Re: Fraud in Experimental and Theoretical Science


Spaceman wrote:
> <snipped the worshipping group since they will not even bother actually
> reading it>
> :)
>
> "Timo Nieminen" <timo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0601181042180.4629-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> | Why "MUST" one or both clock be malfunctioning? How can relative motion
> | possibly make one or both clocks malfunction? All they're doing is
> | counting atomic processes. Do the atoms malfunction?
>
> They do not malfunction in the job they do (being an atom).
> but they do malfunction in keeping a perfect
> periodic rate counting. (like a clock is supposed to do)

This is precisely the point. Scientists have two choices:
1. The laws of physics (and the things that are govern by them) are the
same regardless of the state of inertial motion.
2. There is only one state of motion where the laws of physics are
working "perfectly", and in all other states, something is going on to
change those laws of physics.

All attempts to discern the latter have failed, indicating that this is
NOT the case. That having been found out, option 1 is taken to be true,
which in turn has certain implications about the observer-dependence of
the spatial and temporal difference between two events. You find that
hard to swallow and insist that (2) must nevertheless be true, even
though we've found no evidence for it yet. This appears to be a simple
matter of a number of people being sufficiently familiar with the
evidence refuting (2) to be convinced that (2) cannot be correct, and
your not being familiar enough with that evidence to be convinced.

>
>
> | Why? If the clocks count at different rates due to relative motion, why
> | would that cause the Earth to be in two places at once.
>
> For the object to return to earth with a supposed correct and yet different
> time rate
> Earth would have to be in 2 places at once, to be able to "catch" the clock
> that was
> in motion away from the Earth and running at a different rate of "time"
> and to keep the clock on Earth correct also.
>
>
> | Why is it arrogant? Is it arrogant to choose the mass of a kilogram, the
> | length of a metre?
>
> Choosing the rate of time is arrogant because time is supposed to be
> a non variant measurement system.

Who the hell said *that*?? NO ONE has ever declared that the second
will be the same for all observers. In fact, no one declares that the
kilogram standard will represent the same mass for all observers. The
standard comes with *specific* conditions for the comparison by which
it will serve as a standard. Deviation from those conditions voids the
warranty.

PD

> We do not choose a different mass for 1 kilogram,
> (all kilograms are the same)
> Why choose a different "time" for 1 second.
> (all seconds are supposed to be the same also, are they not?)
>
> | You think that motion makes atoms malfunction? Really?
>
> Again, not the atom itself but the periodic rate of the counting method
> used in the atomic clock itself is malfunctioning in at least one
> clock simply because atoms have mass and it is not keeping the
> same rate as the same type clock in a different situation.
>
> | It's what you claim above with your claim that motion makes the clocks
> | malfunction.
> |
> | Can you give an unambiguous "yes" or "no"? Do you think the rates of
> | atomic processes depend on the speed of the atom?
>
> not the actual speed itself,
> But the changes in G-forces it travels through including acceleration,
> decceleration and any other changes of g-force in any direction.
>
>
> | Given that we have no idea what that motion is, can we develop a useful
> | theory of physics based on rates of atomic processes changing with
> | movement?
>
> A useful theory would be a lot better if it actually started to account
> for the clock malfunction instead of calling it a rate of time change.
>
> | What durations are measured by the clocks? Each moving clock measures how
> | many times their atoms do their little tricks. A stay-at-home clock
> | measures likewise. All three count a different number. Do you think that 2
> | of those counts must be incorrect?
>
> Yes, and in fact.
> all 3 could be incorrect, but we would need to use one as a
> comparison time no matter what.
>
>
> | No, it's not at all obvious. Especially since GR/SR requires no such
> | thing.
>
> If time truly changed for the clocks in flight, then Earth would somehow
> have to change
> for them to meet up with the time of the Earth clock.
> Of course, Earth could care less about the clocks or this silly "time
> changing rate bull***,
> that is why Both twins in the paradox are actually the same Earth Revs WRT
> the Sun old.
> :)
> Do you get it?
> It is very simple.
> Maybe you have too much complex stuff in your mind to understand the simple
> anymore?

.

Quantcast