Re: Fraud in Experimental and Theoretical Science


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137600017.600688.158280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| 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.

There is no "change in laws" occuring
There is a malfunction in a timing method.
This has been happening for centuries.
and you seem to want to ignore it now.
It is not physical laws changing
It is morons changing the basics of the science of
measurement.



|
| 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?
|


.