Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field




Every important scientific work has been built upon the science that comes before it. And the case is the same regarding the invention of the general theory of relativity. There is nothing wrong with that.

So stay tune; and let Albert Einstein continue building the imposing mathematical framework of general relativity:


The g_στ are to be chosen here so that g_στ = g_τσ; the summation is to extend over all values of σ and τ, so that the sum consists of 4 X 4 terms, of which twelve are equal in pairs. The case of the ordinary theory of relativity arises out of the case here considered, if it is possible, by reason of the particular relations of the g_στ in a finite region, to choose the system of reference in the finite region in such a way that the g_στ assume the constant values







We shall find hereafter that the choice of such co-ordinates is, in general, not possible for a finite region. From the considerations of (2) and (3) it follows that quantities g_τσ are to be regarded from the physical standpoint as the quantities which describe the gravitational field in relation to the chosen system of reference. For, if we now assume the special theory of relativity to apply to a certain four-dimensional region with the co-ordinates properly chosen, then the g_τσ have the values given in (4).
A free material point then moves, relatively to this system, with uniform motion in a straight line. Then if we introduce new space-time co-ordinates x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄, by means of any substitution we choose, the g^τσ in this new system will no longer be constants, but functions of space and time.
At the same time the motion of the free material point will present itself in the new co-ordinates as a curvilinear non-uniform motion, and the law of this motion will be independent of the nature of the moving particle. We shall therefore interpret this motion as a motion under the influence of a gravitational field.

Re: Stanley 16, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 17 2008 at 4:18 PM

If, as Einstein claims, Stanley, gravity is the result of "curved space", how then, does said curvature emit, or generate, said field?

If you are to be an instructor, to us, of GR then you should start with some basics, right?

Oh!...and did I say thank you for your last answer?

bob s

Bob S: "Re: Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 17 2008, 4:44 PM

Re: Stanley 16, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 17 2008 at 4:18 PM

If, as Einstein claims, Stanley, gravity is the result of "curved space", how then, does said curvature emit, or generate, said field?

If you are to be an instructor, to us, of GR then you should start with some basics, right?

Oh!...and did I say thank you for your last answer?"

cinci: More questions? The curvature of space is not one of the "basics" of general relativity and it is not where the study of GR starts.

Again you are answering for Stanley. Could it be that he is that twin sibling I referred to in a previous post. I bet you are the older sibling Cinci.

AAF: No matter how you look at it, {Curvature = Gravitation}is an arbitrary and unjustified assumption made implicitly and without any proof at all by Albert Einstein. And that so-called 'Principle of Equivalence' can never lead to or prove such far-fetched thing. Now, if anyone wonders how Einstein arrived at the monstrous mathematical structure of his General Relativity, this how he did it: [1] Einstein silently and implicitly made the far-fetched and false assumption that {Curvature = Gravitation}. [2] Einstein imported the so-called 'Minkowski Metric Equation' of Special Relativity. [3] The imported Minkowski Metric Equation of Special Relativity is no more realistic or closer to physical reality than the Space-Time Continuum of Einstein's new Relativity. [4] Nonetheless the Minkowski Metric Equation of Special Relativity is the main building block and the start point of General Relativity. [5] You can't derive or arrive at the monstrous mathematical scaffoldings of General Relativity without using the Minkowski Metric Equation of Special Relativity as a steppingstone right from the beginning. [6] Einstein imported the formalism of Riemann's Manifold Geometry. [7] Einstein customized the formalism of Riemann's Geometry by using his new assumption of [Curvature = Gravitation] and the Minkowski Metric Equation of Special Relativity. [8] Finally, Einstein assigned the familiar terms of Newton's Universal Gravitation to the customized formalism of Riemann's Manifold Geometry by importing, borrowing, and using the Minkowski Metric Equation of Special Relativity as a steppingstone. And that is it. You can do it!




Cincirob: “It's not an assumption, it's what the mathematics shows. Silently and implicitly? Ye haw! I've heard everything now. "So-called"? What is "so-called" about it. Either it is the Mikowski metric or it isn't. And just what would "Einstein's new Relativity" be? I've only heard of special and general relativity. Are you just making stuff up again? Again, in caps so you can't miss it: IT AIN'T AN ASSUMPTION”!





AAF: 'So-called' is so-called; there is nothing else in it; and the [Curvature = Gravitation] is an assumption and an arbitrary and unjustified one for that matter. I bet that you one day shall be forced to accept this simple fact just I forced you before to agree that Hendrick Antoon Lorentz had indeed derived his transformations long before Einstein did.



Cincirob: “AAF tries to change history but nobody is fooled. No, if you read OEMB you will find that the derivations of the transformations we now call Lorentz transformations are derived from the constancy of the speed of light for all observers, a conclusion that Lorentz never drew. I also don’t think you can find the transformations published by Lorentz anywhere. He did produce the length contraction formula from the MMX. I can back all this up, you just shooting in the dark. It’s time for you to go really learn something and to stop making up your own history. Well from what I can find of Lorentz’s papers, they pretty much did. It’s clear that he got the length contraction formula this way, but you’ll have to give me a reference showing he did the transformations. Nice try AAF. Did you think I wouldn’t look at the site? Here’s what it says: “It is 1903, the young Albert Einstein has been given a provisional appointment as Technical Expert, third class, at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. He is unknown but apparently quite happy since he is free to pursue his own work when he is not occupied at the Patent Office. He can discuss his ideas with his equally unknown friends, Conrad Habicht and Maurice Solovine. They meet at the self-constituted Olympia Academy to discuss philosophy and new developments in physics”. But I never said he wasn’t aware of Lorentz’s work, which was pretty inventive, but Lorentz apparently didn’t arrive a the transformations and the reason we know he didn’t is that he still believed in aether and the transformations make it clear that aether is not needed. Also, it’s clear that he worked with length contraction but nothing I’ve seen implies he knew anything about time dilation, the other great revelation about nature attributable only to Einstein. Really? And I suppose you KNOW this because you channeled Conrad Habicht and Maurice Solovine or perhaps Einstein himself. Well this is progress. You now agree that the MMX can be explained by SR. But you also say it can be explained by kinematic light theory. Are you saying that the two theories are the same? Actually since I can read and have read OEMB, I’m sure nothing of the kind occurred. If you’re going to write history, you have to have a few facts, and I don’t mean “facts” that you pulled out of thin air. Give it up, you have nothing to offer".




AAF: I thought you would deny he was aware of it; that is the only way of making your Albert completely oblivious of the null result of Michelson & Morley! Lorentz constructed his transformations to give always the null result of Michelson & Morley as their unique algebraic solution in that special case. Give those transformations of his to any physicist; and he/she will arrive at the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with ease, even if he/she is not aware of that experiment. Now, notice this! Lorentz hypothesized the (length contraction & time dilation) first and then obtained the null result of Michelson & Morley. Einstein did just the opposite. He hypothesized the null result of Michelson & Morley first and then obtained the (length contraction & time dilation). To find out how Lorentz did it, wade patiently through these:
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?startrow=1&view=image&pubid=209&search=
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?pubid=615&view=image&startrow=1
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm



Bob S: “Thanks for the followup AAF, excellent message. Can you believe those dunderheads, all I was trying to do was find out what Stanley was trying to do by asking a simple question. I had to endure mindless drivel telling me that (I) could not prove a theory with a theory, which I’ve known since I was 10 years old. FINALLY, after 4 days I get an answer from Stanley, who again tells me what I already know but at least he say NO! Which is all I wanted in the first place, an answer. Then that whiner Cincirob comes back with his See Bob, I told ya. and sounds like that pesky nose-picker in the 6th grade who always played on the girls side of the playground. I knew what Stanley was trying to do, I just wanted him to admit, or deny, it so that he can’t come back later and say “that’s not what I said” like the two-faced Relativists are wont to do. Again, thanks for the backup”.



AAF: Thank you, Bob, for spanking and teaching Cincirob very good lessons! It's absolutely certain that as soon as mainstream theorists wake up and get out of their logical hibernation, this general failure of General Relativity is going to become clearer and clearer to their awakening collective mind until finally they have no option but to throw away this false theory and forget about it just as I always do with your old comments and posts. In brief, the theory of Relativity is a castle in the sky and a coconut in the sea and a big blunder on land: We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old. ---Winston Churchill---
http://www.fiftiesweb.com/usa/winston-churchill-fight-beaches.htm




Bob S: “There will be victory over the tyranny of Relativism AAF and you and Pentcho are at the fore of battle”.



Cincirob: “Pentcho and AAF are going to prove relativity wrong....really Bob? Pentcho and AAF? Really? Pardon me while I snicker. SNICKER”!



AAF: Snicker & giggle & roll like one 'little donkey', Cincirob! Your beloved Albert's Relativity is going to be thrown into the dustbin of history very soon. And if you don't like it, just try to get used to it.



Cincirob: “Let me get this straight. You are using Winston Churchill as a reference in an physics discussion. Oh how the mighty have fallen”.



AAF: Surely, your mighty Albert has fallen or gone to fall very soon. Why quote Churchill? It's for his determination in the face of unfavorable odds; my dear Cincirob! What really surprising in this regard is that Churchill made this speech early on and at the time of General Heinz Guderian's Blitzkrieg through Western Europe: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/heinz_guderian.htm And yet all Churchill's predictions have come true: (A) The British did fight the Germans everywhere, just as promised by Churchill. (B) The British Isles didn't fall. (C) And the 'powerful and mighty' New Wold did step forth to rescue and liberate the Old World. This man called 'Winston' was a real political genius; wasn't he?





Cincirob: “Oh, I don't know....maybe because he didn't know squat about physics and these are questions of physics? Well your odds of destroying relativity certainly are unfavorable....maybe because you're dead wrong about it. Well of course that's when he made the speech. It wouldn't have made sense after we defeated the germans. Yes, and he was born in the same decade as Albert Einstein.....that was a great decade wouldn't you say? The similarities are striking. Albert made stunningly new and different predictions about physics and they all proved to be true also. Churchill, Einstein...what a pair”.




AAF: The odds of destroying Relativity are very good. But the strange thing is that the general (Heinz) still looks more imposing and commanding than the physicist (Albert) and the PM (Winston), even though they won and he lost; perhaps, dying young is not that bad after all!



Cincirob: “Running all my comments together without showing what they are responding to is dishonest and childish. This kind of tactic is proof that your scientific arguments have failed. Time to grow up AAF”.



AAF: That is not true; everything they're responding to is right smack above them! Besides, it's your wily and sly methods and tactics of cutting my comments to small and meaningless pieces that have caused this problem of incoherence and silliness in your unified comments in the first place; am I right?

Re: Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 18 2008, 6:11 PM

AAF: No matter how you look at it, {Curvature = Gravitation}is an arbitrary and unjustified assumption made implicitly and without any proof at all by Albert Einstein. And that so-called 'Principle of Equivalence' can never lead to or prove such far-fetched thing. Now, if anyone wonders how Einstein arrived at the monstrous mathematical structure of his General Relativity, this how he did it: [1] Einstein silently and implicitly made the far-fetched and false assumption that {Curvature = Gravitation}. [2] Einstein imported the so-called 'Minkowski Metric Equation' of Special Relativity. [3] The imported Minkowski Metric Equation of Special Relativity is no more realistic or closer to physical reality than the Space-Time Continuum of Einstein's new Relativity. [4] Nonetheless the Minkowski Metric Equation of Special Relativity is the main building block and the start point of General Relativity. [5] You can't derive or arrive at the monstrous mathematical scaffoldings of General Relativity without using the Minkowski Metric Equation of Special Relativity as a steppingstone right from the beginning. [6] Einstein imported the formalism of Riemann's Manifold Geometry. [7] Einstein customized the formalism of Riemann's Geometry by using his new assumption of [Curvature = Gravitation] and the Minkowski Metric Equation of Special Relativity. [8] Finally, Einstein assigned the familiar terms of Newton's Universal Gravitation to the customized formalism of Riemann's Manifold Geometry by importing, borrowing, and using the Minkowski Metric Equation of Special Relativity as a steppingstone. And that is it. You can do it!

Cincirob: “It's not an assumption, it's what the mathematics shows. Silently and implicitly? Ye haw! I've heard everything now. "So-called"? What is "so-called" about it. Either it is the Mikowski metric or it isn't. And just what would "Einstein's new Relativity" be? I've only heard of special and general relativity. Are you just making stuff up again? Again, in caps so you can't miss it: IT AIN'T AN ASSUMPTION”!

AAF: 'So-called' is so-called; there is nothing else in it; and the [Curvature = Gravitation] is an assumption and an arbitrary and unjustified one for that matter. I bet that you one day shall be forced to accept this simple fact just I forced you before to agree that Hendrick Antoon Lorentz had indeed derived his transformations long before Einstein did.

cinci: Dr. Lorentz did indeed derive them starting with the Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction formula and recognizing the mathematical characteristics of transformations involving the function (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5.....everybody knows that. Did you just stumble across it? But the good Doctor couldn't give up the idea of ether, much like you, he was stuck in the past. It took the genius of Einstein to lift the veil of confusion from physics and identify the importance of the constancy of the speed of light, the basis of his derivation. Ta-da!!!!!
**********************************************


AAF: I thought you would deny he was aware of it; that is the only way of making your Albert completely oblivious of the null result of Michelson & Morley! Lorentz constructed his transformations to give always the null result of Michelson & Morley as their unique algebraic solution in that special case. Give those transformations of his to any physicist; and he/she will arrive at the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with ease, even if he/she is not aware of that experiment. Now, notice this! Lorentz hypothesized the (length contraction & time dilation) first and then obtained the null result of Michelson & Morley. Einstein did just the opposite. He hypothesized the null result of Michelson & Morley first and then obtained the (length contraction & time dilation). To find out how Lorentz did it, wade patiently through these:
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?startrow=1&view=image&pubid=209&search=
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?pubid=615&view=image&startrow=1
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

cinci: No, Einstein did not base his derivation on the null result of Michelson-Morley. And I know how Lorentz did it, Whittaker covers it very nicely in his book. And if you read Einstein's 1905 papaer, it will be clear that he did not base it on the null result of Michelson-Morley but on the simple process of synchronizing clocks.
******************************


Bob S: “Thanks for the followup AAF, excellent message. Can you believe those dunderheads, all I was trying to do was find out what Stanley was trying to do by asking a simple question. I had to endure mindless drivel telling me that (I) could not prove a theory with a theory, which I’ve known since I was 10 years old. FINALLY, after 4 days I get an answer from Stanley, who again tells me what I already know but at least he say NO! Which is all I wanted in the first place, an answer. Then that whiner Cincirob comes back with his See Bob, I told ya. and sounds like that pesky nose-picker in the 6th grade who always played on the girls side of the playground. I knew what Stanley was trying to do, I just wanted him to admit, or deny, it so that he can’t come back later and say “that’s not what I said” like the two-faced Relativists are wont to do. Again, thanks for the backup”.

cinci: Ah yes, Bob, you have now acknowledged yours was not a simple questin but an attempt to play "Gotcha" with Stanley....as I said, you were not being forthcoming.
******************************


Bob S: “There will be victory over the tyranny of Relativism AAF and you and Pentcho are at the fore of battle”.

Cincirob: “Pentcho and AAF are going to prove relativity wrong....really Bob? Pentcho and AAF? Really? Pardon me while I snicker. SNICKER”!

AAF: Snicker & giggle & roll like one 'little donkey', Cincirob!

cinc: thanks, I will. There seems to be an unending supply of opportunities from you and your cohorts.
*************************

AAF: Your beloved Albert's Relativity is going to be thrown into the dustbin of history very soon. And if you don't like it, just try to get used to it.

cinci: Really? Then why don't you hold your breath until it happens?
**************************

Cincirob: “Let me get this straight. You are using Winston Churchill as a reference in an physics discussion. Oh how the mighty have fallen”.

