"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
I just happened to see this.

On 11/24/2003 4:38 PM, HenriWilson wrote:
When a remote spaceship fires its engines, does it go faster or slower?
Depends on the observer, eh?
So do its clocks PHYSICALLY speed up or slow down ?
Answer: Neither. They obviously cannot change in any way.
Relativity is blatant BULL!!!!

No. HenriWilson's MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT RELATIVITY are blatant BULL!!!!

If any readers of this thread are actually interested in learning
physics, be warned that it is very difficult to learn anything by
reading this newsgroup. You must study a good physics textbook to do
that. Feynman's 3-volume set is an EXCELLENT place to start.


Tom Roberts
There's difference between physics and relativity, Tom. Not that you would
know what it is.
Androcles

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
I just happened to see this.

On 11/24/2003 4:38 PM, HenriWilson wrote:
When a remote spaceship fires its engines, does it go faster or slower?
Depends on the observer, eh?
So do its clocks PHYSICALLY speed up or slow down ?
Answer: Neither. They obviously cannot change in any way.
Relativity is blatant BULL!!!!

No. HenriWilson's MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT RELATIVITY are blatant BULL!!!!

If any readers of this thread are actually interested in learning
physics, be warned that it is very difficult to learn anything by
reading this newsgroup. You must study a good physics textbook to do
that. Feynman's 3-volume set is an EXCELLENT place to start.

Hey Tom is this the correct answer?
At the rest frame of the clock the rate of the clock remains unchange.
However, as viewed by another observer the accelerated clock is
running slow?

Ken Seto

In message , HenriWilson
writes
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:54:57 +0000, Nine Stones
wrote:

In message , HenriWilson
writes
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:11:20 +0100, "Rudolf Drabek"


Your last statements are not correct. You are mixing up shiptime and
earthtime.
Seen from earth the ship never exceeded c, so its not possible to run into
the own signals.
Only the moving clock has a dilated time.

When a remote spaceship fires its engines, does it go faster or slower?

Depends on the observer, eh?

So do its clocks PHYSICALLY speed up or slow down ?

Answer: Neither. They obviously cannot change in any way.

Relativity is blatant BULL!!!!

Huhuhuhuhhaaah!


Where's the joke?

Huhuhuhuuh!

Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

--
Don't Forget Nos Cyllyll Hir
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC

skip
See
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
for more information.
Androcles
There are some articles and measurements to proofe that light is always
coming in with c and also that timedilation does exist (movement of
doublestars and mesonlifetime and M&M)
It's a question of accepting experimental data.
Or you give a better explanation than state of the art physiscs.
Rudi
Rudi, experimental data is open to interpretation. it is 'experimental'
data

Yes see 2 lines above.
I have also visited yr Homepage.
I will study your reply and will also make some calculations. Like you did.
If it turns out (and I hope, because its common sense), that the movement of
a far star with e.g. 30km/sec speed in circular orbit is visible with
constant angle/sec at ours ( including the changing distance acc. to the
radius of orbit) then SR is "waterproof" I think.

that a stick in water appears bent. Does that mean we should accept the
stick is bent?
Of course not. It is an illusion caused by refraction of light. Light that
ISN'T travelling at c in a medium.
Let's take your vague reference to "doublestars" as an example. Suppose
that
the orbital period is 1 year. That's a reasonable choice, it would place
two
stars at about the same distance from each other as we are from the sun.
Now, if one star were moving directly toward us, the speed of light it
emitted in our direction would be 1.0001c, and as it receded, it would be
0.9999c.
The pair have to be close enough for us to resolve them, or we couldn't
tell
if it was a binary system.
Because the light is travelling faster than c, the star will appear closer
sooner that we expect. But how can we determine its distance when it is
moving directly along our line of sight? Let's suppose that the system is
at
such a distance that the time of arrival is one day early. For our chosen
period, it would have moved just 1 degree. What is the difference between
sin(90)= 1.0
and
sin(91) = sin(89)=0.99985?
Negligible. We are looking at an ellipse edge on, trying to determine the
exact distance the star has moved toward us from a difference so small as
to
be impossible to determine while staring through a telescope. If we viewed
the system face on, then yes, we might be able to tell how far it moved,
but
then it is no longer coming toward us, so the speed of light it emits
isn't
added to it's speed. What about at a 45 degree angle? That might work, now
we can see how far it moved and how fast, from its doppler shift. From
that
we can apply Kepler's laws and determine the orbit. Except that because it
has moved a degree further than we expect, the calculation will show a
rotation of the longitude of periastron of 1 degree. This is the
distortion
you see, but you cannot go to the star system to find out what the orbital
parameters really are. You are left looking at a bent stick and concluding
it is really bent. You can't move your head to get a better view, the
stick
is so far away you need a telescope to see it at all. The binary system
was
the argument deSitter gave, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you
like
you can choose a binary system that will deny my argument.
As for MMX, that clearly shows that the speed of light is both source
dependent AND observer dependent. Both are relatively at rest.
I have no idea what you are referring to with mesons.

In other words you gave no proof at all, you relied vaguely on the word
of
others to back your claim.

Nor did you respond in any way to the argument I presented, you simply
ignored it. That is not how science is conducted.
Isaac Asimov wrote in "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" ,
ISBN 0-380-44610-3
(concerning life after death)
If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not accept.
I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith it is
so")
I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an
atheist?")
I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have been
put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?)
I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend who
went
to a medium and talked to her dead husband")
And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated,
there
turns out to be nothing.

