Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 398.0: USA Proves Flexagons Related to Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: The Necessity of an experiment (classical electrodynamics) that should have been done 100 years ago
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 > >
From: mpc755 on 3 Jun 2010 11:07 On Jun 3, 11:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > And what scientists also do is perform experiments, such as detecting the particle at the exits to the slits in a double slit experiment to see if the particle exits one, or both, slits. When experiment after experiment is performed and the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a single slit, scientists, who are not under the delusional effects of the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, conclude this is experimental evidence the particle always exits a single slit. Scientists also realize to conclude a C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously in a double slit experiment without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum is physically impossible. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM has nothing to do with the physics of nature. It is made up absurd nonsense which only exists in the minds of those too weak to understand the true nature of physics. > > > > > > 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 11:52 On Jun 3, 10:07 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 11:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > And what scientists also do is perform experiments, such as detecting > the particle at the exits to the slits in a double slit experiment to > see if the particle exits one, or both, slits. When experiment after > experiment is performed and the particle is ALWAYS detected exiting a > single slit, scientists, who are not under the delusional effects of > the absurd nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, conclude > this is experimental evidence the particle always exits a single slit. Your wobbling off the matter of time dilation into the double slit experiment is noted. If you can't stay on a topic to think it through, then you're not going to be much good as a scientist. > > Scientists also realize to conclude a C-60 molecule can enter, travel > through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously in a double slit > experiment without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a > change in momentum is physically impossible. > > The Copenhagen interpretation of QM has nothing to do with the physics > of nature. It is made up absurd nonsense which only exists in the > minds of those too weak to understand the true nature of physics. > > > > > > > > One year is one orbit of the Sun by the Earth regardless of how many > > > > > times an atomic clock ticks. > > > > > Search for posts > >
From: spudnik on 3 Jun 2010 13:45 what is a vacuum?... are you referring to Pascal's dyscovery of an absolute plenum in the barometer? > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000A&A...356L..53B > > Perhaps you don't know what a vacuum is > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm thusNso: I'd like to hear more about Halliburton's engineering; is this really a Dark Art?... following, about a popular and superefficient use of oil. Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical & unsanitary, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. (Alas, the fundy Greenies say that the bags are not biodegradeable, but everyday observation shows, they certainly don't last very long.) As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 3 Jun 2010 13:58
the curvature of space was proven (with the aid of "synchronized clocks" with a friend at another locale on teh same meridian) by Aristarchus; later, it was measured by Gauss on Alsace-Lorraine for France, using his theodolite. now, what could be simpler? thusNso: what is a vacuum?... are you referring to Pascal's dyscovery of an absolute plenum in the barometer? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000A&A...356L..53B > Perhaps you don't know what a vacuum is thusNso: I'd like to hear more about Halliburton's engineering; is this really a Dark Art?... following, about a popular and superefficient use of oil. Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical & unsanitary, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. (Alas, the fundy Greenies say that the bags are not biodegradeable, but everyday observation shows, they certainly don't last very long.) As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com |