AAF: Surely, your mighty Albert has fallen or gone to fall very soon. Why quote Churchill? It's for his determination in the face of unfavorable odds; my dear Cincirob! What really surprising in this regard is that Churchill made this speech early on and at the time of General Heinz Guderian's Blitzkrieg through Western Europe: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/heinz_guderian.htm And yet all Churchill's predictions have come true: (A) The British did fight the Germans everywhere, just as promised by Churchill. (B) The British Isles didn't fall. (C) And the 'powerful and mighty' New Wold did step forth to rescue and liberate the Old World. This man called 'Winston' was a real political genius; wasn't he?

Cincirob: “Oh, I don't know....maybe because he didn't know squat about physics and these are questions of physics? Well your odds of destroying relativity certainly are unfavorable....maybe because you're dead wrong about it. Well of course that's when he made the speech. It wouldn't have made sense after we defeated the germans. Yes, and he was born in the same decade as Albert Einstein.....that was a great decade wouldn't you say? The similarities are striking. Albert made stunningly new and different predictions about physics and they all proved to be true also. Churchill, Einstein...what a pair”.

AAF: The odds of destroying Relativity are very good. But the strange thing is that the general (Heinz) still looks more imposing and commanding than the physicist (Albert) and the PM (Winston), even though they won and he lost; perhaps, dying young is not that bad after all!

Cincirob: “Running all my comments together without showing what they are responding to is dishonest and childish. This kind of tactic is proof that your scientific arguments have failed. Time to grow up AAF”.

AAF: That is not true; everything they're responding to is right smack above them! Besides, it's your wily and sly methods and tactics of cutting my comments to small and meaningless pieces that have caused this problem of incoherence and silliness in your unified comments in the first place; am I right?

cinci: Your comments are meaningless in pieces or altogether. And thanks for the "wily and sly" compliment. I wish I could say the same for you.
************************************

AAF: I thought you would deny he was aware of it; that is the only way of making your Albert completely oblivious of the null result of Michelson & Morley! Lorentz constructed his transformations to give always the null result of Michelson & Morley as their unique algebraic solution in that special case. Give those transformations of his to any physicist; and he/she will arrive at the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with ease, even if he/she is not aware of that experiment. Now, notice this! Lorentz hypothesized the (length contraction & time dilation) first and then obtained the null result of Michelson & Morley. Einstein did just the opposite. He hypothesized the null result of Michelson & Morley first and then obtained the (length contraction & time dilation). To find out how Lorentz did it, wade patiently through these:
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?startrow=1&view=image&pubid=209&search=
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?pubid=615&view=image&startrow=1
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm



Cincirob: “Dr. Lorentz did indeed derive them starting with the Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction formula and recognizing the mathematical characteristics of transformations involving the function (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5.....everybody knows that. Did you just stumble across it? But the good Doctor couldn't give up the idea of ether, much like you, he was stuck in the past. It took the genius of Einstein to lift the veil of confusion from physics and identify the importance of the constancy of the speed of light, the basis of his derivation. Ta-da!!!!! No, Einstein did not base his derivation on the null result of Michelson-Morley. And I know how Lorentz did it, Whittaker covers it very nicely in his book. And if you read Einstein's 1905 papaer, it will be clear that he did not base it on the null result of Michelson-Morley but on the simple process of synchronizing clocks".




AAF: So be nice and helpful and provide RJ with the above authoritative reference to Lorentz published work on his Transformations; the Old Doctor would have been very pleased by it!



Bob S: “Thanks for the followup AAF, excellent message. Can you believe those dunderheads, all I was trying to do was find out what Stanley was trying to do by asking a simple question. I had to endure mindless drivel telling me that (I) could not prove a theory with a theory, which I’ve known since I was 10 years old. FINALLY, after 4 days I get an answer from Stanley, who again tells me what I already know but at least he say NO! Which is all I wanted in the first place, an answer. Then that whiner Cincirob comes back with his See Bob, I told ya. and sounds like that pesky nose-picker in the 6th grade who always played on the girls side of the playground. I knew what Stanley was trying to do, I just wanted him to admit, or deny, it so that he can’t come back later and say “that’s not what I said” like the two-faced Relativists are wont to do. Again, thanks for the backup”.



AAF: Thank you, Bob, for spanking and teaching Cincirob & Stan very good lessons! It's absolutely certain that as soon as mainstream theorists wake up and get out of their logical hibernation, this general failure of General Relativity is going to become clearer and clearer to their awakening collective mind until finally they have no option but to throw away this false theory and forget about it just as I always do with your old comments and posts. In brief, the theory of Relativity is a castle in the sky and a coconut in the sea and a big blunder on land: We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old. ---Winston Churchill---
http://www.fiftiesweb.com/usa/winston-churchill-fight-beaches.htm




Bob S: “There will be victory over the tyranny of Relativism AAF and you and Pentcho are at the fore of battle”.


Cincirob: “Pentcho and AAF are going to prove relativity wrong....really Bob? Pentcho and AAF? Really? Pardon me while I snicker. SNICKER! Ah yes, Bob, you have now acknowledged yours was not a simple question but an attempt to play "Gotcha" with Stanley....as I said, you were not being forthcoming”.



AAF: Snicker & snicker & snicker, Cincirob! Your beloved Albert's Relativity is going to be thrown into the dustbin of history very soon. And if you don't like it, just try to get used to it.



Cincirob: “Really? Then why don't you hold your breath until it happens? Let me get this straight. You are using Winston Churchill as a reference in an physics discussion. Oh how the mighty have fallen. thanks, I will. There seems to be an unending supply of opportunities from you and your cohorts.”.



AAF: Yes, really! Surely, your mighty Albert has fallen or gone to fall very soon. Why quote Churchill? It's for his determination in the face of unfavorable odds; my dear Cincirob! What really surprising in this regard is that Churchill made this speech early on and at the time of General Heinz Guderian's Blitzkrieg through Western Europe: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/heinz_guderian.htm And yet all Churchill's predictions have come true: (A) The British did fight the Germans everywhere, just as promised by Churchill. (B) The British Isles didn't fall. (C) And the 'powerful and mighty' New Wold did step forth to rescue and liberate the Old World. This man called 'Winston' was a real political genius; wasn't he?



Cincirob: “Oh, I don't know....maybe because he didn't know squat about physics and these are questions of physics? Well your odds of destroying relativity certainly are unfavorable....maybe because you're dead wrong about it. Well of course that's when he made the speech. It wouldn't have made sense after we defeated the germans. Yes, and he was born in the same decade as Albert Einstein.....that was a great decade wouldn't you say? The similarities are striking. Albert made stunningly new and different predictions about physics and they all proved to be true also. Churchill, Einstein...what a pair”.




AAF: The odds of destroying Relativity are very good. But the strange thing is that the general (Heinz) still looks more imposing and commanding than the physicist (Albert) and the PM (Winston), even though they won and he lost; perhaps, dying young is not that bad after all!



Cincirob: “Running all my comments together without showing what they are responding to is dishonest and childish. This kind of tactic is proof that your scientific arguments have failed. Time to grow up AAF”.



AAF: That is not true; everything they're responding to is right smack above them! Besides, it's your wily and sly methods and tactics of cutting my comments to small and meaningless pieces that have caused this problem of incoherence and silliness in your unified comments in the first place; am I right?



Cincirob: “Your comments are meaningless in pieces or altogether. And thanks for the compliment”.



AAF: My comments are super and yours are not! By the way it is no compliment; you're indeed the wiliest and the sliest living being in your house and in Cincinnati and probably in the whole State of Ohio!

Do you see it now?
I told you so!

Those so-called 'non-Euclidean geometries' are nothing but matrix algebra in disguise. Their geometrical facade is a sham.


It should noted in this context that Einstein has added one important innovation of his own to this 'imposing mathematical framework' of General Relativity.


The normal way of setting up Cartesian co-ordinate systems in physics is to use three straight lines as the axes of the co-ordinate system (X, Y, Z).


Einstein, however, has added one more co-ordinate axis and named it (T). That is not the innovation!


Einstein's innovation is this:


In the place of straight axes, Einstein has employed general, symbolic, and non-specified algebraic functions of those straight axes in the construction of the co-ordinate systems of his theory of General Relativity in order to make undefined and non-straight co-ordinate systems out of them.


A great deal of the notorious complexity of the Equations of Einstein's General Relativity is caused by this fatal step of choosing functions over straight axes as the building blocks of its co-ordinate systems.


Add to the above choice the row-column indices of the conventional matrix; and the monstrosity of Einstein's new invention becomes very impressive!

AAF: My comments are super and yours are not! By the way it is no compliment; you're indeed the wiliest and the sliest living being in your house and in Cincinnati and probably in the whole State of Ohio!

cinci: Yes, you're "super" alright......a legend in yoiur own mind.

AAF: My comments are super and yours are not! By the way it is no compliment; you're indeed the wiliest and the sliest living being in your house and in Cincinnati and probably in the whole State of Ohio!


Cincirob: "Yes, you're "super" alright......a legend in yoiur own mind".


AAF: They are super; that is a fact. But yours are not; and that is also a fact. But you are the wiliest; and this too is a fact! And because you're the wiliest, you cannot admit any of these facts; can you?

AAF: My comments are super and yours are not! By the way it is no compliment; you're indeed the wiliest and the sliest living being in your house and in Cincinnati and probably in the whole State of Ohio!

Cincirob: "Yes, you're "super" alright......a legend in yoiur own mind".

AAF: They are super; that is a fact. But yours are not; and that is also a fact. But you are the wiliest; and this too is a fact! And because you're the wiliest, you cannot admit any of these facts; can you?

cinci: I know for a fact that one of your comments is that it's impossible to set the time on a clock. Nobody needs to know more than that about you.
***********************************

AAF: I thought you would deny he was aware of it; that is the only way of making your Albert completely oblivious of the null result of Michelson & Morley! Lorentz constructed his transformations to give always the null result of Michelson & Morley as their unique algebraic solution in that special case. Give those transformations of his to any physicist; and he/she will arrive at the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with ease, even if he/she is not aware of that experiment. Now, notice this! Lorentz hypothesized the (length contraction & time dilation) first and then obtained the null result of Michelson & Morley. Einstein did just the opposite. He hypothesized the null result of Michelson & Morley first and then obtained the (length contraction & time dilation). To find out how Lorentz did it, wade patiently through these:
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?startrow=1&view=image&pubid=209&search=
http://www.historyofscience.nl/search/detail.cfm?pubid=615&view=image&startrow=1
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm



Cincirob: “Dr. Lorentz did indeed derive them starting with the Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction formula and recognizing the mathematical characteristics of transformations involving the function (1 - (v/c)^2)^.5.....everybody knows that. Did you just stumble across it? But the good Doctor couldn't give up the idea of ether, much like you, he was stuck in the past. It took the genius of Einstein to lift the veil of confusion from physics and identify the importance of the constancy of the speed of light, the basis of his derivation. Ta-da!!!!! No, Einstein did not base his derivation on the null result of Michelson-Morley. And I know how Lorentz did it, Whittaker covers it very nicely in his book. And if you read Einstein's 1905 papaer, it will be clear that he did not base it on the null result of Michelson-Morley but on the simple process of synchronizing clocks.”



AAF: So be nice and helpful and provide RJ with the above authoritative reference to Lorentz published work on his Transformations; the Old Doctor would have been very pleased by it!



Bob S: “There will be victory over the tyranny of Relativism AAF and you and Pentcho are at the fore of battle”.




Anonymous: “Be careful bob s for you might incur the wrath of the Mighty cinci who is only willing to tell you you are wrong but refuses to look at what you've done.



Cincirob: “Can't you write your own material? This is mine from another site. Your initials wouldn't be JR, would they”?




AAF: He is not JR; you're just making wild guesses as usual!



Cincirob: “Running all my comments together without showing what they are responding to is dishonest and childish. This kind of tactic is proof that your scientific arguments have failed. Time to grow up AAF”.



AAF: That is not true; everything they're responding to is right smack above them! Besides, it's your wily and sly methods and tactics of cutting my comments to small and meaningless pieces that have caused this problem of incoherence and silliness in your unified comments in the first place; am I right?



Cincirob: “Your comments are meaningless in pieces or altogether. And thanks for the compliment”.



AAF: My comments are super and yours are not! By the way it is no compliment; you're indeed the wiliest and the sliest living being in your house and in Cincinnati and probably in the whole State of Ohio!



Cincirob: “Your comments are meaningless in pieces or altogether. And thanks for the "wily and sly" compliment. I wish I could say the same for you”.



AAF: My comments are super and yours are not!



Cincirob: “Yes, you're "super" alright......a legend in yoiur own mind”.



AAF: They are super; that is a fact. But yours are not; and that is also a fact. But you are the wiliest; and this too is a fact! And because you're the wiliest, you cannot admit any of these facts; can you?


Cincirob: “I know for a fact that one of your comments is that it's impossible to set the time on a clock. Nobody needs to know more than that about you”.



AAF: Oh, my...my... it's more than a year now and you still can't figure out it's absolutely impossible to set on the basis of Einstein's Relativity two clocks in relative motion to read the same at the same moment. Grow up, Cincirob; and learn something useful! According to your Albert's Special Relativity, relatively moving clocks cannot be synchronize in any way or manner... PERIOD

Cincirob: “I know for a fact that one of your comments is that it's impossible to set the time on a clock. Nobody needs to know more than that about you”.

AAF: Oh, my...my... it's more than a year now and you still can't figure out it's absolutely impossible to set on the basis of Einstein's Relativity two clocks in relative motion to read the same at the same moment. Grow up, Cincirob; and learn something useful! According to your Albert's Special Relativity, relatively moving clocks cannot be synchronize in any way or manner... PERIOD

cinci: You left out the important condition, as usual, to try to cover your mistake. They have to be colocated. Then you can set them to the same time at the instant of colocation.

This was your lame excuse for not believing my derivation of the Lorentz transformations. Your memory may be slipping but mine isn't. Of course it's easier for me because all I have to remember is scientific principles and you have to remember whatever it is you made up at the time. Maybe you should keep notes.

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 21 2008, 11:30 PM

cinci: You left out the important condition, as usual, to try to cover your mistake. They have to be colocated. Then you can set them to the same time at the instant of colocation.

Sorry Cinci, two clocks can not be synchronized to zero because there is no way to verify them without stopping the clocks. Once stopped they have to be restarted and re-verified, then restart, etc etc. That is why they have multiple clocks at the Naval Observatory, clock averaging. If I recall they have like twenty four clocks from which to do the averaging. Strange is it not, SR denies simultaneity then uses simultaneity to verify the non-simultaneity. If Einstein did as he said, in fact “read the mind of God” he failed to consider that God has an vexing sense of humor.

bob s

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 21 2008, 11:30 PM

cinci: You left out the important condition, as usual, to try to cover your mistake. They have to be colocated. Then you can set them to the same time at the instant of colocation.

Bob S: Sorry Cinci, two clocks can not be synchronized to zero because there is no way to verify them without stopping the clocks. Once stopped they have to be restarted and re-verified, then restart, etc etc. That is why they have multiple clocks at the Naval Observatory, clock averaging. If I recall they have like twenty four clocks from which to do the averaging. Strange is it not, SR denies simultaneity then uses simultaneity to verify the non-simultaneity. If Einstein did as he said, in fact “read the mind of God” he failed to consider that God has an vexing sense of humor.

cinci: Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of technology problems associated with setting clocks to the same identical reading. But since it's done all the time with a set of 44 orbiting clocks in the GPS system to a high degree of accuracy. Besides, technology is not the issue when you're doing theoretical physics.