So present your evidence, I won't accept any argument from authority
(FAQ's), anecdote ("there are articles that proofe.."), personal abuse,
sarcastically given as "Or you give a better explanation than state of the
art physiscs." or internal conviction, which is all you've offered.
I've presented mine, without reference to authority (what are your
credentials?), internal conviction (although I have it, but I'm not
asserting it as my argument), personal abuse (I haven't called you names
or
made sarcastic comment), irrelevance (we are discussing the subject at
hand)
or anecdote (I've done the work myself).
If you refuse to look, then there is nothing I can do about it.
But I will reply to your answer to the question asked, with "nonsense".
That
is because it is, and I say it the way it is without mincing words. When
you
people stop answering simple questions with nonsensical answers that you
cannot back up yourselves, merely parroting what you've read, and start
thinking of the nature of the evidence you accept so readily when it has
been interpreted for you, you can start calling yourselves scientists.
I have given a better answer than state of the art physics.
A simpler answer.
Androcles

Andocles, I will come back after studying your reply and upon finishing my
calculations.
rgds Rudi

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:11:41 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

I just happened to see this.

On 11/24/2003 4:38 PM, HenriWilson wrote:
When a remote spaceship fires its engines, does it go faster or slower?
Depends on the observer, eh?
So do its clocks PHYSICALLY speed up or slow down ?
Answer: Neither. They obviously cannot change in any way.
Relativity is blatant BULL!!!!

No. HenriWilson's MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT RELATIVITY are blatant BULL!!!!

If any readers of this thread are actually interested in learning
physics, be warned that it is very difficult to learn anything by
reading this newsgroup. You must study a good physics textbook to do
that. Feynman's 3-volume set is an EXCELLENT place to start.

No follower of Feynman has been able to show fault with any of my demos that
prove SR wrong.



Tom Roberts


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...
[snip].

I have also visited yr Homepage.
I will study your reply and will also make some calculations. Like you
did.
If it turns out (and I hope, because its common sense), that the movement
of
a far star with e.g. 30km/sec speed in circular orbit is visible with
constant angle/sec at ours ( including the changing distance acc. to the
radius of orbit) then SR is "waterproof" I think.
If you use a circular orbit, you will fail abysmally. Orbits are invariably
elliptical and obey the laws of Kepler. Nor are they in general face on or
edge on to the observer, and hence their projection onto the celestial
sphere is also an ellipse.
Androcles

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message ...
..
Andocles, I will come back after studying your reply and upon finishing my
calculations.
rgds Rudi

You are wasting your time Rudi. Androcles is a
well known crackpot on this group who is
completely immune to logic and reason.

Martin Hogbin

"Androcles" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...
[snip].

I have also visited yr Homepage.
I will study your reply and will also make some calculations. Like you
did.
If it turns out (and I hope, because its common sense), that the
movement
of
a far star with e.g. 30km/sec speed in circular orbit is visible with
constant angle/sec at ours ( including the changing distance acc. to the
radius of orbit) then SR is "waterproof" I think.
If you use a circular orbit, you will fail abysmally. Orbits are
invariably
elliptical and obey the laws of Kepler. Nor are they in general face on or
edge on to the observer, and hence their projection onto the celestial
sphere is also an ellipse.
Androcles

Dear Androcles
Yes I know and only for simplicity I have in mind an ell. orbit with zero
ecc. seen from the side. So I must measure a Doppler effect whith sinusodial
change of frequency, but including the changing distance to me
acc. to the orbit data. And then I will take
1. c constant (as is acc. to M&M) and
2. c is variable as you propose. With your assumption I hope to show that
the change in Doppler will not be sinusodial.

to Martin: I hold it with Sir Popper. We have to proofe all laws (truth)
constantly.
rgds Rudi

"Martin Hogbin" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...
.
Andocles, I will come back after studying your reply and upon finishing
my
calculations.
rgds Rudi

You are wasting your time Rudi. Androcles is a
well known crackpot on this group who is
completely immune to logic and reason.

Martin Hogbin

Thanks for your comment. Lets try it out.
Rudi

"HenriWilson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:11:41 -0600, Tom Roberts
wrote:

I just happened to see this.

On 11/24/2003 4:38 PM, HenriWilson wrote:
When a remote spaceship fires its engines, does it go faster or slower?
Depends on the observer, eh?

yes, there is no realproblem calculating it.
But I have never found a good definition what is an inertial system. Because
in a rocket acc. to the Twin Paradoxon will show time dilatation observed
from the twin at rest. For the moving twin his clock advances without
possibility to check it without observing the rest of the world.
So the Doppler shift acc. to SR should be symmetrical. But cannot be in this
case.

Not final: if you have one frame and a part of it starts moving away, then
this moving clock will start to dilate.
But the moving frame knows, that it is changing the condition wrt the rest
frame.
SO THE HISTORY OF FRAMES IS OF RELEVANCE. If we dont have the history of 2
frames we cant say what clock is the dilated one. So where was the beginning
of all frames we can observe?
The BB, but there was no time nor space!!

Can anyone help me a little bit if I am confused or not.
Rudi

So do its clocks PHYSICALLY speed up or slow down ?
Answer: Neither. They obviously cannot change in any way.
Relativity is blatant BULL!!!!

No. HenriWilson's MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT RELATIVITY are blatant BULL!!!!

If any readers of this thread are actually interested in learning
physics, be warned that it is very difficult to learn anything by
reading this newsgroup.

Thats clear, but it makes fun to be here.
Rudi

You must study a good physics textbook to do
that. Feynman's 3-volume set is an EXCELLENT place to start.

No follower of Feynman has been able to show fault with any of my demos
that
prove SR wrong.



Tom Roberts


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm