"jahn" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"jahn" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"jahn" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Dirk Van de moortel"

wrote
in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"suzysewnshow" wrote in message
om...
"hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote in message
...
First, I am not a physicist. I do desktop publishing as
a
profession,
but am
an avid sci-fi reader.

Two related questions. What causes time to slow down as
a
ship
approaches
the speed of light?

It doesn't. In Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity a
theoretical
clock[1] which slows with motion is assumed for the
purpose
of
resolving, on paper at least, a conumdrum between the
speed
of
light
and the isotropic propagation of a moving emitter of
light.
Literal
interpretations of this theoretical clock are what fuel
the
common
myth.

Is there any possibility that we could create the effect
on a stationary object?

Not based on the generalized precepts of relativity as it
applies
to
the real world. Clocks, after all, neither measure nor
establish
the
passage of time.

By definition they do. You really can not argue with a
definition.

[Dennis BS snipped]
[Dirk see http://www.the-private-eye.com/html/mtrhtml/MTR4.html ]

2. Absent any electrodynamcic ether:
If energy is expended to increase a ship's speed by 150Mm/sec, on
its
longitudinal axis, a light clock inside the ship will be
unaffected
by
ether
which does not exist.
Events viewed from a front window will *appear* to increase in
rate
due
to
doppler shift.
Events viewed from a rear window will *appear* to decrease in rate
due
to
doppler shift.
A common view satellite will *appear* to complete the same number
of
orbits
as seen by a relative moving observer if they compare counts at
the
same
place and time.
By a balance wheel clock, the time to boil a quantity will remain
unchanged.
Where do you find any evidence that time has been altered for any
observers?

See http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf.
We both know there is nothing in that paper about light-clocks,
boiling
water or aging travelers and GPS has it's own self consistant notion
of
time.

We both know your question was 'Where do you find any evidence that time
has
been altered for any observers?' - not 'light-clocks, boiling water or
aging
travelers'. It is a typical crank tactic to arbitrarily context shift.

Bill
Not a problem. I can be persistant with cranks.
Repeating
2. Absent any electrodynamcic ether:
If energy is expended to increase a ship's speed by 150Mm/sec, on its
longitudinal axis, a light clock inside the ship will be unaffected by
ether
which does not exist.
Events viewed from a front window will *appear* to increase in rate due to
doppler shift.
Events viewed from a rear window will *appear* to decrease in rate due to
doppler shift.
A common view satellite will *appear* to complete the same number of
orbits
as seen by a relative moving observer if they compare counts at the same
place and time.
By a balance wheel clock, the time to boil a quantity will remain
unchanged.
***(Where do you find any evidence that time has been altered for any
observers?***
Sue...

Of course none of this covers up the fact that Dennis McCarthy (AKA Sue AKA
Jan AKA the numerous other names Dirk has documented) has been posting the
same drivel for years and been given exactly the same answers - have a look
a the post from 2000 and follow the responses by Tom Roberts etc

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=de...k&hl=en&lr= &
ie=UTF-8&group=sci.physics.relativity&selm=20000718145001 .12778.00001010%40n
g-cr1.aol.com&rnum=2

Again note the same challenge:

Dennis: Show me the experiments which show that these clocks slow down
according to the Lorentzian time dilation equation. Indeed, for moving
pendulum clocks we know that their rate is changed according to other
equations.

And the answer is of course the same - the paper (along with the myriad of
other evidence) he rejects as being irrelevant -
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf. And his responce will
also be the same - invlaid theoretical argumnets that Tom described (in the
contexct of his posts at the time)

'No, I think all those other examples you gave use _APPROXIMATIONS_ to the
fundamental theories of physics; approximations in which "causality" is
approximately valid.'

Bill




It's clocks are useless as time standards without the broadcast
corrections. They are getting better as you can see at:
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/images/geo.jpg
You have posted that 2002 paper at least 10 times to answer all
questions
great and small so you'll forgive me for posting this only a second
time:
Absent any electrodynamcic ether:
If energy is expended to increase a ship's speed by 150Mm/sec, on its
longitudinal axis, a light clock inside the ship will be unaffected by
ether
which does not exist.
Events viewed from a front window will *appear* to increase in rate
due
to
doppler shift.
Events viewed from a rear window will *appear* to decrease in rate due
to
doppler shift.
A common view satellite will *appear* to complete the same number of
orbits
as seen by a relative moving observer if they compare counts at the
same
place and time.
By a balance wheel clock, the time to boil a quantity will remain
unchanged.
Where do you find any evidence that time has been altered for any
observers?
Which statement do you disagree with?
Regards,
Sue...


Bill

Sue...


Thanks
Bill


Dirk Vdm

To whom it may concern,

I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched in my
crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write and
argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and my
style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For example,
I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM clocks. The
Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an established
fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
explaining to do if that were not the case.
I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying to
associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who tried
to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide their
real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic professor
backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of logic. The
poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )

--Dennis
PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
me....
Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
I didn't think so. ;-)

Dennis McCarthy

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message ...

To whom it may concern,

I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched in my
crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write and
argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and my
style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For example,
I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM clocks. The
Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an established
fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
explaining to do if that were not the case.
I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying to
associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who tried
to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide their
real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic professor
backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of logic. The
poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )

--Dennis
PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
me....
Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
I didn't think so. ;-)

You still haven't started guessing how I found out.

Dirk Vdm

[exceptional top-post]

Hm, Dennis, I hadn't noticed this embarrassing slip. Ouch ;-)

Dirk Vdm


"jahn" wrote in message ...

"jahn" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"jahn" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"jahn" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Dirk Van de moortel"

wrote
in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"suzysewnshow" wrote in message
om...
"hunkahunkaburninluv" wrote in message
...
First, I am not a physicist. I do desktop publishing as
a
profession,
but am
an avid sci-fi reader.

Two related questions. What causes time to slow down as
a
ship
approaches
the speed of light?

It doesn't. In Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity a
theoretical
clock[1] which slows with motion is assumed for the
purpose
of
resolving, on paper at least, a conumdrum between the
speed
of
light
and the isotropic propagation of a moving emitter of
light.
Literal
interpretations of this theoretical clock are what fuel
the
common
myth.

Is there any possibility that we could create the effect
on a stationary object?

Not based on the generalized precepts of relativity as it
applies
to
the real world. Clocks, after all, neither measure nor
establish
the
passage of time.

By definition they do. You really can not argue with a
definition.

[Dennis BS snipped]
[Dirk see http://www.the-private-eye.com/html/mtrhtml/MTR4.html ]

2. Absent any electrodynamcic ether:
If energy is expended to increase a ship's speed by 150Mm/sec, on
its
longitudinal axis, a light clock inside the ship will be
unaffected
by
ether
which does not exist.
Events viewed from a front window will *appear* to increase in
rate
due
to
doppler shift.
Events viewed from a rear window will *appear* to decrease in rate
due
to
doppler shift.
A common view satellite will *appear* to complete the same number
of
orbits
as seen by a relative moving observer if they compare counts at
the
same
place and time.
By a balance wheel clock, the time to boil a quantity will remain
unchanged.
Where do you find any evidence that time has been altered for any
observers?

See http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf.
We both know there is nothing in that paper about light-clocks,
boiling
water or aging travelers and GPS has it's own self consistant notion
of
time.

We both know your question was 'Where do you find any evidence that time
has
been altered for any observers?' - not 'light-clocks, boiling water or
aging
travelers'. It is a typical crank tactic to arbitrarily context shift.

Bill
Not a problem. I can be persistant with cranks.
Repeating
2. Absent any electrodynamcic ether:
If energy is expended to increase a ship's speed by 150Mm/sec, on its
longitudinal axis, a light clock inside the ship will be unaffected by
ether
which does not exist.
Events viewed from a front window will *appear* to increase in rate due to
doppler shift.
Events viewed from a rear window will *appear* to decrease in rate due to
doppler shift.
A common view satellite will *appear* to complete the same number of
orbits
as seen by a relative moving observer if they compare counts at the same
place and time.
By a balance wheel clock, the time to boil a quantity will remain
unchanged.
***(Where do you find any evidence that time has been altered for any
observers?***
Sue...

