >> They will be ridiculed ostracised and lose their jobs if they >> >> agree. >> > >> >Why? For what purpose? >> >> witness the attitude on this NG towards anyone who speaks out against >> relativity. > >You say that as if relativity is a cause instead of a theory. > >There is no "speaking out" against relativity theory unless there is >either physical evidence against it or an internal contradiction. The >people who think they are "speaking out" have been shown again and >again to be flat out wrong, yet they do not accept it. Like yourself. > > > >> > >> >People disagree with their peers and their employers all the >> >time. Every day. All around the world. In every ethnic group >> >and every religion. That's one reason there are thousands of >> >different religions in the world: People disagree with the >> >guff they are being fed, and leave to create something better. >> >> Nah! Most of them end up dead pretty quickly. > >You are amazingly paranoid. Is this what it takes to sustain your >worldview? > >> >> > >> >Are you are saying that physicists, engineers, technicians, >> >and students don't have the balls to disagree with their peers >> >and employers? Perhaps tens of millions of them over the >> >last hundred years? Even after they retire? >> >> There wouldn't have been more than about 10000 physicists ever. > >Off by a few factors of ten. > >> >> > >> >Or are you saying that they are so extremely stupid that they >> >can't see that they are being indoctrinated, in addition to >> >being unable to see the obvious flaw in relativity that you >> >and Jim so clearly see? >> >> That is what I am saying. > >...what? That people like Jim are to be listened to instead of actual >scientists? Ask him what he thinks of complex numbers, or the concept >of multiplying negative numbers together. The only reason you mention >him is because he agrees with you. You are acting with exactly the same >traits you assign to the people you deride. Ah! I get it. Geese is repeating college maths and has just discovered complex numbers. > >> Relativity is wrong from the start...but sti\udents are so overwhelmed by the >> novelty of it they just accept blindly. If they don't, they fail their exams. >> Hence they are indoctrinated for life. > >You said at one time you were an applied mathematician. I still can't >believe that, considering the vast amounts of misconceptions you have >about education. > >I think you failed out of college and have been ever-since bitter about >it. You make it sound like people who fail exams are martyrs instead of >people who just didn't learn it right the first time. Come back when you grow up Geese..... > > > >> >> Relativity is based on the notion that a vertical light beam in one frame >> becomes a diagonal light beam in another. This is a simple misconception which >> came about because Albert noticed that raindrops appeared to move diagonally >> when viewed through the window of a moving train. > >Hey look, more misconceptions about relativity. That isn't what >relativity is based on, it is based on postulates because it is a >mathematical theory. You should know this, considering it has been >explained to you literally hundreds of times. > >[snip] > >Years and years of your whining and you still have nothing to show for >it. Incredible. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Jeff Root on 29 Aug 2005 01:06 Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >> >>> You have agreed that: >>> 1) the axle doesn't twist >> >> Yes. >> >>> 2) ALL attached clocks to the axle read the same, whether they >>> are considered to be the same clock (just different hands) >> >> All parts of the axle appear to rotate together, as one. >> I think we mean the same thing. Your terminology is funky. >> >>> 3) A GpS clock at the top will read differently (COUNT differently) >> >> When you say that something is "different", you need to >> make sure it is clear what it is different from. You >> could also specify the way in which it is different. >> >> GPS clocks are modified to operate more slowly than they >> otherwise would, to compensate for position in Earth's >> gravity field and speed in orbit at 22,200 miles altitude. >> >> If a clock were motionless at the top of the axle and >> modified only for the gravitational potential at the top >> of the axle, it would remain synchronized with a clock at >> the bottom of the axle. If you consider the axle to be the >> clock at the bottom of the axle, then the modified clock >> is synchronized with the axle. >> >> If a clock were motionless at the top of the axle and >> not modified at all, so that it is exactly identical to >> clocks on the ground, it would gain on the clock at the >> bottom of the axle. If you consider the axle to be the >> clock at the bottom of the axle, then the modified clock >> gains on the axle. > > You show typical DHR stupidity. > > The axle rotation defines ONE TICK, top, middle bottom or wherever.. I gather that you mean: one tick = one axle rotation. Since Jim specified that the clock driving the axle is at the bottom, one tick of the bottom clock = one axle rotation. > If clocks in different positions emit different numbers of > ticks PER SHAFT ROTATION, then the clocks have different > absolute rates. The purpose of the thought experiment was to answer the question: "What does GR say will happen?" If the clocks in your version of the thought experiment have "absolute rates", then your version has nothing to do with GR. >>> 4) Axle rotation is constant >> >> Yes. >> >>> Now you and I and Henri will sit up there and watch both >>> the GpS and attached clocks, and decide which set of hands >>> is telling CORRECT TIME >> >> The clock at the bottom of the axle tells the correct time >> at its location. > > No, the number of 'shaft rotations', top or bottom, tells > the correct time. In Jim's version of the thought experiment, which you are replying to, the shaft may be considered to be the stem of the clock, extending upward 22,200 miles. The shaft and hands of the clock, wherever they may be attached, rotate in unison at a constant rate. So the number of shaft rotations correctly indicates the passage of time at the bottom of the shaft. > Root, we can be excused for becoming a little impatient after > years of trying to convince the diehards that they are wrong.... You can't convince anyone they are wrong when you don't even know what you are talking about. A person who knows his subject well is far more capable of making persuasive arguments than one who doesn't know it at all. You told us that you don't want to understand your subject because you decided that it was nonsense before you learned anything about it. That's a rather poor strategy for convincing anyone that they are wrong. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: jgreen on 29 Aug 2005 02:58 Jeff Root wrote: > Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > > >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > >> > >>> You have agreed that: > >>> 1) the axle doesn't twist > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >>> 2) ALL attached clocks to the axle read the same, whether they > >>> are considered to be the same clock (just different hands) > >> > >> All parts of the axle appear to rotate together, as one. > >> I think we mean the same thing. Your terminology is funky. > >> > >>> 3) A GpS clock at the top will read differently (COUNT differently) > >> > >> When you say that something is "different", you need to > >> make sure it is clear what it is different from. You > >> could also specify the way in which it is different. (sigh) That would be one clock showing 1am, and another close by showing 1am---- some elapsed 'time' later (number of shaft revs), the first shows 2am, and the other 2:01am WHICH IS CORRECT???????????????? > >> > >> GPS clocks are modified to operate more slowly than they > >> otherwise would, to compensate for position in Earth's > >> gravity field and speed in orbit at 22,200 miles altitude. > >> > >> If a clock were motionless at the top of the axle and > >> modified only for the gravitational potential at the top > >> of the axle, it would remain synchronized with a clock at > >> the bottom of the axle. If you consider the axle to be the > >> clock at the bottom of the axle, then the modified clock > >> is synchronized with the axle. You already agreed that it doesn't matter WHERE the clocks are attached; without twist they stay synchronised. > >> > >> If a clock were motionless at the top of the axle and > >> not modified at all, so that it is exactly identical to > >> clocks on the ground, it would gain on the clock at the > >> bottom of the axle. If you consider the axle to be the > >> clock at the bottom of the axle, then the modified clock > >> gains on the axle. SOMETHING has to give! They are physically attached! > > > > You show typical DHR stupidity. > > > > The axle rotation defines ONE TICK, top, middle bottom or wherever.. > > I gather that you mean: one tick = one axle rotation. > > Since Jim specified that the clock driving the axle is at > the bottom, one tick of the bottom clock = one axle rotation. > > > If clocks in different positions emit different numbers of > > ticks PER SHAFT ROTATION, then the clocks have different > > absolute rates. > > The purpose of the thought experiment was to answer the > question: "What does GR say will happen?" > > If the clocks in your version of the thought experiment > have "absolute rates", then your version has nothing to > do with GR. > > >>> 4) Axle rotation is constant > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >>> Now you and I and Henri will sit up there and watch both > >>> the GpS and attached clocks, and decide which set of hands > >>> is telling CORRECT TIME > >> > >> The clock at the bottom of the axle tells the correct time > >> at