In the derivation of relativity you can assume that two relatively moving clocks had the same reading at the instant of their passing. If you want to argue this point you have to prove that that coincidence can't happen, not that it's hard to do. AAF is in the "can't happen" category. Join him if you wish, but it is not a valid argument.

First of all, those indices of (ν, τ, σ ... etc.) are indices of vectors and tensors, not indices of matrices.


Also, the mathematics of general relativity is beautiful, not monstrous; as any trained mathematician will tell.


So, let Einstein finish this very interesting section of his 1916 paper:


We thus find the occurrence of a gravitational field connected with a space-time variability of the g_σ. So, too, in the general case, when we are no longer able by a suitable choice of co-ordinates to apply the special theory of relativity to a finite region, we shall hold fast to the view that g_στ describe the gravitational field. Thus, according to the general theory of relativity, gravitation occupies an exceptional position with regard to other forces, particularly the electromagnetic forces, since the ten functions representing the gravitational field at the same time define the material properties of the space measured.

Bob S: “”Wrath” are you sure you don’t mean ‘rash’, he wants to hang me with a ‘new’ rope; so much for lasts requests”



Cincirob: “Nah, I don't want to hang you. You and your bobsy twin AAF are high comedy. I can always use a good laugh”.



AAF: Oh my...my...my...Cincirob...you have more sense of fun & humor than I thought:
http://www.tv.com/gunsmoke/the-bobsy-twins/episode/13672/summary.html
However, my comments are certainly super and yours are not!



Bob S: “As Grandpap' used to say; "son, if they don't find you handsom at least let'em think you're funny."”



Cincirob: “ Good idea except when you're trying to be serious”.



AAF: 'Grandpap' was right on target as far as Cincirob's comments are concerned. Moreover, seriousness and Cincirob's humbug can't go together!



Cincirob: “I know for a fact that one of your comments is that it's impossible to set the time on a clock. Nobody needs to know more than that about you”.



AAF: Oh, my...my... it's more than a year now and you still can't figure out it's absolutely impossible to set on the basis of Einstein's Relativity two clocks in relative motion to read the same at the same moment. Grow up, Cincirob; and learn something useful! According to your Albert's Special Relativity, relatively moving clocks cannot be synchronized in any way or manner... PERIOD...PERIOD...PERIOD....



Cincirob: “You left out the important condition, as usual, to try to cover your mistake. They have to be colocated. Then you can set them to the same time at the instant of colocation. This was your lame excuse for not believing my derivation of the Lorentz transformations. Your memory may be slipping but mine isn't. Of course it's easier for me because all I have to remember is scientific principles and you have to remember whatever it is you made up at the time. Maybe you should keep notes”.



AAF: You can't set clocks in relative motion to read the same instant at the same instant no matter what, as long as you continue to believe Special Relativity is correct. And there is no slipping in memory; since all our discussion on this subject is all in one place and right here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1170543584/last-1170543584/A+1001-Day+Dialogue+on+Einstein%27s+Theory+of+Relativity%21



Cincirob: “So you're using a theory you don't believe (and obviously don't understand) to prove to me that I can't derive the mathematics of that theory? Like I said....high comedy”.



AAF: The 'high comedy' is all yours; what a phony counter argument! Do you think because I don't believe in Einstein's Relativity, I can't tell you that you got it all wrong? But let's cut the 'crap' and let Bob S. be the referee and the judge! Who is right, Bob?



Bob S: “Sorry Cinci, two clocks can not be synchronized to zero because there is no way to verify them without stopping the clocks. Once stopped they have to be restarted and re-verified, then restart, etc etc. That is why they have multiple clocks at the Naval Observatory, clock averaging. If I recall they have like twenty four clocks from which to do the averaging. Strange is it not, SR denies simultaneity then uses simultaneity to verify the non-simultaneity. If Einstein did as he said, in fact “read the mind of God” he failed to consider that God has an vexing sense of humor”.



Cincirob: “Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of technology problems associated with setting clocks to the same identical reading. But since it's done all the time with a set of 44 orbiting clocks in the GPS system to a high degree of accuracy. Besides, technology is not the issue when you're doing theoretical physics. In the derivation of relativity you can assume that two relatively moving clocks had the same reading at the instant of their passing. If you want to argue this point you have to prove that that coincidence can't happen, not that it's hard to do. AAF is in the "can't happen" category. Join him if you wish, but it is not a valid argument”.



AAF: So now you turn your argument 180 degrees around and just want to assume it; correct? That is what I was telling you do with the clocks in your derivation last year. Quite simply, just follow Einstein and others and make Clock A & Clock B read the same by assumption and by brute force. And that is it; there is nothing else for it or in it.

Cincirob: “Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of technology problems associated with setting clocks to the same identical reading. But since it's done all the time with a set of 44 orbiting clocks in the GPS system to a high degree of accuracy. Besides, technology is not the issue when you're doing theoretical physics. In the derivation of relativity you can assume that two relatively moving clocks had the same reading at the instant of their passing. If you want to argue this point you have to prove that that coincidence can't happen, not that it's hard to do. AAF is in the "can't happen" category. Join him if you wish, but it is not a valid argument”.


AAF: So now you turn your argument 180 degrees around and just want to assume it; correct? That is what I was telling you do with the clocks in your derivation last year. and by brute force. And that is it; there is nothing else for it or in it.

cinci: No, the argument is the same then as now. You didn't understand relativity then and you don't understand it now. Nothing has changed.
***************************

AAF: Quite simply, just follow Einstein and others and make Clock A & Clock B read the same by assumption and by brute force. And that is it; there is nothing else for it or in it.

cinci: Actually I showed you a derviation that Einstein never did or at least never published. There nothing "brute force" about setting two clocks to the same time. People do it every day. The railroads do it all across the country to keep trains from bunping into each other. Every time a NASA shuttle takes off they start a clock running from 0:00, the time the lift-off occurs. But in all your inimitable wisdom, you beleive that nobody can set a clock. I've argued against some pretty dumb anti-relativity ideas over the last few years but this is a perfect "10" on the dumb-o-meter. But I invite you to keep it up because it is a clear indication that you don't know what you're talking about.

I'll bet you have a electronic clocks on all your appliances that have been flashing 12:00 ever since you owned them.

Cincirob: “I know for a fact that one of your comments is that it's impossible to set the time on a clock. Nobody needs to know more than that about you”.



AAF: Oh, my...my... it's more than a year now and you still can't figure out it's absolutely impossible to set on the basis of Einstein's Relativity two clocks in relative motion to read the same at the same moment. Grow up, Cincirob; and learn something useful! According to your Albert's Special Relativity, relatively moving clocks cannot be synchronized in any way or manner... PERIOD...PERIOD...PERIOD....



Cincirob: “You left out the important condition, as usual, to try to cover your mistake. They have to be colocated. Then you can set them to the same time at the instant of colocation. This was your lame excuse for not believing my derivation of the Lorentz transformations. Your memory may be slipping but mine isn't. Of course it's easier for me because all I have to remember is scientific principles and you have to remember whatever it is you made up at the time. Maybe you should keep notes”.



AAF: You can't set clocks in relative motion to read the same instant at the same instant no matter what, as long as you continue to believe Special Relativity is correct. And there is no slipping in memory; since all our discussion on this subject is all in one place and right here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1170543584/last-1170543584/A+1001-Day+Dialogue+on+Einstein%27s+Theory+of+Relativity%21




Cincirob: “So you're using a theory you don't believe (and obviously don't understand) to prove to me that I can't derive the mathematics of that theory? Like I said....high comedy”.



AAF: The 'high comedy' is all yours; what a phony counter argument! Do you think because I don't believe in Einstein's Relativity, I can't tell you that you got it all wrong? But let's cut the 'crap' and let Bob S. be the referee and the judge! Who is right, Bob?



Bob S: “Sorry Cinci, two clocks can not be synchronized to zero because there is no way to verify them without stopping the clocks. Once stopped they have to be restarted and re-verified, then restart, etc etc. That is why they have multiple clocks at the Naval Observatory, clock averaging. If I recall they have like twenty four clocks from which to do the averaging. Strange is it not, SR denies simultaneity then uses simultaneity to verify the non-simultaneity. If Einstein did as he said, in fact “read the mind of God” he failed to consider that God has an vexing sense of humor”.



Cincirob: “Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of technology problems associated with setting clocks to the same identical reading. But since it's done all the time with a set of 44 orbiting clocks in the GPS system to a high degree of accuracy. Besides, technology is not the issue when you're doing theoretical physics. In the derivation of relativity you can assume that two relatively moving clocks had the same reading at the instant of their passing. If you want to argue this point you have to prove that that coincidence can't happen, not that it's hard to do. AAF is in the "can't happen" category. Join him if you wish, but it is not a valid argument”.



AAF: So now you turn your argument 180 degrees around and just want to assume it; correct? That is what I was telling you to do with the clocks in your derivation last year. Quite simply, just follow Einstein and others and make Clock A & Clock B read the same by assumption and by brute force. And that is it; there nothing else for it or in it.



Cincirob: “No, the argument is the same then as now. You didn't understand relativity then and you don't understand it now. Nothing has changed. Actually I showed you a derivation that Einstein never did or at least never published. There nothing "brute force" about setting two clocks to the same time. People do it every day. The railroads do it all across the country to keep trains from bunping into each other. Every time a NASA shuttle takes off they start a clock running from 0:00, the time the lift-off occurs. But in all your inimitable wisdom, you believe that nobody can set a clock. I've argued against some pretty dumb anti-relativity ideas over the last few years but this is a perfect "10" on the dumb-o-meter. But I invite you to keep it up because it is a clear indication that you don't know what you're talking about. I'll bet you have a electronic clocks on all your appliances that have been flashing 12:00 ever since you owned them”.



AAF: That is what JR has been telling you all along: 'you didn't understand relativity then and you don't understand it now'! Besides, if the electronic clocks on all your appliances are flashing 12:00, then that must mean they are all synchronized. But we're talking here about clocks in relative motion as defined in Einstein's 1905 paper. So put aside the humbug; and just show your 'very silly' derivation to Bob S; he knows a lot about this topic; and he will set you straight on you way and show exactly where you've gone astray and so wrong. Or better yet; take off this white T-shirt you're wearing; and hang it on the top of this bamboo cane you're using as a third leg; and raise it high; and surrender!

Cincirob: “No, the argument is the same then as now. You didn't understand relativity then and you don't understand it now. Nothing has changed. Actually I showed you a derivation that Einstein never did or at least never published. There nothing "brute force" about setting two clocks to the same time. People do it every day. The railroads do it all across the country to keep trains from bunping into each other. Every time a NASA shuttle takes off they start a clock running from 0:00, the time the lift-off occurs. But in all your inimitable wisdom, you believe that nobody can set a clock. I've argued against some pretty dumb anti-relativity ideas over the last few years but this is a perfect "10" on the dumb-o-meter. But I invite you to keep it up because it is a clear indication that you don't know what you're talking about. I'll bet you have a electronic clocks on all your appliances that have been flashing 12:00 ever since you owned them”.

AAF: That is what JR has been telling you all along: 'you didn't understand relativity then and you don't understand it now'!

cinci: First, thanks for accepting my invitation. So JR is your new her? Ever hear the phrase "the blind leading the blind"?
*******************************

AAF: Besides, if the electronic clocks on all your appliances are flashing 12:00, then that must mean they are all synchronized.

cinci: Actually if the keep flashing 12:00 all the time they aren't synchronized because the aren't really keeping time. But don't let a little detail like that bother you.
*****************************

AAF: But we're talking here about clocks in relative motion as defined in Einstein's 1905 paper. So put aside the humbug; and just show your 'very silly' derivation to Bob S; he knows a lot about this topic; and he will set you straight on you way and show exactly where you've gone astray and so wrong.

cinci: Why don't you post it? You seem to enjoy reposting my comments. And be sure to run it all together with everything else I ever posted to try to make it look like it doesn't make sense.

By the way, if you have two electic clocks, the kind with hands and faces that run on sychronous motors, try this experiment. Turn off the electricity in your house, set two of these clocks to 12:00, place one in your basement and one in the attic, plug them in, and then turn on the electicity again. The attic clock will be moving a little faster than the basement clock but when the electricity comes on they will be reading the same. Now, wait 100000000000 hours and the attic cloock will be about 1 hour ahead of the basement clock. Call me when you get the results.
*************************

AAF: Or better yet; take off this white T-shirt you're wearing; and hang it on the top of this bamboo cane you're using as a third leg; and raise it high; and surrender!

cinci: Nobody surrenders when they're ahead. This is more of your up side down illogic.
*******************************

Beautiful or not, the supposition that the "occurrence of a gravitational field is connected with a space-time variability of the g_σ” is nothing more than an arbitrary assumption made by Einstein ad hoc and at the whim and without any physical or logical basis of any kind.


Nonetheless, Einstein's 'stubbornness', in the face of it all, is very striking.


Come hell or high water, Einstein informs his readers that they “ shall hold fast to the view that g_στ describe the gravitational field”.


What kind of a scientist is this Einstein of yours?


For scientists, nature is supposed to be the final 'judge'.
Not so for Einstein, who shall hang on and hold fast to his own assumptions regardless of nature's final verdict on their validity.


What kind of physics is that?
Be the judge!

I accept your attempt to change the subject as your surrender.

Bob S: “Sorry Cinci, two clocks can not be synchronized to zero because there is no way to verify them without stopping the clocks. Once stopped they have to be restarted and re-verified, then restart, etc etc. That is why they have multiple clocks at the Naval Observatory, clock averaging. If I recall they have like twenty four clocks from which to do the averaging. Strange is it not, SR denies simultaneity then uses simultaneity to verify the non-simultaneity. If Einstein did as he said, in fact “read the mind of God” he failed to consider that God has an vexing sense of humor”.



Cincirob: “Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of technology problems associated with setting clocks to the same identical reading. But since it's done all the time with a set of 44 orbiting clocks in the GPS system to a high degree of accuracy. Besides, technology is not the issue when you're doing theoretical physics. In the derivation of relativity you can assume that two relatively moving clocks had the same reading at the instant of their passing. If you want to argue this point you have to prove that that coincidence can't happen, not that it's hard to do. AAF is in the "can't happen" category. Join him if you wish, but it is not a valid argument”.



AAF: So now you turn your argument 180 degrees around and just want to assume it; correct? That is what I was telling you to do with the clocks in your derivation last year. Quite simply, just follow Einstein and others and make Clock A & Clock B read the same by assumption and by brute force. And that is it; there nothing else for it or in it.



Cincirob: “No, the argument is the same then as now. You didn't understand relativity then and you don't understand it now. Nothing has changed. Actually I showed you a derivation that Einstein never did or at least never published. There nothing "brute force" about setting two clocks to the same time. People do it every day. The railroads do it all across the country to keep trains from bunping into each other. Every time a NASA shuttle takes off they start a clock running from 0:00, the time the lift-off occurs. But in all your inimitable wisdom, you believe that nobody can set a clock. I've argued against some pretty dumb anti-relativity ideas over the last few years but this is a perfect "10" on the dumb-o-meter. But I invite you to keep it up because it is a clear indication that you don't know what you're talking about. I'll bet you have a electronic clocks on all your appliances that have been flashing 12:00 ever since you owned them”.