Of course none of this covers up the fact that Dennis McCarthy (AKA Sue AKA
Jan AKA the numerous other names Dirk has documented) has been posting the
same drivel for years and been given exactly the same answers - have a look
a the post from 2000 and follow the responses by Tom Roberts etc

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=de...k&hl=en&lr= &
ie=UTF-8&group=sci.physics.relativity&selm=20000718145001 .12778.00001010%40n
g-cr1.aol.com&rnum=2

Again note the same challenge:

Dennis: Show me the experiments which show that these clocks slow down
according to the Lorentzian time dilation equation. Indeed, for moving
pendulum clocks we know that their rate is changed according to other
equations.

And the answer is of course the same - the paper (along with the myriad of
other evidence) he rejects as being irrelevant -
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf. And his responce will
also be the same - invlaid theoretical argumnets that Tom described (in the
contexct of his posts at the time)

'No, I think all those other examples you gave use _APPROXIMATIONS_ to the
fundamental theories of physics; approximations in which "causality" is
approximately valid.'

Bill




It's clocks are useless as time standards without the broadcast
corrections. They are getting better as you can see at:
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/images/geo.jpg
You have posted that 2002 paper at least 10 times to answer all
questions
great and small so you'll forgive me for posting this only a second
time:
Absent any electrodynamcic ether:
If energy is expended to increase a ship's speed by 150Mm/sec, on its
longitudinal axis, a light clock inside the ship will be unaffected by
ether
which does not exist.
Events viewed from a front window will *appear* to increase in rate
due
to
doppler shift.
Events viewed from a rear window will *appear* to decrease in rate due
to
doppler shift.
A common view satellite will *appear* to complete the same number of
orbits
as seen by a relative moving observer if they compare counts at the
same
place and time.
By a balance wheel clock, the time to boil a quantity will remain
unchanged.
Where do you find any evidence that time has been altered for any
observers?
Which statement do you disagree with?
Regards,
Sue...


Bill

Sue...


Thanks
Bill


Dirk Vdm

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

To whom it may concern,

I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched in
my
crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write
and
argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and
my
style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For
example,
I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM clocks.
The
Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an
established
fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
explaining to do if that were not the case.
I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying to
associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who
tried
to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide
their
real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic
professor
backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of logic.
The
poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )

--Dennis
PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
me....
Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
I didn't think so. ;-)

Dennis McCarthy

Thank you Dennis,
While I am sure I don't agree with your point of view, I at least have some
idea
what it is just from the above paragraph. This is more than I can say for
the
few that just want to be disruptive and play "romper room". Whatever their
POV,
it is lost on me and any opinion they offer in the future can only be
treated as
coming from someone stupid enough to jam their own signal.
Kind regards,
Sue...

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...
|
| To whom it may concern,
|
| I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched in
my
| crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write
and
| argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and
my
| style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For
example,
| I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM clocks.
The
| Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an
established
| fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
| explaining to do if that were not the case.
| I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying to
| associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who
tried
| to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide
their
| real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic
professor
| backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of logic.
The
| poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )
|
| --Dennis
| PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
| me....
| Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
| I didn't think so. ;-)
|
| Dennis McCarthy

So Dinky van de Torquemada is a simply a schizoid raving lunatic who is
wrong once again.
Well, we knew that.
Androcles.

"jahn" wrote in message ...

