Re: The earth is flat... why not the universe?

On Aug 10, 4:05 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
LuckyE wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:10 am, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
mathkills wrote:
there is so much there to challenge, so lets start simple... let's
see if I turn my spaceship in time.

You can only turn your spaceship in time if you ignore
the onboard clock and follow the advice of the single
standard of timing method that is based upon basic math
and single standards of distance and time.

You suggest, that two vehicles closing a fixed point at .9c will
actually be closing at 1.8c??? Is this actually what you suggest?

Of course.
If the ships are actually traveling at 0.9c towards the
common point in a linear path, the closing speed is 1.8c
What do you think it would be?

Don't know all that much about relativity, but I think that would only
be correct if viewed from the fixed point itself. If you're flying the
ship and using that clock you'd better stop a bit earlier or you're
gonna hit that fixed point.

What truly happens is wrt the "distance" you are traveling, not what
an observers limited observation would measure in such a case.
If you went by any other "observation" you would crash before you
thought you would.
This is true if you use any clock that runs slow while on board ship.
what occurs if you have a clock running slow when on an airplane?
Do you arrive at an earlier time or is your clock wrong?
Unless you physically land at an earlier time, you have not changed
time at all.

Science knows this and so do I, only realtivity and some other silly
theories don't.
:)

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

Let me put this in another way, if your watch is broken and it runs
50% slower than it should. Would you still just arrive at the same
time (According to your watch) as you would've if it were running as
normal? Not according to your watch, but according to everyone else
their watches you have.


It's a pretty simple concept, really....

However, this doesn't have to mean that "time" slows down, it just
might be that everything just happens to slow to when you go faster.
If you ask me our definition for time and speed is rather flawed
anyhow. How can a definition of something like speed that's measured
in distance/time be correct if both the distance and time change when
speed increases. Makes it kinda hard to come to a conclusion of how
fast something is actually going.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Define a clock
    ... >> constructing such a clock actually goes to my point. ... >> is real in the sense that distance, mass, temperature, charge, velocity, ... > standard, and then make duplicate buckets, and use them to measure some ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "C" is a variable
    ... In sci.physics, Sorcerer ... Assuming you're referring to a light beam moving from A to B, ... | would be a known short distance removed from B. Call this distance d. ... | Bear also in mind that a common clock between B and B_1 ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The classical model of light fails the Sagnac experiment.
    ... distance between the origin clock and the two end clocks 10 km. ... He says that the speeds depend on the speed of the source. ... But I'm pretty sure he'd say that if you measured 306421.059 rotations ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
    ... I get a horizontal distance of about 1.429 ft ... clock pulse during one tick of their clock. ... We are seeing how far the train would move during one tick of the trains ... height is at right angles to the direction of travel ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins lopsided caricature of space and time
    ... >>> Now consider two bombs at a distance x from you at the moment when you ... > light signals are sent to a moving object. ... Now since the clock of the resting bomb is in the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)