Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system. - Physics Forum

Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system. - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-01-2008, 07:30 PM
Mike Jr.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

On Sep 1, 1:49*pm, Timberwoof <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:

LOL!

[snip more crap]



Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-01-2008, 08:05 PM
Timberwoof
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

In article <[Only registered users see links. ]>,
"Spaceman" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


My point is that he *didn't* examine the experiments. He justdeclared
that they are invalid.


Again, you're just trying to prove my declaration. If you think the
experiments are false, then you need to demonstrate that they are false.
Explain it to me.


No, actually you are expecting me to believe you on faith. I have read
the experiments of speed-of-light measurements and they look okay to me.
You have presented nothing except to say that if I thought about it the
right way (your way) I'd see the truth. That's nothing more than the
blurry image that looks like Jesus to true believers.


That's good! You seem to be saying that electromagnetism cannot
accelerate anything faster than the speed of light.


No, you're expecting me to accept your declared-correct conclusions on
faith.


That's true but it's beside the point.


In other words, I should learn to measure it your way, not some way that
supports GTR.


You still have presented nothing that actually supports any of what he
says.


There you go again, declaring that knowledge gained through scientific
research is religious. It's merely a substandard ad-hominem argument.
The accusations you make to try to discredit science aren't even true.

And, of course, your dismissal of the whole of a century and a half of
established physics research in favor of your own "correct" version, and
your attacks on the character of anyone who disagrees with you, make you
look like someone trying desperately to be mistaken for a kook.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> [Only registered users see links. ]
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-01-2008, 08:12 PM
Timberwoof
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

In article <[Only registered users see links. ]>,
"Spaceman" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


They "malfunctioned" precisely as Special Relativity predicted they
would, and the fix worked precisely as Special Relativity predicted it
would.


Well, I can't tell you how convincing that argument is.


However, since the satellites are not in that "rest" frame, but in
moving frames of reference, Lorentz transformations must be applied to
their sense of time to make up for the difference. The adjustments made
according to predictions made by Special Relativity worked precisely.


Get a clue yourself. In fact, I did, on the roof of the University of
Iowa physics building on a summer program for high school students.

Get a clue yourself. If you had been a scientist working on GPS, you
would have fought against the Einstein Switch, and you would have
scratched your head to try to explain why day after day the locations
calculated by the system were getting farther and farther off.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> [Only registered users see links. ]
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-01-2008, 08:21 PM
Spaceman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Timberwoof wrote:

Ok, fine,
I did examine them and I declare them invalid.


Not once have they actually measured the "relative" speed of light.
by using the proper measurements for relative speed to begin with.
If you wish to prove lightspeed is relative yourself,
Here is a simple experiment to do such.
Have a lightsource that is "at rest" with Earth.
Have a detector that can move fast towards or away from the light
source.
Turn the light source on and then off for 1 total second while the
detector is operating amd moving and find out how long the detector "saw"
the light.
Guess what.
It sees less than 1 second when moving towards the light and it
sees the light for more that one second when moving away.
Simple factual proof the speed of the light could not be
constant to all frames and turns out to be relative.




Yes,
And particle accelerators prove this.



It is not beside the point.
It is the point,
mass is measured that way.
You can not just "measure" mass by determining a "wieght"
you must move the mass and determine the energy you get from
such mass at the "known" speed you used.
mass does not vary, the energy does and the energy variance
is caused by the variance in speed.
The mass is invrariant no matter how fast it is moving.



No,
The way I am using is the proper way to measure mass.
It is the only "non variable" method to measure mass.



Not completely bogus, just misinterpreted way too much.




Actually I am not dismissing most of the science that has been done,
I am only rejecting the science that uses "variable time and variable
length"
measurement bullshit.
I simply am sticking to the science that uses single standards like
science was invented to do. (use single standards to find variables)
not the other way around.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman




Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-01-2008, 08:29 PM
Spaceman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Timberwoof wrote:

I do not dispute that.
I dispute the stupidity that states "time changed" even though the
truth is the "decay rate" changed because of simple "Newtonian" forces
and the same forces have always been problems for clocks.
The cause was not "time changing rate" the cause was the clock
malfunctioning because of "sourrounding forces" that vary.
It is the oldest problem known in clocks and for some stupid
ass reason the "decay rate" change was considered to be time changing,
yet time is an abstract created by humans to count the motion of mass
and abstract such to a ratio.