AAF: That is what JR has been telling you all along: 'you didn't understand relativity then and you don't understand it now'! Besides, if the electronic clocks on all your appliances are flashing 12:00, then that must mean they are all synchronized. But we're talking here about clocks in relative motion as defined in Einstein's 1905 paper. So put aside the humbug; and just show your 'very silly' derivation to Bob S; he knows a lot about this topic; and he will set you straight on you way and show exactly where you've gone astray and so wrong. Or better yet; take off this white T-shirt you're wearing; and hang it on the top of this bamboo cane you're using as a third leg; and raise it high; and surrender!



Cincirob: “First, thanks for accepting my invitation. So JR is your new hero? Ever hear the phrase "the blind leading the blind? Actually if the keep flashing 12:00 all the time they aren't synchronized because the aren't really keeping time. But don't let a little detail like that bother you. Why don't you post it? You seem to enjoy reposting my comments. And be sure to run it all together with everything else I ever posted to try to make it look like it doesn't make sense. By the way, if you have two electric clocks, the kind with hands and faces that run on synchronous motors, try this experiment. Turn off the electricity in your house, set two of these clocks to 12:00, place one in your basement and one in the attic, plug them in, and then turn on the electricity again. The attic clock will be moving a little faster than the basement clock but when the electricity comes on they will be reading the same. Now, wait 100000000000 hours and the attic clock will be about 1 hour ahead of the basement clock. Call me when you get the results. Nobody surrenders when they're ahead. This is more of your up side down illogic”.



AAF: First of all, JR has been my hero ever since he started drawing your attention to the fact that 'you didn't understand relativity then and you don't understand it now'; and you just can't copy my hero's analysis and turn it on me, because you are not JR and I'm not you! As for the clocks that keep flashing 12:00, they're actually telling you that they're synchronized and ready to run; and hence you need only to press all the start buttons at the same instant, if you can, to get them running at the same instant. . Furthermore, you don't have to be concerned about the effect of the difference in the gravitational potential between the attic and the basement on your clocks; since according to the time-tested theory of Newton's Universal Gravitation, there can be no effect of this sort on the measurements of time. The whole effect thing is a myth created by your hero Albert in part because of basic misconceptions and in part to immortalize his name and make us forever talking about him; right Cinci? So, surrender before more irreversible damage is done to your prestige and scientific reputation, PLEASE!

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 22 2008, 1:37 PM

cinci: You left out the important condition, as usual, to try to cover your mistake. They have to be colocated. Then you can set them to the same time at the instant of colocation.

I thought you were going to be scientific Cinci, that statement of yours is not scientific. Two clocks can be set to the same time but not the same instant. All of the clocks in my home, and vehicles, are reset each month to show the same time, digital and analog, battery or electric,. But I need a master clock to do the synchronizing. I rely on the cable box yet even it gets out of sync and I have to reset it from time to time ( no pun intended). But I can only set them to the minute not the second. Even if all of my clocks are accurate do you think they would be valid for a scientific experiment? NO!...Why? Because scientific clocks must be calibrated as close to absolute zero as is possible and it is not possible. I tried to explain that to you in the following paragraph but, as is usual you chose to evade to issue.

Bob S: Sorry Cinci, two clocks can not be synchronized to zero because there is no way to verify them without stopping the clocks. Once stopped they have to be restarted and re-verified, then restart, etc etc. That is why they have multiple clocks at the Naval Observatory, clock averaging. If I recall they have like twenty four clocks from which to do the averaging. Strange is it not, SR denies simultaneity then uses simultaneity to verify the non-simultaneity. If Einstein did as he said, in fact “read the mind of God” he failed to consider that God has an vexing sense of humor.

cinci: Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of technology problems associated with setting clocks to the same identical reading. But since it's done all the time with a set of 44 orbiting clocks in the GPS system to a high degree of accuracy. Besides, technology is not the issue when you're doing theoretical physics.

Strange you would refer to GPS. GPS as you may know is not an experiment, it is an actual working system and if anything, GPS falsifies SR simply because GPS does not use SR’s time dilation illusion. GPS has 24 satellites each with 2 clocks which are synchronized daily to military installations which are synchronized with the Naval Observatory which are in sync with clocks at Greenwich. Greenwich clocks also need to be synchronized with a master clock, no, not ‘a’ master clock, THEE master clock, the Sun, the Sun in relation to a given point on Earth that re-occurs each year at the ‘same time’ and has done so for millennia.

The questions then, are reduce to; is the Earth in motion relative to the Sun? Answer, Yes! Does SR predict time dilation for bodies in motion relative to each other? Answer, Yes! Should therefor, time on Earth dilate? Answer, Yes! Does time on Earth dilate? Answer, No! Conclusion! Time dilation is an illusion or, delusion in my opinion!

cinci: In the derivation of relativity you can assume that two relatively moving clocks had the same reading at the instant of their passing. If you want to argue this point you have to prove that that coincidence can't happen, not that it's hard to do. AAF is in the "can't happen" category. Join him if you wish, but it is not a valid argument.

Why are you using the word ”coincidence” Cinci, could it be that you want to avoid the use of the word “simultaneous”? Non-Relativists, of which, I, AAF and others at this web-site are, do not deny simultaneity nor coincidence but rather, it is Einstein who denies simultaneity in Special Relativity although he does not address coincidence, which is unimportant (on your part Cinci) to the subject at hand.

If you want to learn something about GPS here is the web site; Home page http://metaresearch.org/> Look under, Featured Articles: Solar System “Absolute GPS to better than one meter” front page near the bottom.

The site is hosted by Tom Van Flandern and his credentials are, in relevent part;
Oct. 1997 - Oct. 1998: Contractor for Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, MD on Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver performance and the inclusion of relativity in the GPS.

1992 - July 2000: Research Associate, Physics Department, University of Maryland, College Park; consultant on Global Positioning System dynamics.

Then go to the cosmology tab and read; “What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity” http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp>

You may dispute me all you wish but you will be hard pressed to dispute the man who set the GPS time keeping procedure in place. GPS works and it falsifies SR and it works quite well thank you.

The bottom line is, Cinci, SR is fantasy and therefor GR is falsity, literally and figuratively.

bob s

Cincirob: “First, thanks for accepting my invitation. So JR is your new hero? Ever hear the phrase "the blind leading the blind? Actually if the keep flashing 12:00 all the time they aren't synchronized because the aren't really keeping time. But don't let a little detail like that bother you. Why don't you post it? You seem to enjoy reposting my comments. And be sure to run it all together with everything else I ever posted to try to make it look like it doesn't make sense. By the way, if you have two electric clocks, the kind with hands and faces that run on synchronous motors, try this experiment. Turn off the electricity in your house, set two of these clocks to 12:00, place one in your basement and one in the attic, plug them in, and then turn on the electricity again. The attic clock will be moving a little faster than the basement clock but when the electricity comes on they will be reading the same. Now, wait 100000000000 hours and the attic clock will be about 1 hour ahead of the basement clock. Call me when you get the results. Nobody surrenders when they're ahead. This is more of your up side down illogic”.

AAF: First of all, JR has been my hero ever since he started drawing your attention to the fact that 'you didn't understand relativity then and you don't understand it now'; and you just can't copy my hero's analysis and turn it on me, because you are not JR and I'm not you!

cinci: Hard to believe but JR is even mores crewed up than you. He uses the equations of realtivity and then says it's wrong.
*****************************

AAF: As for the clocks that keep flashing 12:00, they're actually telling you that they're synchronized and ready to run; and hence you need only to press all the start buttons at the same instant, if you can, to get them running at the same instant.

cinci: Of course this is the thing yousay can't happen. Changing sides again?
****************************

AAF: Furthermore, you don't have to be concerned about the effect of the difference in the gravitational potential between the attic and the basement on your clocks; since according to the time-tested theory of Newton's Universal Gravitation, there can be no effect of this sort on the measurements of time. The whole effect thing is a myth created by your hero Albert in part because of basic misconceptions and in part to immortalize his name and make us forever talking about him; right Cinci? So, surrender before more irreversible damage is done to your prestige and scientific reputation, PLEASE!

cinci: I wasn't concerned about gravitation. The attic clock is moving faster because it's farther from the center of the Earth.

This kind of damage is never irreversible, I still have hopes for you....but they are fading fast.
*******************************

AAF: First of all, the clocks that keep flashing 12:00, they're actually telling you that they're synchronized and ready to run; and hence you need only to press all the start buttons at the same instant, if you can, to get them running at the same instant. Furthermore, you don't have to be concerned about the effect of the difference in the gravitational potential between the attic and the basement on your clocks; since according to the time-tested theory of Newton's Universal Gravitation, there can be no effect of this sort on the measurements of time. The whole effect thing is a myth created by your hero Albert in part because of basic misconceptions and in part to immortalize his name and make us forever talking about him; right Cincirob?



Cincirob: “I wasn't concerned about gravitation. The attic clock is moving faster because it's farther from the center of the Earth”.



AAF: Being farther from and being closer to the center of the earth is called the difference in the gravitational potential; correct, Cincirob? But this is not your most interesting blooper. Your biggest blooper by far I found it today on the NET; would you allow me to copy it over here please?



Cincirob: “Can't you write your own material? Go ahead; make my day”!



Euler: “A2 witnesses the flash but B2 doesn't even though A2 and B2 are at the same spot. B2 will witness the flash an hour later than A2”.



Cincirob: “They witness the flash at the same instant but they will have different times on their clocks. You're trying to impose some version of universal time where events happen according to clock readings. It may be strange that clocks that originally read the same at the beginning of the experiment read differently at the end, but it's not a paradox”.



AAF: Look Cincirob; you're here the one who is trying to impose some version of universal time. What else could the phrase “witness the flash at the same instant” possibly mean, except Newton's Absolute Time?



Bob S: “Sorry Cinci, two clocks can not be synchronized to zero because there is no way to verify them without stopping the clocks. Once stopped they have to be restarted and re-verified, then restart, etc etc. That is why they have multiple clocks at the Naval Observatory, clock averaging. If I recall they have like twenty four clocks from which to do the averaging. Strange is it not, SR denies simultaneity then uses simultaneity to verify the non-simultaneity. If Einstein did as he said, in fact “read the mind of God” he failed to consider that God has an vexing sense of humor”.



Cincirob: “Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of technology problems associated with setting clocks to the same identical reading. But since it's done all the time with a set of 44 orbiting clocks in the GPS system to a high degree of accuracy. Besides, technology is not the issue when you're doing theoretical physics. In the derivation of relativity you can assume that two relatively moving clocks had the same reading at the instant of their passing. If you want to argue this point you have to prove that that coincidence can't happen, not that it's hard to do. AAF is in the "can't happen" category. Join him if you wish, but it is not a valid argument”.



Bob S: “Strange you would refer to GPS. GPS as you may know is not an experiment, it is an actual working system and if anything, GPS falsifies SR simply because GPS does not use SR’s time dilation illusion. GPS has 24 satellites each with 2 clocks which are synchronized daily to military installations which are synchronized with the Naval Observatory which are in sync with clocks at Greenwich. Greenwich clocks also need to be synchronized with a master clock, no, not ‘a’ master clock, THEE master clock, the Sun, the Sun in relation to a given point on Earth that re-occurs each year at the ‘same time’ and has done so for millennia. The questions then, are reduce to; is the Earth in motion relative to the Sun? Answer, Yes! Does SR predict time dilation for bodies in motion relative to each other? Answer, Yes! Should therefor, time on Earth dilate? Answer, Yes! Does time on Earth dilate? Answer, No! Conclusion! Time dilation is an illusion or, delusion in my opinion”!



Cincirob: “You left out the important condition, as usual, to try to cover your mistake. They have to be colocated. Then you can set them to the same time at the instant of colocation”.



Bob S: “I thought you were going to be scientific Cinci, that statement of yours is not scientific. Two clocks can be set to the same time but not the same instant. All of the clocks in my home, and vehicles, are reset each month to show the same time, digital and analog, battery or electric,. But I need a master clock to do the synchronizing. I rely on the cable box yet even it gets out of sync and I have to reset it from time to time ( no pun intended). But I can only set them to the minute not the second. Even if all of my clocks are accurate do you think they would be valid for a scientific experiment? NO!...Why? Because scientific clocks must be calibrated as close to absolute zero as is possible and it is not possible. I tried to explain that to you in the following paragraph but, as is usual you chose to evade to issue”.




Cincirob: “In the derivation of relativity you can assume that two relatively moving clocks had the same reading at the instant of their passing. If you want to argue this point you have to prove that that coincidence can't happen, not that it's hard to do. AAF is in the "can't happen" category. Join him if you wish, but it is not a valid argument”.



Bob S: “Why are you using the word ”coincidence” Cinci, could it be that you want to avoid the use of the word “simultaneous”? Non-Relativists, of which, I, AAF and others at this web-site are, do not deny simultaneity nor coincidence but rather, it is Einstein who denies simultaneity in Special Relativity although he does not address coincidence, which is unimportant (on your part Cinci) to the subject at hand. If you want to learn something about GPS here is the web site; Home page http://metaresearch.org/ Look under, Featured Articles: Solar System “Absolute GPS to better than one meter” front page near the bottom. The site is hosted by Tom Van Flandern and his credentials are, in relevant part; Oct. 1997 - Oct. 1998: Contractor for Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, MD on Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver performance and the inclusion of relativity in the GPS. 1992 - July 2000: Research Associate, Physics Department, University of Maryland, College Park; consultant on Global Positioning System dynamics. Then go to the cosmology tab and read; “What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity” http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp You may dispute me all you wish but you will be hard pressed to dispute the man who set the GPS time keeping procedure in place. GPS works and it falsifies SR and it works quite well thank you. The bottom line is, Cinci, SR is fantasy and therefor GR is falsity, literally and figuratively.

Re: Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 24 2008, 8:43 PM

AAF: First of all, the clocks that keep flashing 12:00, they're actually telling you that they're synchronized and ready to run; and hence you need only to press all the start buttons at the same instant, if you can, to get them running at the same instant. Furthermore, you don't have to be concerned about the effect of the difference in the gravitational potential between the attic and the basement on your clocks; since according to the time-tested theory of Newton's Universal Gravitation, there can be no effect of this sort on the measurements of time. The whole effect thing is a myth created by your hero Albert in part because of basic misconceptions and in part to immortalize his name and make us forever talking about him; right Cincirob?

Cincirob: “I wasn't concerned about gravitation. The attic clock is moving faster because it's farther from the center of the Earth”.

AAF: Being farther from and being closer to the center of the earth is called the difference in the gravitational potential; correct, Cincirob?

cinci: Yes and it's also called a higher velocity the farther you are from the center of a rotating body. There are two effects. Too complicated for you?
*************************

AAF: But this is not your most interesting blooper. Your biggest blooper by far I found it today on the NET; would you allow me to copy it over here please?

Cincirob: “Can't you write your own material? Go ahead; make my day”!

cinci: Well as I pointed out above, it isn't a blooper at all. Yust you misunderstanding what I said. I don't recognize the "Go ahead" part but it's may be correct.

As for the comment, please supply a link...I like to reread the classics.
********************************

Euler: “A2 witnesses the flash but B2 doesn't even though A2 and B2 are at the same spot. B2 will witness the flash an hour later than A2”.

Cincirob: “They witness the flash at the same instant but they will have different times on their clocks. You're trying to impose some version of universal time where events happen according to clock readings. It may be strange that clocks that originally read the same at the beginning of the experiment read differently at the end, but it's not a paradox”.

AAF: Look Cincirob; you're here the one who is trying to impose some version of universal time. What else could the phrase “witness the flash at the same instant” possibly mean, except Newton's Absolute Time?

cinci: Are you now claiming that simultaneous events require Newton's universal time?

