Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?

On Oct 9, 1:58 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
A question that Spaceman has not yet answered concerning his
assertion that when clocks manifest their dependence on velocity,
as predicted by SR, it is because they "malfunction."

Clock A, at rest in frame Earth, keeps good time against WWV (the
radio signal from NIST that is a time standard accurate to
microseconds, if not better).

Observer J passes by in his shiny Jaguar mini-lab moving with
constant velocity. He observes the rate of clock A to be slow by 1
microsecond per second. He assumes that clock A is malfunctioning,
since he has read Spaceman's posts in SPR.

How is he doing such?
Doppler effect?
Does he remember to remove the doppler to find the actual physical
rate of the clock he is watching, or does he remain a stupid ass SR
dingleberry forever?

If so, we have a clock that is fine or is malfunctioning according
to different observers. Thus the malfunctioning of a clock is a
relative thing, not an absolute thing.

Spaceman, which is it?

1) Yes, malfunctioning is relative.
2) This scenario cannot be true.

Malfunctioning does nto occur from "observation only"
That is a doppler effect that is simple to remove and find the
physical rate of the clock.
The malfunctioning does occur to clocks that show a different
total time when they are brought back together with the standard
clock A.

If you choose 2, you will have to agree that experiment could prove
you right or wrong. We relativists believe that the experiments have
been done and the scenario is supported by the evidence.

If you could understand the difference between a doppler peceived
clock change and a physical malfuncton of the clock via g-force
problems that have given clocks problems since they were invented,
you could get
a clue about what clocks "actually " malfunctoned and what clocks are
just being perceived to malfunction when they are not.
Again you prove you do not even understand doppler effect nor
the acceleration and g-potential clock problems.

I'll give you a hint, Jim.  This problem has nothing to do with the
doppler effect.  The doppler effect has to do with waves transmitted
between moving objects;  it is caused by the changing DISTANCE between
the objects between crests of the wave, roughly speaking.

Doppler is caused by the motion. (that is the distance changing)
Doppler effect does not create an unequal end of tick count.
If a clock ticks 100 times, all clocks will receive 100 ticks total.
They simply will gather them at different rates.
But the totals will match.
So doppler does not change time at all.

This problem has only to do with TIME measurements.

Correct.
And you have proven you ave no clue about "time" measurements.

Relativity says that moving clocks run slow.

That means they have malfunctioned.
Again you prove you would rather think "time chnages" like the
relativity religion states, instead of learning about the oldest
problem with moving clock.

We are talking about one clock. "in" one
frame it is moving; "in" the other frame it is not.  It runs at
different rates depending on which frame it is measured "in".

And if you had a freakin brain that was not so brainwashed,
you would understand that when a clock "changes rate"
It has malfunctioned.
Again, it is you that is ignoring the history of clock problems.
And instead worshipping a stupidity of "time" changing rate.

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

- Show quoted text -

Well, nothing has accelerated clock A. In fact nothing has accelerated
in the whole problem. Yet the clock has one rate with respect to frame
Earth and another with respect to frame J. So in your theory this
clock has malfunctioned with respect to one frame and has not
malfunctioned with respect to the other frame. So malfunctioning is a
relative concept.

It's a free country, Jim. Believe what you want.

Merry Christmas!

Unle Ben
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... He observes the rate of clock A to be slow by 1 ... He assumes that clock A is malfunctioning, ... That is a doppler effect that is simple to remove and find the ... frame it is moving; "in" the other frame it is not. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The absolute time clock (how to build)
    ... You and I have a different concept of malfunctioning. ... If a clock on earth reads a Be-11 sample on earth as having a half- ... onboard as having a half-life of 13.81 seconds, ... clock and if it disagrees with UTC you call it malfunctioning. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The traveling twin of the twin paradox dies in the future.
    ... It seems the malfunctioning clock on the traveling twins starship ... The traveling twin splatted into the dark side of the moon ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
    ... Well then ok if thats true then all we have is malfunctioning clocks ... If that happed your clock would speed up rather ... I already posted that I had to wonder if an actual worm hole worked ... assuming it was possible might have a component of time travel to them ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... He observes the rate of clock A to be slow by 1 ... He assumes that clock A is malfunctioning, ... That is a doppler effect that is simple to remove and find the ... it is you that is ignoring the history of clock problems. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)