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

To whom it may concern,

I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched in
my
crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write
and
argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and
my
style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For
example,
I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM clocks.
The
Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an
established
fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
explaining to do if that were not the case.
I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying to
associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who
tried
to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide
their
real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic
professor
backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of logic.
The
poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )

--Dennis
PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
me....
Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
I didn't think so. ;-)

Dennis McCarthy

Thank you Dennis,
While I am sure I don't agree with your point of view, I at least have some
idea
what it is just from the above paragraph. This is more than I can say for
the
few that just want to be disruptive and play "romper room". Whatever their
POV,
it is lost on me and any opinion they offer in the future can only be
treated as
coming from someone stupid enough to jam their own signal.
Kind regards,
Sue...

El Hemetis and Lady Sanity revisited :-))
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...adySanity.html

Dirk Vdm

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...
|
| To whom it may concern,
|
| I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched in
my
| crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write
and
| argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and
my
| style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For
example,
| I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM clocks.
The
| Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an
established
| fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
| explaining to do if that were not the case.
| I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying to
| associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who
tried
| to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide
their
| real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic
professor
| backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of logic.
The
| poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )
|
| --Dennis
| PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
| me....
| Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
| I didn't think so. ;-)
|
| Dennis McCarthy

So Dinky van de Torquemada is a simply a schizoid raving lunatic who is
wrong once again.
Well, we knew that.
Androcles.

The raving lunatic at work:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ndrorgasm.html
:-)

Dirk Vdm

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

To whom it may concern,

I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched in
my
crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write and
argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and my
style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For
example,
I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM clocks.
The
Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an established
fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
explaining to do if that were not the case.
I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying to
associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who
tried
to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide
their
real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic
professor
backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of logic.
The
poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )

--Dennis
PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
me....
Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
I didn't think so. ;-)

Dirk:
You still haven't started guessing how I found out.

Dennis: Read each word carefully:
I, Dennis McCarthy, will bet you $1000 (or as much as you want) that you are
wrong.
You have claimed repeatedly that you can prove that I am Suzy or Jahn -- and I
claim you can't and that I'm not.
This will now be followed by Dirk backing down, using some sort of excuse like
dismissing it as a rhetorical trick or making the claim that he doesn't wager
or just continuing to repeat silly things like "still wondering how I found
out?" Something like that.
So, Dirk, you know how you can tell that now this is me: You once again are
shown to have made a ridiculous claim and once again can't respond in any
meaningful way -- just like our last correspondence when you were trying to
argue that time is whatever a clock says it is:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
selm=20040218093418.17156.00002297%40mb-m03.aol.com&rnum=39

or the correspondence before that where you could not be made to understand the
well known problem involving modern physics and local, material causality:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...0423190125.188
42.00000393%40mb-m19.aol.com&rnum=16

--Dennis McCarthy








Dennis McCarthy

"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message ...


"Dennis McCarthy" wrote in message
...

To whom it may concern,

I never debate scientific matters anonymously, for, I am so entrenched in
my
crackpottery that I am deluded enough to be proud of everything I write and
argue. Indeed, everyone who is not completely ignorant of my theory and my
style should be able to see quite clearly I am not Suzy or Jahn. For
example,
I have always unreservedly supported Lorentzian retardation of EM clocks.
The
Lorentzian retardation of atomic clocks in GPS satellites is an established
fact -- and the ECI frame ether theory that I follow would have a lot of
explaining to do if that were not the case.
I don't know why Suzy/Jahn posts anonymously. But the people trying to
associate me with these current anonymous posters are the same types who
tried
to claim I was Matter (Michael Kozuch) and Vern -- both of whom provide
their
real names. (Perhaps, my favorite accusation occurred when a logic
professor
backed me over a relativist regarding one of the simplest points of logic.
The
poor prof. was actually accused of being one of my alter egos. )

--Dennis
PS. Dirk has repeatedly made the claim that he can prove Suzy or Jahn is
me....
Well, gosh, Dirk, you wouldn't want to wager on that, would you?
I didn't think so. ;-)

Dirk:
You still haven't started guessing how I found out.

Dennis: Read each word carefully:
I, Dennis McCarthy, will bet you $1000 (or as much as you want) that you are
wrong.

No, idiot.
I already told you that the idea is that you *guess* how I found out.

Dirk Vdm