its location. Yep! AND it reads the SAME as the attached top one. > > > > No, the number of 'shaft rotations', top or bottom, tells > > the correct time. > > In Jim's version of the thought experiment, which you are > replying to, the shaft may be considered to be the stem of > the clock, extending upward 22,200 miles. The shaft and > hands of the clock, wherever they may be attached, rotate > in unison at a constant rate. > > So the number of shaft rotations correctly indicates the > passage of time at the bottom of the shaft. > > > Root, we can be excused for becoming a little impatient after > > years of trying to convince the diehards that they are wrong.... > > You can't convince anyone they are wrong when you don't > even know what you are talking about. A person who knows > his subject well is far more capable of making persuasive > arguments than one who doesn't know it at all. > > You told us that you don't want to understand your > subject because you decided that it was nonsense before > you learned anything about it. That's a rather poor > strategy for convincing anyone that they are wrong. If you can't spot the magic cloak which is supposed to cover the king's nakedness, that is OUR bad luck. We are the ones who watch our tax dollars and young talents wasted on "learning" ever more complicated (to obfuscate the contradictions inherent in AE theory), when they would be put to SO much better use in applying c'=c+v to data, techno advances, and cosmological observations. Jim G c'=c+v
From: Jeff Root on 29 Aug 2005 05:53 Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >> Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >> >> >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >> >> >> >>> You have agreed that: >> >>> 1) the axle doesn't twist >> >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >>> 2) ALL attached clocks to the axle read the same, whether they >> >>> are considered to be the same clock (just different hands) >> >> >> >> All parts of the axle appear to rotate together, as one. >> >> I think we mean the same thing. Your terminology is funky. >> >> >> >>> 3) A GpS clock at the top will read differently (COUNT differently) >> >> >> >> When you say that something is "different", you need to >> >> make sure it is clear what it is different from. You >> >> could also specify the way in which it is different. > > (sigh) That would be one clock showing 1am, and another close by > showing 1am---- some elapsed 'time' later (number of shaft revs), > the first shows 2am, and the other 2:01am > WHICH IS CORRECT???????????????? I answered that later in my reply to you. I deleted it from my reply to Henri because it wasn't relevant. Read my reply to you. >> >> GPS clocks are modified to operate more slowly than they >> >> otherwise would, to compensate for position in Earth's >> >> gravity field and speed in orbit at 22,200 miles altitude. >> >> >> >> If a clock were motionless at the top of the axle and >> >> modified only for the gravitational potential at the top >> >> of the axle, it would remain synchronized with a clock at >> >> the bottom of the axle. If you consider the axle to be the >> >> clock at the bottom of the axle, then the modified clock >> >> is synchronized with the axle. > > You already agreed that it doesn't matter WHERE the clocks are > attached; > without twist they stay synchronised. See immediately below. >> >> If a clock were motionless at the top of the axle and >> >> not modified at all, so that it is exactly identical to >> >> clocks on the ground, it would gain on the clock at the >> >> bottom of the axle. If you consider the axle to be the >> >> clock at the bottom of the axle, then the modified clock >> >> gains on the axle. > > SOMETHING has to give! They are physically attached! The entire section above was in reply to your statement 3) in which you specified "A GpS clock at the top". I presumed that it was not just another set of hands attached to the axle, but was a separate clock. Was that wrong? >> > You show typical DHR stupidity. >> > >> > The axle rotation defines ONE TICK, top, middle bottom or wherever.. >> >> I gather that you mean: one tick = one axle rotation. >> >> Since Jim specified that the clock driving the axle is at >> the bottom, one tick of the bottom clock = one axle rotation. >> >> > If clocks in different positions emit different numbers of >> > ticks PER SHAFT ROTATION, then the clocks have different >> > absolute rates. >> >> The purpose of the thought experiment was to answer the >> question: "What does GR say will happen?" >> >> If the clocks in your version of the thought experiment >> have "absolute rates", then your version has nothing to >> do with GR. >> >> >>> 4) Axle rotation is constant >> >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >>> Now you and I and Henri will sit up there and watch both >> >>> the GpS and attached clocks, and decide which set of hands >> >>> is telling CORRECT TIME >> >> >> >> The clock at the bottom of the axle tells the correct time >> >> at its location. > > Yep! AND it reads the SAME as the attached top one. Naturally. It is only one clock, not two. >> > No, the number of 'shaft rotations', top or bottom, tells >> > the correct time. >> >> In Jim's version of the thought experiment, which you are >> replying to, the shaft may be considered to be the stem of >> the clock, extending upward 22,200 miles. The shaft and >> hands of the clock, wherever they may be attached, rotate >> in unison at a constant rate. >> >> So the number of shaft rotations correctly indicates the >> passage of time at the bottom of the shaft. >> >> > Root, we can be excused for becoming a little impatient after >> > years of trying to convince the diehards that they are wrong.... >> >> You can't convince anyone they are wrong when you don't >> even know what you are talking about. A person who knows >> his subject well is far more capable of making persuasive >> arguments than one who doesn't know it at all. >> >> You told us that you don't want to understand your >> subject because you decided that it was nonsense before >> you learned anything about it. That's a rather poor >> strategy for convincing anyone that they are wrong. > > If you can't spot the magic cloak which is supposed to cover > the king's nakedness, that is OUR bad luck. We are the ones who > watch our tax dollars and young talents wasted on "learning" > ever more complicated (to obfuscate the contradictions inherent > in AE theory), when they would be put to SO much better use in > applying c'=c+v to data, techno advances, and cosmological > observations. You haven't yet shown anything with the thought experiment, though. When you said above: > SOMETHING has to give! They are physically attached! You apparently were confused about what is attached to what. You haven't shown anything surprising or paradoxical. By replying to my reply to Henri rather than to my reply to you, you made the attributions, flow, and context more difficult to follow. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: jgreen on 30 Aug 2005 20:29
Jeff Root wrote: > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > > >> Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > >> > >> >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > >> >> > >> >>> You have agreed that: > >> >>> 1) the axle doesn't twist > >> >> > >> >> Yes. > >> >> > >> >>> 2) ALL attached clocks to the axle read the same, whether they > >> >>> are considered to be the same clock (just different hands) > >> >> > >> >> All parts of the axle appear to rotate together, as one. > >> >> I think we mean the same thing. Your terminology is funky. > >> >> > >> >>> 3) A GpS clock at the top will read differently (COUNT differently) > >> >> > >> >> When you say that something is "different", you need to > >> >> make sure it is clear what it is different from. You > >> >> could also specify the way in which it is different. > > > > (sigh) That would be one clock showing 1am, and another close by > > showing 1am---- some elapsed 'time' later (number of shaft revs), > > the first shows 2am, and the other 2:01am > > WHICH IS CORRECT???????????????? > > I answered that later in my reply to you. I deleted it from > my reply to Henri because it wasn't relevant. Read my reply > to you. > > >> >> GPS clocks are modified to operate more slowly than they > >> >> otherwise would, to compensate for position in Earth's > >> >> gravity field and speed in orbit at 22,200 miles altitude. > >> >> > >> >> If a clock were motionless at the top of the axle and > >> >> modified only for the gravitational potential at the top > >> >> of the axle, it would remain synchronized with a clock at > >> >> the bottom of the axle. If you consider the axle to be the > >> >> clock at the bottom of the axle, then the modified clock > >> >> is synchronized with the axle. You'll never understand! If you modify your GPS clock BEFORE you begin to compare what they are showing, then that clock is NOT accurate. You still fail to answer; since the GPS clock was assembled BEFORE its position was known (on earth, and then taken up), wHICH clock face at the top is reading correctly after elapsed time? > > > > You already agreed that it doesn't matter WHERE the clocks are > > attached; > > without twist they stay synchronised. > > See immediately below. > > >> >> If a clock were motionless at the top of the axle and > >> >> not modified at all, so that it is exactly identical to > >> >> clocks on the ground, it would gain on the clock at the > >> >> bottom of the axle. If you consider the axle to be the > >> >> clock at the bottom of the axle, then the modified clock > >> >> gains on the axle. lol! .but we know that doesn't happen, because the modification is done to keep them the SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jim G c'=c+v |