I see you're now quoting dumb stuff from other people. I guess you ran out of your own dumb stuff.
**********************************************

Re: Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 24 2008, 9:21 AM

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 22 2008, 1:37 PM

cinci: You left out the important condition, as usual, to try to cover your mistake. They have to be colocated. Then you can set them to the same time at the instant of colocation.

I thought you were going to be scientific Cinci, that statement of yours is not scientific. Two clocks can be set to the same time but not the same instant. All of the clocks in my home, and vehicles, are reset each month to show the same time, digital and analog, battery or electric,. But I need a master clock to do the synchronizing. I rely on the cable box yet even it gets out of sync and I have to reset it from time to time ( no pun intended). But I can only set them to the minute not the second. Even if all of my clocks are accurate do you think they would be valid for a scientific experiment? NO!...Why? Because scientific clocks must be calibrated as close to absolute zero as is possible and it is not possible. I tried to explain that to you in the following paragraph but, as is usual you chose to evade to issue.

cinci: Who said anything about using your house clock for a scientific experiment. For a couple of hundred bucks you can buy a watch that is automatically set by the Naval Observatoty time. Get real, clocks can be set to the same time to a whatever degree of accuracy you're willing to pay for. And since the derivation of the special theory of relativity is a thought experiment you can set the clocks to the same setting at the same instant. Find another argument, this one is bogus.
*****************************

Bob S: Sorry Cinci, two clocks can not be synchronized to zero because there is no way to verify them without stopping the clocks. Once stopped they have to be restarted and re-verified, then restart, etc etc. That is why they have multiple clocks at the Naval Observatory, clock averaging. If I recall they have like twenty four clocks from which to do the averaging. Strange is it not, SR denies simultaneity then uses simultaneity to verify the non-simultaneity. If Einstein did as he said, in fact “read the mind of God” he failed to consider that God has an vexing sense of humor.

cinci: Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of technology problems associated with setting clocks to the same identical reading. But since it's done all the time with a set of 44 orbiting clocks in the GPS system to a high degree of accuracy. Besides, technology is not the issue when you're doing theoretical physics.

Bob S: Strange you would refer to GPS. GPS as you may know is not an experiment, it is an actual working system and if anything, GPS falsifies SR simply because GPS does not use SR’s time dilation illusion.

cinci: First, evey time you use it you are performing an experiment. It either tells you where youare or it doesn't. That's an experiment.

And you dn't know enough about the system if you hink it invalidates special relatity. The orbiting clocks (24 to 32 of them, my 44 number was incorrect) are adjusted to run based on both special and general relativistic principles so that they pass time at the same rate as the clock in the ground unit. Also, the triangulation is based on t signal going from the satellite to the ground unit at c, the basis for special relativity.
***********************************

Bob S: GPS has 24 satellites each with 2 clocks which are synchronized daily to military installations which are synchronized with the Naval Observatory which are in sync with clocks at Greenwich. Greenwich clocks also need to be synchronized with a master clock, no, not ‘a’ master clock, THEE master clock, the Sun, the Sun in relation to a given point on Earth that re-occurs each year at the ‘same time’ and has done so for millennia.

The questions then, are reduced to; is the Earth in motion relative to the Sun? Answer, Yes! Does SR predict time dilation for bodies in motion relative to each other? Answer, Yes! Should therefor, time on Earth dilate? Answer, Yes! Does time on Earth dilate? Answer, No! Conclusion! Time dilation is an illusion or, delusion in my opinion!

cinci: You need another opinion. Try the one below from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Correcting_GPS_clock

"Relativity
According to the theory of relativity, due to their constant movement and height relative to the Earth-centered inertial reference frame, the clocks on the satellites are affected by their speed (special relativity) as well as their gravitational potential (general relativity). For the GPS satellites, general relativity predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick more rapidly, by about 45.9 microseconds (ìs) per day, because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by about 7.2 ìs per day. When combined, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day; a difference of 4.465 parts in 1010.[44]. To account for this, the frequency standard onboard each satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz.[45] Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical engineering application of the scientific theory of relativity in a real-world environment."
***************************************

cinci: In the derivation of relativity you can assume that two relatively moving clocks had the same reading at the instant of their passing. If you want to argue this point you have to prove that that coincidence can't happen, not that it's hard to do. AAF is in the "can't happen" category. Join him if you wish, but it is not a valid argument.

Bob S: Why are you using the word ”coincidence” Cinci, could it be that you want to avoid the use of the word “simultaneous”? Non-Relativists, of which, I, AAF and others at this web-site are, do not deny simultaneity nor coincidence but rather, it is Einstein who denies simultaneity in Special Relativity although he does not address coincidence, which is unimportant (on your part Cinci) to the subject at hand.

cinci: I wasnt' avoiding anything. AAF says I can't set them on purpose. My point was the derivation would be correct if the clocks were accidentally the same setting. Relativsts don't deny simultaneity, they just know more about it that non-relativists.
********************************

Bob S: If you want to learn something about GPS here is the web site; Home page http://metaresearch.org/>; Look under, Featured Articles: Solar System “Absolute GPS to better than one meter” front page near the bottom.

The site is hosted by Tom Van Flandern and his credentials are, in relevent part;
Oct. 1997 - Oct. 1998: Contractor for Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, MD on Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver performance and the inclusion of relativity in the GPS.

1992 - July 2000: Research Associate, Physics Department, University of Maryland, College Park; consultant on Global Positioning System dynamics.

Then go to the cosmology tab and read; “What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity” http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp>;

You may dispute me all you wish but you will be hard pressed to dispute the man who set the GPS time keeping procedure in place. GPS works and it falsifies SR and it works quite well thank you.

The bottom line is, Cinci, SR is fantasy and therefor GR is falsity, literally and figuratively.

cinci: I looked at the last site above and it says: "Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days."

It also says "GPS Clocks in all frames continuously synchronized" so I guess that puts the clock setting nonsense to bed.

I'm satisfied. Thanks for the site. I couldn't have said it better myself.
**************************************

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 24 2008, 10:09 PM

In which Cinci asserts;

cinci: I looked at the last site above [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp>]
and it says: "Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days."

It also says "GPS Clocks in all frames continuously synchronized" so I guess that puts the clock setting nonsense to bed.

You’d guess wrong Oh odorous one. One might be mis-led by your quoted statement but I am not that One. Before putting anything or anyone to bed (figuratively speaking) I think the good people here should know just what that sentence means.

Following is the section where you found you quote Cinci, it reads;

“3. Does the GPS confirm the clock rate changes predicted by GR and SR?”

The highest precision GPS receiver data is collected continuously in two frequencies at 1.5-second intervals from all GPS satellites at five Air Force monitor stations distributed around the Earth. An in-depth discussion of the data and its analysis is beyond the scope of this paper. [1] This data shows that the on-board atomic clock rates do indeed agree with ground clock rates to the predicted extent, which varies slightly from nominal because the orbit actually achieved is not always precisely as planned. The accuracy of this comparison is limited mainly because atomic clocks change frequencies by small, semi-random amounts (of order 1 ns/day) at unpredictable times for reasons that are not fully understood. As a consequence, the long-term accuracy of these clocks is poorer than their short-term accuracy.

Before going on with the subject I would like to point out the bolded reference “[1]” which cites to another source of information and reads; [1] Alley, C.O. and Van Flandern, T. (1998). Absolute GPS to Better Than One Meter, “preprint not yet submitted for publication.” But the article has since been published and is the second link I gave you. It, the article, explains how and why the satellites are “continuously synchronized” which is, to compensate for orbital variations or “for reasons that are not fully understood”, not, as you might think, for any “time dilation” nonsense. I’ll return now to the subject matter;

Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days. In ground solutions with the data, new corrections for epoch offset and rate for each clock are determined anew typically once each day. These corrections differ by a few ns and a few ns/day, respectively, from similar corrections for other days in the same week. At much later times, unpredictable errors in the clocks build up with time squared, so comparisons with predictions become increasingly uncertain unless these empirical corrections are used. But within each day, the clock corrections remain stable to within about 1 ns in epoch and 1 ns/day in rate.

And there Cinci, is your quoted statement underlined but it begs a question; just what are the predictions of Relativity? For that answer we have to look above your quoted source, which reads;

“2. What relativistic effects on GPS atomic clocks might be seen?”

General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks.

My Oh my cinci! it seems that GR and SR cancel each other, whichever one should we ‘chuck’, (to throw out or dispose of) the fantasy or the fallacy. I say, first the fantasy, the fallacy will soon follow. Clocks may very well “tick” faster above sea level but that is not “time dilation” it is merely a clock that runs fast in “real time”. As to “rocket sleds”, I doubt seriously they qualify as “a uniform rate of acceleration” Moving on to the answer to my question found in sec. 2.

For GPS satellites, GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Rather than have clocks with such large rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for these predicted effects. In practice, simply changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval accomplishes this goal. Therefore, we observe the clocks running at their offset rates before launch. Then we observe the clocks running after launch and compare their rates with the predictions of relativity, both GR and SR combined. If the predictions are right, we should see the clocks run again at nearly the same rates as ground clocks, despite using an offset definition for the length of one second.

The prediction is that SR and GR are diametrically opposed, of course it can be “asserted with authority” if you choose both sides of the coin. The prediction may be accurate but the ‘predictor’ has questionable integrity. It seems then that Einstein’s “castle in the sky” (his words) is “somewhere over the rainbow”, a fantasy of illusion! What should be "put to bed" is Relativity, first the fantasy then the fallacy. And you should be put in the shower with an enema bag.

bob s

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 24 2008, 10:09 PM

In which Cinci asserts;

cinci: I looked at the last site above [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp>;]
and it says: "Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days."

It also says "GPS Clocks in all frames continuously synchronized" so I guess that puts the clock setting nonsense to bed.

Bob S: You’d guess wrong Oh odorous one. One might be mis-led by your quoted statement but I am not that One. Before putting anything or anyone to bed (figuratively speaking) I think the good people here should know just what that sentence means.

cinci: Me mislead? You picked the site. Now you get all testy because it agrees with me?
*************************************

Bob S: Following is the section where you found you quote Cinci, it reads;

“3. Does the GPS confirm the clock rate changes predicted by GR and SR?”

The highest precision GPS receiver data is collected continuously in two frequencies at 1.5-second intervals from all GPS satellites at five Air Force monitor stations distributed around the Earth. An in-depth discussion of the data and its analysis is beyond the scope of this paper. [1] This data shows that the on-board atomic clock rates do indeed agree with ground clock rates to the predicted extent, which varies slightly from nominal because the orbit actually achieved is not always precisely as planned. The accuracy of this comparison is limited mainly because atomic clocks change frequencies by small, semi-random amounts (of order 1 ns/day) at unpredictable times for reasons that are not fully understood. As a consequence, the long-term accuracy of these clocks is poorer than their short-term accuracy.

cinci: Again, it says the clocks agree with GR and SE predictions. I like it.
**************************************

Bob S: Before going on with the subject I would like to point out the bolded reference “[1]” which cites to another source of information and reads; [1] Alley, C.O. and Van Flandern, T. (1998). Absolute GPS to Better Than One Meter, “preprint not yet submitted for publication.” But the article has since been published and is the second link I gave you. It, the article, explains how and why the satellites are “continuously synchronized” which is, to compensate for orbital variations or “for reasons that are not fully understood”, not, as you might think, for any “time dilation” nonsense. I’ll return now to the subject matter;

cinci: Orbital variations must be made becasue the orbits aren't perfectly circular and the gravitational field of the Earth is not perfectly uniform. They tell you above the clocks drift for reasons "not fully understood". Nothing here say that they are questioning relativity.
*******************************

Bob S: Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days. In ground solutions with the data, new corrections for epoch offset and rate for each clock are determined anew typically once each day. These corrections differ by a few ns and a few ns/day, respectively, from similar corrections for other days in the same week. At much later times, unpredictable errors in the clocks build up with time squared, so comparisons with predictions become increasingly uncertain unless these empirical corrections are used. But within each day, the clock corrections remain stable to within about 1 ns in epoch and 1 ns/day in rate.

And there Cinci, is your quoted statement underlined but it begs a question; just what are the predictions of Relativity? For that answer we have to look above your quoted source, which reads;

cinci: Begs the question? What does "Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days." mean to you?
*********************************************

Bob S: “2. What relativistic effects on GPS atomic clocks might be seen?”

General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks.

My Oh my cinci! it seems that GR and SR cancel each other, whichever one should we ‘chuck’, (to throw out or dispose of) the fantasy or the fallacy. I say, first the fantasy, the fallacy will soon follow. Clocks may very well “tick” faster above sea level but that is not “time dilation” it is merely a clock that runs fast in “real time”. As to “rocket sleds”, I doubt seriously they qualify as “a uniform rate of acceleration” Moving on to the answer to my question found in sec. 2.

cinci: What part of SR predicts a slower rate because of relative speed and GR predicts a faster rate because of lower gravitational potential don't you understand. It doesn't say the one theory makes the other invalid, it says yoiu need both to know what's going on.
*******************************

Bob S: For GPS satellites, GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Rather than have clocks with such large rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for these predicted effects. In practice, simply changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval accomplishes this goal. Therefore, we observe the clocks running at their offset rates before launch. Then we observe the clocks running after launch and compare their rates with the predictions of relativity, both GR and SR combined. If the predictions are right, we should see the clocks run again at nearly the same rates as ground clocks, despite using an offset definition for the length of one second.

The prediction is that SR and GR are diametrically opposed, of course it can be “asserted with authority” if you choose both sides of the coin. The prediction may be accurate but the ‘predictor’ has questionable integrity. It seems then that Einstein’s “castle in the sky” (his words) is “somewhere over the rainbow”, a fantasy of illusion! What should be "put to bed" is Relativity, first the fantasy then the fallacy. And you should be put in the shower with an enema bag.

cinci: What a bunch of nonsense. You post a site and everything in it says relativity is valid and you conclude from the site that it isn't valid. If the 'predictor' didn't have integrity, the system wouldn't work. And how well does it work? The satellites are orbiting at 14,000 km and the accuracy is one meter which says the system can't be wrong by more than one part in 14,000,000 and you think htat isn't good enough? Give me a break.

Bob S: “General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks. My Oh my cinci! it seems that GR and SR cancel each other, whichever one should we ‘chuck’, (to throw out or dispose of) the fantasy or the fallacy. I say, first the fantasy, the fallacy will soon follow. Clocks may very well “tick” faster above sea level but that is not “time dilation” it is merely a clock that runs fast in “real time”. As to “rocket sleds”, I doubt seriously they qualify as “a uniform rate of acceleration” Moving on to the answer to my question found in sec. 2”.



Cincirob: “ What part of SR predicts a slower rate because of relative speed and GR predicts a faster rate because of lower gravitational potential don't you understand. It doesn't say the one theory makes the other invalid, it says you need both to know what's going on”.



AAF: Don't you see the hideous charlatanism in it? Let me show you? Time Dilation = 0; okay? In other words, there is no time dilation. So what the charlatan-minded Relativists should do? Simple! They have two theories about the same thing to play with. They play around with their opposing theoretical predictions. They apply parameter fitting and number fitting methods to those opposing predictions. And viola; the value of Time Dilation is always zero or something small and very close to zero and below instruments sensitivity and power to measure and detect. And yet and in spite of all this out and out charlatanism, the Relativists will always tell you with confidence and exuberance that the Relativistic predictions have been verified to the tenth decimal. And that is it. By the way, I don't count you among those charlatans, Cincirob; you're a humble man and I like you....

