Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: WE don't need God. All we need is nutty physics that we can call genius
Next: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
From: blackhead on 3 Jun 2010 10:19 On 3 June, 14:07, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > | > | [snipped] > | > | Well, as somebody else pointed out, what Einstein wrote 100 years ago > | > | has as much bearing on modern physics as what Newton wrote 300 years > | > | ago. Only nuts and historians go to source for their critique. > | > > | > Obviously the somebody who pointed it out is far cleverer than Einstein. > | > What was this brilliant fuckin' genius's name that wrote 'modern' > physics > | > all > | > by himself? Dork Brouhaha at NewPox, by any chance? > | > |http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ > | > Ah, that explains it. A bozo from just outside Tinseltown that > never quite made it into movie fantasies so he wrote his own. > Your hero, is he? Look at section 3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources. Not one experiment there confirms your belief that c isn't a constant for moving sources. Just one experiment showing that c isn't a constant in a vacuum would mean fame its discoverer. Come, join us in 2010, there's no need to stand there, wet and shivering in the cold of 1905 ;) Larry.
From: PD on 3 Jun 2010 10:40 On Jun 3, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Is the food going to be digested at exactly the same rate between an > brother on a space ship and an brother on the Earth? Is the muscle > tone of the brother on the space ship going to age at the same rate as > the atomic clock ticks and is the muscle tone of the brother on the > Earth going to age at the same rate as the atomic clock ticks on the > Earth? > > Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the other brother > being on the Earth is going to have a greater biological effect on the > brothers than the rate at which an atomic clock ticks? > > Now, you are going to say, "All things being equal". But that is the > whole point, things are not equal. If they are equal, then the atomic > clocks tick at the same rate. > Well, let's see. If relativity predicts things will slow by 24.7% and things slow by 24.7%, including the clock on the spaceship, and chemical processes in the brother, and the oscillation of a spring, then it is very likely that the reason is because relativity is correct. To surmise that this is not what's going on, and that zero-G environment is what causes the chemical processes to slow by 24.7% (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that artificially replenished air is what causes the clock to slow by 24.7% (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that cosmic rays is what causes the spring oscillation to slow by 24.7% (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), borders on lunacy. No, it crosses right over the border and flops around in lunacy land. > > One year is one orbit of the Sun by the Earth regardless of how many > times an atomic clock ticks. Search for posts
From: Androcles on 3 Jun 2010 10:47 "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:86pphuFvn7U1(a)mid.individual.net... | On 03/06/2010 14:07, Androcles wrote: | > | | > | | > | http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ | > | | > Ah, that explains it. A bozo from just outside Tinseltown that | > never quite made it into movie fantasies so he wrote his own. | > Your hero, is he? | | Specifically: | http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html | | Get stuck in with your refutations. I asked you who wrote modern physics, you replied baez, and I asked you if he was your fuckin' hero, you fuckin' occulted cretin. Too stupid to understand a simple question, are you?
From: mpc755 on 3 Jun 2010 10:52 On Jun 3, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is the food going to be digested at exactly the same rate between an > > brother on a space ship and an brother on the Earth? Is the muscle > > tone of the brother on the space ship going to age at the same rate as > > the atomic clock ticks and is the muscle tone of the brother on the > > Earth going to age at the same rate as the atomic clock ticks on the > > Earth? > > > Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the other brother > > being on the Earth is going to have a greater biological effect on the > > brothers than the rate at which an atomic clock ticks? > > > Now, you are going to say, "All things being equal". But that is the > > whole point, things are not equal. If they are equal, then the atomic > > clocks tick at the same rate. > > Well, let's see. If relativity predicts things will slow by 24.7% and > things slow by 24.7%, including the clock on the spaceship, and > chemical processes in the brother, and the oscillation of a spring, > then it is very likely that the reason is because relativity is > correct. To surmise that this is not what's going on, and that zero-G > environment is what causes the chemical processes to slow by 24.7% > (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that > artificially replenished air is what causes the clock to slow by 24.7% > (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that > cosmic rays is what causes the spring oscillation to slow by 24.7% > (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), borders on > lunacy. No, it crosses right over the border and flops around in > lunacy land. > The brother on the space ship is not going to age according to the rate at which an atomic clock ticks relative to the other brother on the Earth and his rate of aging based upon the atomic clock on the Earth. You are suggesting that a brother at zero G's on the space ship and the brother on the Earth both eat a tuna fish sandwich that both sandwiches will be digested based upon the rate at which the atomic clocks tick. Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the other brother being on the Earth might have more of an effect on the rate at which the sandwich is digested than the rate at which the atomic clock ticks? No, of course you do not, because you do not think. > > > > One year is one orbit of the Sun by the Earth regardless of how many > > times an atomic clock ticks. > > Search for posts
From: PD on 3 Jun 2010 11:01
On Jun 3, 9:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 3, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Is the food going to be digested at exactly the same rate between an > > > brother on a space ship and an brother on the Earth? Is the muscle > > > tone of the brother on the space ship going to age at the same rate as > > > the atomic clock ticks and is the muscle tone of the brother on the > > > Earth going to age at the same rate as the atomic clock ticks on the > > > Earth? > > > > Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the other brother > > > being on the Earth is going to have a greater biological effect on the > > > brothers than the rate at which an atomic clock ticks? > > > > Now, you are going to say, "All things being equal". But that is the > > > whole point, things are not equal. If they are equal, then the atomic > > > clocks tick at the same rate. > > > Well, let's see. If relativity predicts things will slow by 24.7% and > > things slow by 24.7%, including the clock on the spaceship, and > > chemical processes in the brother, and the oscillation of a spring, > > then it is very likely that the reason is because relativity is > > correct. To surmise that this is not what's going on, and that zero-G > > environment is what causes the chemical processes to slow by 24.7% > > (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that > > artificially replenished air is what causes the clock to slow by 24.7% > > (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), and that > > cosmic rays is what causes the spring oscillation to slow by 24.7% > > (even though there is no quantitative prediction of that), borders on > > lunacy. No, it crosses right over the border and flops around in > > lunacy land. > > The brother on the space ship is not going to age according to the > rate at which an atomic clock ticks relative to the other brother on > the Earth and his rate of aging based upon the atomic clock on the > Earth. > > You are suggesting that a brother at zero G's on the space ship and > the brother on the Earth both eat a tuna fish sandwich that both > sandwiches will be digested based upon the rate at which the atomic > clocks tick. Don't you think one brother being at zero G's and the > other brother being on the Earth might have more of an effect on the > rate at which the sandwich is digested than the rate at which the > atomic clock ticks? No, of course you do not, because you do not > think. Sure it will have an effect. But there will also be an effect that is due to relativity, and this can be separated from other effects. This is a simple experimental analysis skill that just about any scientist learns. For example, if you are trying to find out if smoking shortens lifespan, you may also find that your smokers also drink alcohol, or that their hair is a little longer, or that they live in sunnier climates, and you may wonder if those factors also contribute to a shorter life span. It is the task of the experimenter to understand how to separate out the contribution that is JUST due to smoking. This is not that hard. If you don't have any idea how this is done, then perhaps you should get a little bit of training. > > > > > > One year is one orbit of the Sun by the Earth regardless of how many > > > times an atomic clock ticks. > > > Search for posts > > |