Actually the satelites are moving in the larger rest frame of Earth.
They are moving wrt to the at rest Earth frame.
Without using the "at rest Earth frame, you can not tell what is moving.
Is the Earth moving or the satelites.
We use the satelites as the moving part and the Earth as the
"stationery and absolute position point".
You can not do such the other way around since then the Earth clocks
would supposedly need to be adjusted instead and guess what..
That would not work.
simple as that.




The Einstein switch can not work on the Earth side.
That is simple and factual proof that the clocks malfunctioned and
The Earth is used as an "ABSOLUTE" position of reference for
GPS to work at all.
Get a clue.. still.
Right now you are only in the religious side of the Einstein switch.

Or do you think the system would work correctly with an Einstein
switch on the Earth based clocks only?
:P

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman




Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-01-2008, 08:35 PM
Starman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

1) In special relativity, the speed of light is constant. But if you add
gravity, then you have to use general relativity, and according to general
relativity the speed of light is a constant only locally., so this dos not prove
Einstein wrong, only the name "Einstine" is wrong here

2) the speed of the light would be dependent on the speed at which time flowed
at both locations being measured. if stars were of
utter different mass conent, the rate of time, at both studiable origins would
be impacted varyingly.

3) if you start providing energy to a body to increase its speed. there is
always a limit to every thing like energy, speed etc.
when the mass dilation as you go near speeds of light all the energy you provide
to increase the speed of the body
goes in increasing the mass, so at the speed of light the mass becomes infinity,
and since no body can have infinite mass,
nothing can travel at the speed of light.

so why is this theory wrong?

"When a body travels with speed "v". the K.E is 1/2 m v^2. So It is the kinetic
energy that increases and not the mass"

excatly, the mass can't travel at speed of light, so thats why Mass tends to
infinity when an object reaches speed of light

so what is wrong here?




Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-01-2008, 08:41 PM
Spaceman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Starman wrote:

The mass does not change.
The KE does.
even at speeds of 10c for v, there is still no "infinite" mass.
Go ahead now. do the equation.
I will write it out and you show me where the m changes to infinity.

KE = 1/2 m (10c^2)

Do you see the mass increasing to infinity?
I don't, I simply see a really big KE and using the same m
as the original m.

No inifnite mass anywhere even with speeds way above c.

What is wrong with that?
Nothing.




Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-01-2008, 08:45 PM
Sam Wormley
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Starman wrote:

Oops!



Observer dependent.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-01-2008, 08:53 PM
Starman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

And where in you calculation do you see evidence that y=x
"If n==m then y equals x" = wrong

n= x+y, and m=y+x, how can you then conclude that just because n=m, y equals x

thats bad math!!

you already know that x=3 and y is5, so you only prove that n and m = equal




-snip



Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-01-2008, 09:10 PM
Kevin B. Murphy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

E=mc^2 is faithworthy and the reason why is because if mathmatics is two
dimentional then I can seduce the equations from the geometric image. But
time-space? I'm not so sure about all that. According to time-space, if
the sun were to vanish it would take 8 seconds for the earth to feel the
effects of it... I totally don't buy into it.

--
If you combine work with play then more work can be accomplished. Does
anyone think Civilization is really cool!! I've never played online before.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
clumsy , einstine , geocentric , ptolemaic , system , theories


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
>>> SEGA GAMES <<< Tonia Martinez Forum Physik 0 08-02-2009 02:35 PM
the absolutely final complete collection of ideas blochee Physics Forum 2 06-15-2007 06:31 AM
the absolutely final complete collection of ideas blochee Physics Forum 0 06-14-2007 10:30 PM
THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER Laurent Physics Forum 6 01-09-2004 11:14 PM
Qi: Standard Model Extension or Fifth Force? cinquirer Physics Forum 88 11-21-2003 10:45 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.22147 seconds with 16 queries