Re: Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 25 2008, 6:19 PM

cinci: What a bunch of nonsense. You post a site and everything in it says relativity is valid and you conclude from the site that it isn't valid. If the 'predictor' didn't have integrity, the system wouldn't work. And how well does it work? The satellites are orbiting at 14,000 km and the accuracy is one meter which says the system can't be wrong by more than one part in 14,000,000 and you think htat isn't good enough? Give me a break.

The system Cinci, GPS would work even if Einstein, SR and GR never existed. If the two contradict each other One must be wrong. GPS launched with corrections fora one time gravitational effect and now for orbital and an unknown effect. The only "nonsense" here is that you want the coin toss to be; heads Einstein wins, tails Einstein wins.

bob s

What is the matter with "Heads I win, tails you loose?" As long as I know the rules, and can convince you to keep playing, I can become rich. I'm not sure why the Einsteinians think no one can see through the obfuscation.

Can someone explain what other means there are to communicate between frames? Electromagnetic radiation is all that I can suppose to do the job. If that is all we can use, then the transform is just the Red/Blue shift transform. Red/blue shift is all that changes in the view between frames. Seems to me. Spank me if I'm wrong.

(This communication is done only with recycled electrons.)

Re: Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 25 2008, 6:19 PM

cinci: What a bunch of nonsense. You post a site and everything in it says relativity is valid and you conclude from the site that it isn't valid. If the 'predictor' didn't have integrity, the system wouldn't work. And how well does it work? The satellites are orbiting at 14,000 km and the accuracy is one meter which says the system can't be wrong by more than one part in 14,000,000 and you think htat isn't good enough? Give me a break.

Bob S: The system Cinci, GPS would work even if Einstein, SR and GR never existed. If the two contradict each other One must be wrong. GPS launched with corrections fora one time gravitational effect and now for orbital and an unknown effect. The only "nonsense" here is that you want the coin toss to be; heads Einstein wins, tails Einstein wins.

cinci: No, it wouldn't work. The clocks are set to run a little slower to stay synchronized with the Earth clocks. I think you are basing your argument on this sentence:

"General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth."

The sentence says they cancel at sealevel. The orbiting clocks are not at sealevel. The effects don't cancel anywhere else. Both theories are required to get the clocks to run correctly. The theories don't contradict each other, they compliment each other. They are looking at two different effects.
*************************************

Cincirob: “ What part of SR predicts a slower rate because of relative speed and GR predicts a faster rate because of lower gravitational potential don't you understand. It doesn't say the one theory makes the other invalid, it says you need both to know what's going on”.

AAF: Don't you see the hideous charlatanism in it? Let me show you? Time Dilation = 0; okay? In other words, there is no time dilation. So what the charlatan-minded Relativists should do?

cinci: Where do you get "Time Dilation = 0"? Is this AAF's theorem or what?
***********************************

AAF: Simple! They have two theories about the same thing to play with. They play around with their opposing theoretical predictions. They apply parameter fitting and number fitting methods to those opposing predictions. And viola; the value of Time Dilation is always zero or something small and very close to zero and below instruments sensitivity and power to measure and detect.

cinci: You and Bob need to take a remedial reading course. His site says

"General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth."

It says they cancel at SEALEVEL, get it? Sealevel, only at sealevel.
*******************************************

AAF: And yet and in spite of all this out and out charlatanism, the Relativists will always tell you with confidence and exuberance that the Relativistic predictions have been verified to the tenth decimal. And that is it. By the way, I don't count you among those charlatans, Cincirob; you're a humble man and I like you....

cinci: Really? You like me? Well the GPS system is accurate to 1 meter based on measurements fo the time of flight of light over at leasr 14,000 km which means it's accurate to one part in 14,000,000. As the Toby Keith song says, "How do you like me now?"
***********************************

Curt Youngs: What is the matter with "Heads I win, tails you loose?" As long as I know the rules, and can convince you to keep playing, I can become rich. I'm not sure why the Einsteinians think no one can see through the obfuscation.

cinci: Care to tell us which "obfuscation" you see through? Or do we have to guess?
***********************************

Curt Youngs: Can someone explain what other means there are to communicate between frames?

cinci: What do you want to communicate? You could shoot bullets at the other frame. I guess that would send a message.
*******************************

Curt Youngs: Electromagnetic radiation is all that I can suppose to do the job. If that is all we can use, then the transform is just the Red/Blue shift transform. Red/blue shift is all that changes in the view between frames. Seems to me. Spank me if I'm wrong.

cinci: You're wrong but I pass on the spanking idea.
************************************

Curt Youngs: (This communication is done only with recycled electrons.)

cinci: That would be like little bitty bullets.
**********************************

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 26 2008, 1:17 AM

"General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth."

cinci: The sentence says they cancel at sealevel. The orbiting clocks are not at sealevel. The effects don't cancel anywhere else. Both theories are required to get the clocks to run correctly. The theories don't contradict each other, they compliment each other. They are looking at two different effects.

How convenient of you to avoid the paragraph that followed that one, in which, the effects of SR and GR were also contradictory for the orbiting GPS. You are the epitome of obfuscation Cinci. If I recall it was you that made the statement that SR was only valid in a non-gravitational field so I would think it would you denying any SR effect for the GPS. It seems that AAF and RJ are right, you don’t understand Relativity or, like I said, you just like to provoke argument.

So, here is a question for you Cinci. (Should SR even be applied to GPS?) If you care to correct my wrong-headed-ness try to focus on the question, or will you just obfuscate again.

bob s

Bob S: Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 26 2008, 1:17 AM

"General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth."

cinci: The sentence says they cancel at sealevel. The orbiting clocks are not at sealevel. The effects don't cancel anywhere else. Both theories are required to get the clocks to run correctly. The theories don't contradict each other, they compliment each other. They are looking at two different effects.

How convenient of you to avoid the paragraph that followed that one, in which, the effects of SR and GR were also contradictory for the orbiting GPS. You are the epitome of obfuscation Cinci. If I recall it was you that made the statement that SR was only valid in a non-gravitational field so I would think it would you denying any SR effect for the GPS. It seems that AAF and RJ are right, you don’t understand Relativity or, like I said, you just like to provoke argument.

cinci: Does the next paragraph say they cancel out? No, it says they aren't equal and don't cancel out. They aren't saying one is right and the other is wrong. If you had to guess what effect gravity had on time, wouldn't you guess that the stronger it was the more effect it would have; so the wekaer it is the less effect it would have and therefore clocks at higher altitude would run faster than clocks at sealevel.

Why wouldn't relative speed and the effects of gravity have different effects on time?

Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependint on SR and GR and then concluude that SR and gR are wrong. I'd like to hear that.
***************************************************************

Bob S: So, here is a question for you Cinci. (Should SR even be applied to GPS?) If you care to correct my wrong-headed-ness try to focus on the question, or will you just obfuscate again.

cinci: SR and GR are the only valid theory we have to predict how clocks run when they are moving relatively or are being influenced by different gravitational potentials. The GPS system depends on knowing how clocks will run when they are moving relatively to us or are under differnt gravitational potential. So, yes, SR and GR must be applied. The article you posted is full of reasons why. Clear enough?

Cincirob: "They witness the flash at the same instant but they will have different times on their clocks. You're trying to impose some version of universal time where events happen according to clock readings. It may be strange that clocks that originally read the same at the beginning of the experiment read differently at the end, but it's not a paradox”.



AAF: Look Cincirob; you're here the one who is trying to impose some version of universal time. What else could the phrase “witness the flash at the same instant” possibly mean, except Newton's Absolute Time? By the way, why does RJ continue to ignore your very important comments on his comments?



Cincirob: “Are you now claiming that simultaneous events require Newton's universal time”?



AAF: Unless the two clocks are at rest relative to each other, registering the same event at the same instant by these two clocks necessarily implies Newton's Absolute Time. Now, let's listen to Bob S; he has something very important to say!



Bob S: “General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks. My Oh my cinci! it seems that GR and SR cancel each other, whichever one should we ‘chuck’, (to throw out or dispose of) the fantasy or the fallacy. I say, first the fantasy, the fallacy will soon follow. Clocks may very well “tick” faster above sea level but that is not “time dilation” it is merely a clock that runs fast in “real time”. As to “rocket sleds”, I doubt seriously they qualify as “a uniform rate of acceleration” Moving on to the answer to my question found in sec. 2”.



Cincirob: “What part of SR predicts a slower rate because of relative speed and GR predicts a faster rate because of lower gravitational potential don't you understand. It doesn't say the one theory makes the other invalid, it says you need both to know what's going on”.



AAF: Don't you see the hideous charlatanism in it? Let me show you? Time Dilation = 0; okay? In other words, there is no time dilation. So what the charlatan-minded Relativists should do? Simple! They have two theories about the same thing. They play around with opposing theoretical predictions. They apply parameter fitting and number fitting methods to those opposing predictions. And viola; the value of Time Dilation is always zero or something very close to zero and below instruments sensitivity and power to measure and detect. And yet and in spite of all this out and out charlatanism, the Relativists will always tell you with confidence and exuberance that the Relativistic predictions have been verified to the tenth decimal. And that is it. By the way, I don't count you among those charlatans, Cincirob; you're a humble man and I like you....



Cincirob: “Where do you get "Time Dilation = 0"? Is this AAF's theorem or what? You and Bob need to take a remedial reading course. His site says "General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth." It says they cancel at SEALEVEL, get it? Sealevel, only at sealevel. Really? You like me? Well the GPS system is accurate to 1 meter based on measurements fo the time of flight of light over at leasr 14,000 km which means it's accurate to one part in 14,000,000. As the Toby Keith song says, "How do you like me now?"”




AAF: Nature has told me that Time Dilation = 0; OK? Besides, time is an absolute essence that always flows independently and regardless of anything else including gravity and motion. So stop talking about 'sea levels'; since you don't have one; and since Ohio, like Switzerland, doesn't have any sea! Do I like you in spite of all your 'humbug'? Sure I still like you! And just to give you an idea, if I heard you're in heaven, I would cry so loudly that Pentcho half a world away could hear it! Well, I guess I could just use the YouTube to make him hear it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

Re: Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 26 2008, 8:50 AM

cinci: Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependint on SR and GR and then concluude that SR and gR are wrong. I'd like to hear that.

Well Cinci, since it is I who seems to be out of sync with the logic of the intellectual world, or Relativists if you will, maybe it is you who should tell me how your logic works. Here is a problem (experiment) you can solve for me. When, or should I say ‘if’ you can solve this problem (experiment) we can move on to the orbiting clocks

Equipment needed:
Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year).
The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates.
One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian.
The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north.
Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants.

Requirements:
Double blind, neither observer can communicate with the other observer during the test.

Test:
The test will be conducted at sea level
Using their transom and sextant, each observer will, at the apex of noon on the day of the vernal equinox start their respective count down clocks.
Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.
The recordings will then be placed in an envelope, sealed and marked accordingly NORTH or EQUATOR and sent for analysis by four people, 2 Relativists and 2 Non-Relativists.
Both envelopes will be opened with all 4 people present.

Possibilities:
There are only 3 possible readings for either clock, which are;
1.) “0" the clock has counted down to “0"
2.) “+” the clock has not counted down to “0" and there is still time showing on the clock, and
3.) “-“ the clock has counted passed “0" and shows a negative reading

Conclusions:
What does General Relativity predict for the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict fro the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?

What does General Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0”, 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?

A knowledgeable Relativists should have no problem answering the questions Cinci. I predict that you, on the other hand, unless you have help, will either obfuscate or (mis-direct) the questions and/or ridicule me for asking. Remember Cinci, it is you who chose to address the “clocks at sea level” paragraph not I. When, or if, you can give me clarity of answers to these questions we can then proceed to the orbiting paragraph. Remember also Cinci, that it is your logic that is being tested here not mine. We already know how my logic is.

And don’t give me any “unethical question” crap, there is nothing underhanded about my question. It is you who, I suspect, will be underhanded in your response.

bob s

Bob S: “Equipment needed:
Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year).
The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates. One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian. The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north. Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants.”



Stan: One minute, bob; let me get this straight! One clock is placed at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian. Since it's at the North Pole and facing south, this clock must have been placed by the observer face down. That is where the south direction at the North Pole is pointing; right, bob? The other clock is placed at the South Pole facing north on the Prime Meridian. Since it's at the South Pole and facing north, then this clock must have been placed face down by the observer as well. That is where the north direction at the South Pole is always pointing to; right, bob? Thereupon, neither observer can read the clock beside him; since each clock is placed face down in this experiment; correct bob?

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 26 2008, 8:50 AM

cinci: Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependint on SR and GR and then concluude that SR and gR are wrong. I'd like to hear that.

Well Cinci, since it is I who seems to be out of sync with the logic of the intellectual world, or Relativists if you will, maybe it is you who should tell me how your logic works. Here is a problem (experiment) you can solve for me. When, or should I say ‘if’ you can solve this problem (experiment) we can move on to the orbiting clocks

Equipment needed:
Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year).
The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates.
One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian.
The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north.
Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants.

Requirements:
Double blind, neither observer can communicate with the other observer during the test.

Test:
The test will be conducted at sea level
Using their transom and sextant, each observer will, at the apex of noon on the day of the vernal equinox start their respective count down clocks.
Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.
The recordings will then be placed in an envelope, sealed and marked accordingly NORTH or EQUATOR and sent for analysis by four people, 2 Relativists and 2 Non-Relativists.
Both envelopes will be opened with all 4 people present.

Possibilities:
There are only 3 possible readings for either clock, which are;
1.) “0" the clock has counted down to “0"
2.) “+” the clock has not counted down to “0" and there is still time showing on the clock, and
3.) “-“ the clock has counted passed “0" and shows a negative reading

Conclusions:
What does General Relativity predict for the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict fro the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?

What does General Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0”, 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?

A knowledgeable Relativists should have no problem answering the questions Cinci. I predict that you, on the other hand, unless you have help, will either obfuscate or (mis-direct) the questions and/or ridicule me for asking. Remember Cinci, it is you who chose to address the “clocks at sea level” paragraph not I. When, or if, you can give me clarity of answers to these questions we can then proceed to the orbiting paragraph. Remember also Cinci, that it is your logic that is being tested here not mine. We already know how my logic is.

And don’t give me any “unethical question” crap, there is nothing underhanded about my question. It is you who, I suspect, will be underhanded in your response.

bob s
ps ,|,, Stanley

Bob S: “Equipment needed:
Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year).
The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates. One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian. The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north. Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants.”



Stan: OK, bob; there is no clock at the South Pole! And it's alright to have a clock at the Equator facing north. But the clock at the North Pole is still facing south on the Prime Meridian. Since it's at the North Pole and facing south, this clock must have been placed by the observer face down. That is where the south direction at the North Pole is pointing; right, bob? Thereupon, the observer at the North Pole can't read the clock beside him; since that clock is placed face down in this experiment; correct bob? Please, bob, answer with 'YES' or 'No'! Is your next word no?

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 26 2008, 8:50 AM

cinci: Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependint on SR and GR and then concluude that SR and gR are wrong. I'd like to hear that.

Well Cinci, since it is I who seems to be out of sync with the logic of the intellectual world, or Relativists if you will, maybe it is you who should tell me how your logic works. Here is a problem (experiment) you can solve for me. When, or should I say ‘if’ you can solve this problem (experiment) we can move on to the orbiting clocks

Equipment needed:
Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year).
The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates.
One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian.
The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north.
Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants.

Requirements:
Double blind, neither observer can communicate with the other observer during the test.

