Re: Dear Space***....

On Jun 16, 12:29 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
   I appreciate your answer Spacman! In the local frame of the clock
   and ruler - yes you are correct--no physical change for either.
   But for inertial observers in relative motion, the measurements
   of changed clock and rulers are as real as real can be.

They are real, but they are caused by old fashion laws of physics
that have been ignored.
The clock is simply goofing up Sam.
Relativity is great for predicting how much they goof up,
but when it comes up with "time changing" being the cause
it becomes the circular joke that in reality is not a physical
cause at all.

   And in local frames, motion is zero... hence no physical change..

Sam,
;ets both think about this simple problem about "time changing" for
objects in motion.
Lets say you are the Earth,
and we know that a comet is coming at you at 500,000 miles per hour.
We found out it is heading for us and timed each observation and
distance so we know it is closing in at such a speed,
and at the time you find this out, Earth time reads 1:00 pm.and the
comet is 500,000 miles away.
Do you truly think the "dilated clock on the comet" is going to care
and not hit us in 1 hr?
C,mon Sam
Is it going to be more than 1 hr because the "comets clock ran slow"?

   The comet doesn't see its clock running slow, It sees its distance
   to earth foreshortened. What matters to us is what we measure, not
   what the comet measures... at any rate KABLOOIE!

Right, what matters to us is what "we" measure.
The comet seeign the distance as different does not physically
change the distance.
The comet is being stupid.
:)

Simple things like this are why science and NASA still use a basic
absolute timing method for space travel.

   Neither use "absolute timing". When relativistic measurements
   count, they are used!

No Sam,
They used the "absolute" relative motion we have measured
from Earth for the "target".
no relativistic effects were used to land on the moon,
no relativistic effects were used to land on Mars.
They just ignored what the "traveling clock said"
and used Earths absolute timing methods.
(One single clock as a standard)

   It'll take a while, but you could eventually git eDjekatEd lik me!
:-o

If you actually thought about it a bit more instead of just "teaching"
relativity to all, you may start to see why it is not "reality" and
is simply a play on malfunctioning clocks and rubber rulers.
But .. it is you that has to think and let me be the teacher,.
I know that is very hard for teachers since my mom is a teacher
also.
:)
anyways Sam,
Try being a student all over again and forget what you know
and figure out what is being stated by me and even some others
that visit here.
And then you may see that relativity is a gigantic illusion problem
mostly when it comes to length contraction and an age old
mechanical problem when it talks about time dilation.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where do the astronauts store their space ***?

Is it jetesoned into orbit?
.

Quantcast