Test:
The test will be conducted at sea level
Using their transom and sextant, each observer will, at the apex of noon on the day of the vernal equinox start their respective count down clocks.
Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.
The recordings will then be placed in an envelope, sealed and marked accordingly NORTH or EQUATOR and sent for analysis by four people, 2 Relativists and 2 Non-Relativists.
Both envelopes will be opened with all 4 people present.

Possibilities:
There are only 3 possible readings for either clock, which are;
1.) “0" the clock has counted down to “0"
2.) “+” the clock has not counted down to “0" and there is still time showing on the clock, and
3.) “-“ the clock has counted passed “0" and shows a negative reading

Conclusions:
What does General Relativity predict for the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict fro the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?

What does General Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0”, 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?

A knowledgeable Relativists should have no problem answering the questions Cinci. I predict that you, on the other hand, unless you have help, will either obfuscate or (mis-direct) the questions and/or ridicule me for asking. Remember Cinci, it is you who chose to address the “clocks at sea level” paragraph not I. When, or if, you can give me clarity of answers to these questions we can then proceed to the orbiting paragraph. Remember also Cinci, that it is your logic that is being tested here not mine. We already know how my logic is.

And don’t give me any “unethical question” crap, there is nothing underhanded about my question. It is you who, I suspect, will be underhanded in your response.

bob s
pss ,|,, Stanley, again

Cincirob: "They witness the flash at the same instant but they will have different times on their clocks. You're trying to impose some version of universal time where events happen according to clock readings. It may be strange that clocks that originally read the same at the beginning of the experiment read differently at the end, but it's not a paradox”.

AAF: Look Cincirob; you're here the one who is trying to impose some version of universal time. What else could the phrase “witness the flash at the same instant” possibly mean, except Newton's Absolute Time? By the way, why does RJ continue to ignore your very important comments on his comments?

cinci: They are standing next to each other. Why wouldn't they both see it at the same time?
*****************************************

Cincirob: “Are you now claiming that simultaneous events require Newton's universal time”?

AAF: Unless the two clocks are at rest relative to each other, registering the same event at the same instant by these two clocks necessarily implies Newton's Absolute Time. Now, let's listen to Bob S; he has something very important to say!

cinci: NOt if the clocks are at the same location.
*****************************

Bob S: “General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks. My Oh my cinci! it seems that GR and SR cancel each other, whichever one should we ‘chuck’, (to throw out or dispose of) the fantasy or the fallacy. I say, first the fantasy, the fallacy will soon follow. Clocks may very well “tick” faster above sea level but that is not “time dilation” it is merely a clock that runs fast in “real time”. As to “rocket sleds”, I doubt seriously they qualify as “a uniform rate of acceleration” Moving on to the answer to my question found in sec. 2”.

Cincirob: “What part of SR predicts a slower rate because of relative speed and GR predicts a faster rate because of lower gravitational potential don't you understand. It doesn't say the one theory makes the other invalid, it says you need both to know what's going on”.

AAF: Don't you see the hideous charlatanism in it? Let me show you? Time Dilation = 0; okay? In other words, there is no time dilation. So what the charlatan-minded Relativists should do? Simple! They have two theories about the same thing. They play around with opposing theoretical predictions. They apply parameter fitting and number fitting methods to those opposing predictions. And viola; the value of Time Dilation is always zero or something very close to zero and below instruments sensitivity and power to measure and detect. And yet and in spite of all this out and out charlatanism, the Relativists will always tell you with confidence and exuberance that the Relativistic predictions have been verified to the tenth decimal. And that is it. By the way, I don't count you among those charlatans, Cincirob; you're a humble man and I like you....

Cincirob: “Where do you get "Time Dilation = 0"? Is this AAF's theorem or what? You and Bob need to take a remedial reading course. His site says "General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth." It says they cancel at SEALEVEL, get it? Sealevel, only at sealevel. Really? You like me? Well the GPS system is accurate to 1 meter based on measurements fo the time of flight of light over at leasr 14,000 km which means it's accurate to one part in 14,000,000. As the Toby Keith song says, "How do you like me now?"”

AAF: Nature has told me that Time Dilation = 0; OK? Besides, time is an absolute essence that always flows independently and regardless of anything else including gravity and motion. So stop talking about 'sea levels'; since you don't have one; and since Ohio, like Switzerland, doesn't have any sea! Do I like you in spite of all your 'humbug'? Sure I still like you! And just to give you an idea, if I heard you're in heaven, I would cry so loudly that Pentcho half a world away could hear it! Well, I guess I could just use the YouTube to make him hear it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

cinci: You have now descended into pure nonsense. You're not even trying to be logical now.
********************************

Re: Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 26 2008, 8:50 AM

cinci: Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependint on SR and GR and then concluude that SR and gR are wrong. I'd like to hear that.

Bob S: Well Cinci, since it is I who seems to be out of sync with the logic of the intellectual world, or Relativists if you will, maybe it is you who should tell me how your logic works. Here is a problem (experiment) you can solve for me. When, or should I say ‘if’ you can solve this problem (experiment) we can move on to the orbiting clocks

Equipment needed:
Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year).
The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates.
One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian.
The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north.
Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants.

Requirements:
Double blind, neither observer can communicate with the other observer during the test.

Test:
The test will be conducted at sea level
Using their transom and sextant, each observer will, at the apex of noon on the day of the vernal equinox start their respective count down clocks.
Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.
The recordings will then be placed in an envelope, sealed and marked accordingly NORTH or EQUATOR and sent for analysis by four people, 2 Relativists and 2 Non-Relativists.
Both envelopes will be opened with all 4 people present.

Possibilities:
There are only 3 possible readings for either clock, which are;
1.) “0" the clock has counted down to “0"
2.) “+” the clock has not counted down to “0" and there is still time showing on the clock, and
3.) “-“ the clock has counted passed “0" and shows a negative reading

Conclusions:
What does General Relativity predict for the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict fro the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?

What does General Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0”, 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?

A knowledgeable Relativists should have no problem answering the questions Cinci. I predict that you, on the other hand, unless you have help, will either obfuscate or (mis-direct) the questions and/or ridicule me for asking. Remember Cinci, it is you who chose to address the “clocks at sea level” paragraph not I. When, or if, you can give me clarity of answers to these questions we can then proceed to the orbiting paragraph. Remember also Cinci, that it is your logic that is being tested here not mine. We already know how my logic is.

And don’t give me any “unethical question” crap, there is nothing underhanded about my question. It is you who, I suspect, will be underhanded in your response.

cinci: The answer is clearly explained in YOUR article: Why don't you just read it? Here it is:
"
General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks."

The clocks run at the same rate so they will tick off the year at the same rate. If your question is "Why doesn't a clock at the equator run differently that the pole clock because of the difference in velocity, the article tells you it's because the raidus of the earth is different at the pole than at the equator.

Re: Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 28 2008, 8:55 AM

cinci: The answer is clearly explained in YOUR article: Why don't you just read it?

It’s really quite simple Cinci, You are not responsible for the content or context of the article, Tom VanFlandern is. I would like the response to be in your words; it eliminates any mis-understandings. Also to be considered is the fact that you have been accused of not understanding Relativity, (SR and GR) engaging me in this exchange will afford you the opportunity to show your prowess on the subjects. And besides, you have made some very assertive statements in this exchange and I think they differ from other statements you have made on the subject, which I have already made note of. I am not going to repeat those statements because you should be aware of what you have previously stated so your answers now should be the same as those you made previously.

Recall what I said about questions Cinci, ‘it is the motive behind the questions that may be un-ethical, not the questions themselves'. I think I have made my motives quite clear. With that thought in mind I hope we can proceed forward and let the past speak for itself at the right time.

For you convenience here is a reprint of the experiment (problem) that was directed at you or, if you wish we can just drop the subject;

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 26 2008, 8:50 AM

cinci: Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependint on SR and GR and then concluude that SR and gR are wrong. I'd like to hear that.

Well Cinci, since it is I who seems to be out of sync with the logic of the intellectual world, or Relativists if you will, maybe it is you who should tell me how your logic works. Here is a problem (experiment) you can solve for me. When, or should I say ‘if’ you can solve this problem (experiment) we can move on to the orbiting clocks

Equipment needed:
Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year).
The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates.
One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian.
The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north.
Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants.

Requirements:
Double blind, neither observer can communicate with the other observer during the test.

Test:
The test will be conducted at sea level
Using their transom and sextant, each observer will, at the apex of noon on the day of the vernal equinox start their respective count down clocks.
Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.
The recordings will then be placed in an envelope, sealed and marked accordingly NORTH or EQUATOR and sent for analysis by four people, 2 Relativists and 2 Non-Relativists.
Both envelopes will be opened with all 4 people present.

Possibilities:
There are only 3 possible readings for either clock, which are;
1.) “0" the clock has counted down to “0"
2.) “+” the clock has not counted down to “0" and there is still time showing on the clock, and
3.) “-“ the clock has counted passed “0" and shows a negative reading

Conclusions:
What does General Relativity predict for the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict fro the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?

What does General Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0”, 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?

A knowledgeable Relativists should have no problem answering the questions Cinci. I predict that you, on the other hand, unless you have help, will either obfuscate or (mis-direct) the questions and/or ridicule me for asking. Remember Cinci, it is you who chose to address the “clocks at sea level” paragraph not I. When, or if, you can give me clarity of answers to these questions we can then proceed to the orbiting paragraph. Remember also Cinci, that it is your logic that is being tested here not mine. We already know how my logic is.

And don’t give me any “unethical question” crap, there is nothing underhanded about my question. It is you who, I suspect, will be underhanded in your response.

bob s

Cincirob: “Are you switching sides again”.



AAF: It's called the shifting winds of the hurricane after its eye has moved past you!



Cincirob: “They witness the flash at the same instant but they will have different times on their clocks. You're trying to impose some version of universal time where events happen according to clock readings. It may be strange that clocks that originally read the same at the beginning of the experiment read differently at the end, but it's not a paradox”.



AAF: Look Cincirob; you're here the one who is trying to impose some version of universal time. What else could the phrase “witness the flash at the same instant” possibly mean, except Newton's Absolute Time? By the way, why does RJ continue to ignore your very important comments on his comments?



Cincirob: “Are you now claiming that simultaneous events require Newton's universal time? They are standing next to each other. Why wouldn't they both see it at the same time”?



AAF: Unless the two clocks are rest relative to each other, registering the same event at the same instant by these two clocks necessarily implies Newton's Absolute Time. Now, let's listen to Bob S; he has something very important to say!



Cincirob: “NOT if the clocks are at the same location



AAF: Oh yes, they are! It seems you've forgotten that the location, in the parlance of Relativity, is four-dimensional; and it includes necessarily time as the fourth co-ordinate. And hence the two locations cannot be deemed the same, when the values of their time co-ordinate are different even by the slightest amount.



Bob S: “General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks. My Oh my cinci! it seems that GR and SR cancel each other, whichever one should we ‘chuck’, (to throw out or dispose of) the fantasy or the fallacy. I say, first the fantasy, the fallacy will soon follow. Clocks may very well “tick” faster above sea level but that is not “time dilation” it is merely a clock that runs fast in “real time”. As to “rocket sleds”, I doubt seriously they qualify as “a uniform rate of acceleration” Moving on to the answer to my question found in sec. 2”.



Cincirob: “What part of SR predicts a slower rate because of relative speed and GR predicts a faster rate because of lower gravitational potential don't you understand. It doesn't say the one theory makes the other invalid, it says you need both to know what's going on”.



AAF: Don't you see the hideous charlatanism in it? Let me show you? Time Dilation = 0; okay? In other words, there is no time dilation. So what the charlatan-minded Relativists should do? Simple! They have two theories about the same thing. They play around with opposing theoretical predictions. They apply parameter fitting and number fitting methods to those opposing predictions. And viola; the value of Time Dilation is always zero or something very close to zero and below instruments sensitivity and power to measure and detect. And yet and in spite of all this out and out charlatanism, the Relativists will always tell you with confidence and exuberance that the Relativistic predictions have been verified to the tenth decimal. And that is it. By the way, I don't count you among those charlatans, Cincirob; you're a humble man and I like you....



Cincirob: “Where do you get "Time Dilation = 0"? Is this AAF's theorem or what? You and Bob need to take a remedial reading course. His site says "General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth." It says they cancel at SEALEVEL, get it? Sealevel, only at sealevel. Really? You like me? Well the GPS system is accurate to 1 meter based on measurements for the time of flight of light over at least 14,000 km which means it's accurate to one part in 14,000,000. As the Toby Keith song says, "How do you like me now?"”




AAF: Nature has told me that Time Dilation = 0; OK? Besides, time is an absolute essence that always flows independently and regardless of anything else including gravity and motion. So stop talking about 'sea levels'; since you don't have one; and since Ohio, like Switzerland, doesn't have any sea! Do I like you in spite of all your 'humbug'? Sure I still like you! And just to give you an idea, if I heard you're in heaven, I would cry so loudly that Pentcho half a world away could hear it! Well, I guess I could just use the YouTube to make him hear it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube



Cincirob: “You have now descended into pure nonsense. You're not even trying to be logical now”.



AAF: You don't like the idea of going to heaven; do you? Well, we all have to go someday! As I just said, time, by definition, is an absolute essence that flows forever regardless of everything else. It's, therefore, illogical and absurd and can never be true to claim it slows down or speeds up due to such vagaries like motion and gravity. Einstein and his followers are, certainly, dead wrong in regard.

Re: Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 28 2008, 8:55 AM

cinci: The answer is clearly explained in YOUR article: Why don't you just read it?

It’s really quite simple Cinci, You are not responsible for the content or context of the article, Tom VanFlandern is. I would like the response to be in your words; it eliminates any mis-understandings. Also to be considered is the fact that you have been accused of not understanding Relativity, (SR and GR) engaging me in this exchange will afford you the opportunity to show your prowess on the subjects. And besides, you have made some very assertive statements in this exchange and I think they differ from other statements you have made on the subject, which I have already made note of. I am not going to repeat those statements because you should be aware of what you have previously stated so your answers now should be the same as those you made previously.

cinci: I like the words in your article. Here they are again. If there is some part of it youdon't understand, then point it out:

"General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks."

In my words, honest clocks at sealevel will pass time at the same rate. If you synchronize them they will stay synchronized.
************************************

Bob S: Recall what I said about questions Cinci, ‘it is the motive behind the questions that may be un-ethical, not the questions themselves'. I think I have made my motives quite clear. With that thought in mind I hope we can proceed forward and let the past speak for itself at the right time.

cinci: I didn't say your question was unethical (although I'm now beginning to think you motve might be), I said YOUR article has the answer.
***************************************

Bob S: For you convenience here is a reprint of the experiment (problem) that was directed at you or, if you wish we can just drop the subject;

cinci: Well here's a refresher for you of what my answer was:

"cinci: The answer is clearly explained in YOUR article: Why don't you just read it? Here it is:
"
General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks."

The clocks run at the same rate so they will tick off the year at the same rate. If your question is "Why doesn't a clock at the equator run differently that the pole clock because of the difference in velocity, the article tells you it's because the raidus of the earth is different at the pole than at the equator."
****************************************************


Bob S: Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 26 2008, 8:50 AM

cinci: Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependint on SR and GR and then concluude that SR and gR are wrong. I'd like to hear that.

Bob S: Well Cinci, since it is I who seems to be out of sync with the logic of the intellectual world, or Relativists if you will, maybe it is you who should tell me how your logic works. Here is a problem (experiment) you can solve for me. When, or should I say ‘if’ you can solve this problem (experiment) we can move on to the orbiting clocks

Equipment needed:
Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year).
The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates.
One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian.
The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north.
Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants.

Requirements:
Double blind, neither observer can communicate with the other observer during the test.

Test:
The test will be conducted at sea level
Using their transom and sextant, each observer will, at the apex of noon on the day of the vernal equinox start their respective count down clocks.
Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.
The recordings will then be placed in an envelope, sealed and marked accordingly NORTH or EQUATOR and sent for analysis by four people, 2 Relativists and 2 Non-Relativists.
Both envelopes will be opened with all 4 people present.

Possibilities:
There are only 3 possible readings for either clock, which are;
1.) “0" the clock has counted down to “0"
2.) “+” the clock has not counted down to “0" and there is still time showing on the clock, and
3.) “-“ the clock has counted passed “0" and shows a negative reading

Conclusions:
What does General Relativity predict for the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict fro the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?

What does General Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0”, 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?

A knowledgeable Relativists should have no problem answering the questions Cinci. I predict that you, on the other hand, unless you have help, will either obfuscate or (mis-direct) the questions and/or ridicule me for asking. Remember Cinci, it is you who chose to address the “clocks at sea level” paragraph not I. When, or if, you can give me clarity of answers to these questions we can then proceed to the orbiting paragraph. Remember also Cinci, that it is your logic that is being tested here not mine. We already know how my logic is.

And don’t give me any “unethical question” crap, there is nothing underhanded about my question. It is you who, I suspect, will be underhanded in your response.

cinci: A "knowledgeable relativist" already answered your question...he worte the article that you posted. Clocks anywhere at sealevel run at the same rate......it can't get any clearer than that.

If you're asking me to do calculations, I don't do general relativity calculations as they require tensor analysis and I don't work with tensor analysis and I've never given anybody reason to think I do. I will make certain special relativity calculations.

So now I've given you the answer to your question in my words....again and in the words of your article...again. So what's your problem?
**************************************

Cincirob: “Are you switching sides again”.

AAF: It's called the shifting winds of the hurricane after its eye has moved past you!

cinci: It's called "you don't have a clue".
**************************************

Cincirob: “They witness the flash at the same instant but they will have different times on their clocks. You're trying to impose some version of universal time where events happen according to clock readings. It may be strange that clocks that originally read the same at the beginning of the experiment read differently at the end, but it's not a paradox”.

AAF: Look Cincirob; you're here the one who is trying to impose some version of universal time. What else could the phrase “witness the flash at the same instant” possibly mean, except Newton's Absolute Time? By the way, why does RJ continue to ignore your very important comments on his comments?

Cincirob: “Are you now claiming that simultaneous events require Newton's universal time? They are standing next to each other. Why wouldn't they both see it at the same time”?

AAF: Unless the two clocks are rest relative to each other, registering the same event at the same instant by these two clocks necessarily implies Newton's Absolute Time. Now, let's listen to Bob S; he has something very important to say!

Cincirob: “NOT if the clocks are at the same location

AAF: Oh yes, they are! It seems you've forgotten that the location, in the parlance of Relativity, is four-dimensional; and it includes necessarily time as the fourth co-ordinate. And hence the two locations cannot be deemed the same, when the values of their time co-ordinate are different even by the slightest amount.

cinci: So along with your belief that we can't set clocks you are now claiming two objects can't be next to each other. What does the sky look like in your universe?
******************************************

AAF: Don't you see the hideous charlatanism in it? Let me show you? Time Dilation = 0; okay? In other words, there is no time dilation. So what the charlatan-minded Relativists should do? Simple! They have two theories about the same thing. They play around with opposing theoretical predictions. They apply parameter fitting and number fitting methods to those opposing predictions. And viola; the value of Time Dilation is always zero or something very close to zero and below instruments sensitivity and power to measure and detect. And yet and in spite of all this out and out charlatanism, the Relativists will always tell you with confidence and exuberance that the Relativistic predictions have been verified to the tenth decimal. And that is it. By the way, I don't count you among those charlatans, Cincirob; you're a humble man and I like you....

Cincirob: “Where do you get "Time Dilation = 0"? Is this AAF's theorem or what? You and Bob need to take a remedial reading course. His site says "General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth." It says they cancel at SEALEVEL, get it? Sealevel, only at sealevel. Really? You like me? Well the GPS system is accurate to 1 meter based on measurements for the time of flight of light over at least 14,000 km which means it's accurate to one part in 14,000,000. As the Toby Keith song says, "How do you like me now?"”

AAF: Nature has told me that Time Dilation = 0; OK? Besides, time is an absolute essence that always flows independently and regardless of anything else including gravity and motion. So stop talking about 'sea levels'; since you don't have one; and since Ohio, like Switzerland, doesn't have any sea! Do I like you in spite of all your 'humbug'? Sure I still like you! And just to give you an idea, if I heard you're in heaven, I would cry so loudly that Pentcho half a world away could hear it! Well, I guess I could just use the YouTube to make him hear it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

Cincirob: “You have now descended into pure nonsense. You're not even trying to be logical now”.

AAF: You don't like the idea of going to heaven; do you? Well, we all have to go someday! As I just said, time, by definition, is an absolute essence that flows forever regardless of everything else. It's, therefore, illogical and absurd and can never be true to claim it slows down or speeds up due to such vagaries like motion and gravity. Einstein and his followers are, certainly, dead wrong in regard.

cinci: Well who am I to argue with someone who speaks directly to Nature? Do you wear an aluminum foil helmet?
**************************************

Cincirob: “Are you switching side again”.



AAF: It's called the shifting winds of the hurricane after its eye has moved past you!



Cincirob: “It's called "you don't have a clue".



AAF: Oh yes, I do; I have all the clues; and you have nothing!



Cincirob: “They witness the flash at the same instant but they will have different times on their clocks. You're trying to impose some version of universal time where events happen according to clock readings. It may be strange that clocks that originally read the same at the beginning of the experiment read differently at the end, but it's not a paradox”.



AAF: Look Cincirob; you're here the one who is trying to impose some version of universal time. What else could the phrase “witness the flash at the same instant” possibly mean, except Newton's Absolute Time? By the way, why does RJ continue to ignore your very important comments on his comments?



Cincirob: “Are you now claiming that simultaneous events require Newton's universal time? They are standing next to each other. Why wouldn't they both see it at the same time”?



AAF: Unless the two clocks are rest relative to each other, registering the same event at the same instant by these two clocks necessarily implies Newton's Absolute Time.



Cincirob: “NOT if the clocks are at the same location. So along with your belief that we can't set clocks you are now claiming two objects can't be next to each other. What does the sky look like in your universe”?



AAF: Oh yes, they are! It seems you've forgotten that the location, in the parlance of Relativity, is four-dimensional; and it includes necessarily time as the fourth co-ordinate. And hence the two locations cannot be deemed the same, when the values of their time co-ordinate are different even by the slightest amount.



Bob S: “Well Cinci, since it is I who seems to be out of sync with the logic of the intellectual world, or Relativists if you will, maybe it is you who should tell me how your logic works. Here is a problem (experiment) you can solve for me. When, or should I say ‘if’ you can solve this problem (experiment) we can move on to the orbiting clocks. Equipment needed: Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year). The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates. One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian. The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north. Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants. Requirements: Double blind, neither observer can communicate with the other observer during the test. Test: The test will be conducted at sea level. Using their transom and sextant, each observer will, at the apex of noon on the day of the vernal equinox start their respective count down clocks. Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded. The recordings will then be placed in an envelope, sealed and marked accordingly NORTH or EQUATOR and sent for analysis by four people, 2 Relativists and 2 Non-Relativists. Both envelopes will be opened with all 4 people present. Possibilities: There are only 3 possible readings for either clock, which are; 1.) “0" the clock has counted down to “0" 2.) “+” the clock has not counted down to “0" and there is still time showing on the clock, and 3.) “-“ the clock has counted passed “0" and shows a negative reading. Conclusions: What does General Relativity predict for the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“? What does Special Relativity predict fro the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“? What does General Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0”, 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“? What does Special Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“? A knowledgeable Relativists should have no problem answering the questions Cinci. I predict that you, on the other hand, unless you have help, will either obfuscate or (mis-direct) the questions and/or ridicule me for asking. Remember Cinci, it is you who chose to address the “clocks at sea level” paragraph not I. When, or if, you can give me clarity of answers to these questions we can then proceed to the orbiting paragraph. Remember also Cinci, that it is your logic that is being tested here not mine. We already know how my logic is. And don’t give me any “unethical question” crap, there is nothing underhanded about my question. It is you who, I suspect, will be underhanded in your response”.



Cincirob: “What part of SR predicts a slower rate because of relative speed and GR predicts a faster rate because of lower gravitational potential don't you understand. It doesn't say the one theory makes the other invalid, it says you need both to know what's going on. A "knowledgeable relativist" already answered your question...he wrote the article that you posted. Clocks anywhere at sealevel run at the same rate......it can't get any clearer than that. If you're asking me to do calculations, I don't do general relativity calculations as they require tensor analysis and I don't work with tensor analysis and I've never given anybody reason to think I do. I will make certain special relativity calculations. So now I've given you the answer to your question in my words....again and in the words of your article...again. So what's your problem”?



AAF: Stop weaseling, Cincirob! Don't you see the hideous charlatanism in it? Let me show you? Time Dilation = 0; okay? In other words, there is no time dilation. So what the charlatan-minded Relativists should do? Simple! They have two theories about the same thing. They play around with opposing theoretical predictions. They apply parameter fitting and number fitting methods to those opposing predictions. And viola; the value of Time Dilation is always zero or something very close to zero and below instruments sensitivity and power to measure and detect. And yet and in spite of all this out and out charlatanism, the Relativists will always tell you with confidence and exuberance that the Relativistic predictions have been verified to the tenth decimal. And that is it. By the way, I don't count you among those charlatans, Cincirob; you're a humble man and I like you....



Cincirob: “Where do you get "Time Dilation = 0"? Is this AAF's theorem or what? You and Bob need to take a remedial reading course. His site says "General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth." It says they cancel at SEALEVEL, get it? Sealevel, only at sealevel. Really? You like me? Well the GPS system is accurate to 1 meter based on measurements for the time of flight of light over at least 14,000 km which means it's accurate to one part in 14,000,000. As the Toby Keith song says, "How do you like me now?"”




AAF: Nature has told me that Time Dilation = 0; OK? Besides, time is an absolute essence that always flows independently and regardless of anything else including gravity and motion. So stop talking about 'sea levels'; since you don't have one; and since Ohio, like Switzerland, doesn't have any sea! Do I like you in spite of all your 'humbug'? Sure I still like you! And just to give you an idea, if I heard you're in heaven, I would cry so loudly that Pentcho half a world away could hear it! Well, I guess I could just use the YouTube to make him hear it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube



Cincirob: “You have now descended into pure nonsense. You're not even trying to be logical now. Well who am I to argue with someone who speaks directly to Nature? Do you wear an aluminum foil helmet”?



AAF: The 'aluminum foil helmet' is on your head, o ye Toby Keith's devoted fan! Surely, you don't like the idea of going to heaven; do you? Well, we all have to go someday! As I just said, time, by definition, is an absolute essence that flows forever regardless of everything else. It's, therefore, illogical and absurd and can never be true to claim it slows down or speeds up due to such vagaries like motion and gravity. Einstein and his followers are, certainly, dead wrong in this regard.

Cincirob: “Are you switching side again”.

AAF: It's called the shifting winds of the hurricane after its eye has moved past you!

Cincirob: “It's called "you don't have a clue".

AAF: Oh yes, I do; I have all the clues; and you have nothing!

cinci: Oh I've given you all the clues you need to accept realtivity, but you just don't get it.
******************************

Cincirob: “They witness the flash at the same instant but they will have different times on their clocks. You're trying to impose some version of universal time where events happen according to clock readings. It may be strange that clocks that originally read the same at the beginning of the experiment read differently at the end, but it's not a paradox”.

AAF: Look Cincirob; you're here the one who is trying to impose some version of universal time. What else could the phrase “witness the flash at the same instant” possibly mean, except Newton's Absolute Time? By the way, why does RJ continue to ignore your very important comments on his comments?

Cincirob: “Are you now claiming that simultaneous events require Newton's universal time? They are standing next to each other. Why wouldn't they both see it at the same time”?

AAF: Unless the two clocks are rest relative to each other, registering the same event at the same instant by these two clocks necessarily implies Newton's Absolute Time.

Cincirob: “NOT if the clocks are at the same location. So along with your belief that we can't set clocks you are now claiming two objects can't be next to each other. What does the sky look like in your universe”?

AAF: Oh yes, they are! It seems you've forgotten that the location, in the parlance of Relativity, is four-dimensional; and it includes necessarily time as the fourth co-ordinate. And hence the two locations cannot be deemed the same, when the values of their time co-ordinate are different even by the slightest amount.

AAF: Nature has told me that Time Dilation = 0; OK? Besides, time is an absolute essence that always flows independently and regardless of anything else including gravity and motion. So stop talking about 'sea levels'; since you don't have one; and since Ohio, like Switzerland, doesn't have any sea! Do I like you in spite of all your 'humbug'? Sure I still like you! And just to give you an idea, if I heard you're in heaven, I would cry so loudly that Pentcho half a world away could hear it! Well, I guess I could just use the YouTube to make him hear it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

Cincirob: “You have now descended into pure nonsense. You're not even trying to be logical now. Well who am I to argue with someone who speaks directly to Nature? Do you wear an aluminum foil helmet”?

cinci: You are the charlatan. Here youhave taken two differnt comments of mine and posted them as if they were one.
*******************************

AAF: The 'aluminum foil helmet' is on your head, o ye Toby Keith's devoted fan! Surely, you don't like the idea of going to heaven; do you? Well, we all have to go someday! As I just said, time, by definition, is an absolute essence that flows forever regardless of everything else. It's, therefore, illogical and absurd and can never be true to claim it slows down or speeds up due to such vagaries like motion and gravity. Einstein and his followers are, certainly, dead wrong in this regard.

cinci: I really don;t know much about Toby Keith but he probably knows more science than you.
**********************************

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 28 2008, 6:07 PM

cinci: The answer is clearly explained in YOUR article: Why don't you just read it?

Why do you keep saying it’s MY article, I gave you the links and YOU claimed it validated YOUR side!

cinci: I like the words in your article. Here they are again. If there is some part of it youdon't understand, then point it out:

I understand the article I just don’t understand you, that is why I prepared the problem (experiment). I would think you would be pleased to tell me what Relativity predicts.

cinci: In my words, honest clocks at sealevel will pass time at the same rate. If you synchronize them they will stay synchronized.

That is a pretty straight forward answer Cinci. I have to conclude that, when Einstein claimed in SR that a clock at the Equator would dilate time as opposed to a clock at the Pole he was using a dis-honest clock or was being deceptive as to where the clocks were to be placed, in either respect HE was being deceptive; in YOUR words Cinci. And YOU idolize Einstein’s work on SR.

cinci: The clocks run at the same rate so they will tick off the year at the same rate. If your question is "Why doesn't a clock at the equator run differently that the pole clock because of the difference in velocity, the article tells you it's because the raidus of the earth is different at the pole than at the equator."

You seem so knowledgeable on the subject I fail to see why you wont help me understand by resolving my experiment (problem) by answering the questions.

cinci: If you're asking me to do calculations, I don't do general relativity calculations as they require tensor analysis and I don't work with tensor analysis and I've never given anybody reason to think I do. I will make certain special relativity calculations.

My problem (experiment) requires no calculations, it is multiple choice; 1.) 2.) Or 3.), simple as that! You do know what multiple choice is I hope.

cinci: So now I've given you the answer to your question in my words....again and in the words of your article...again. So what's your problem?

No Cinci, you have given me a response not answers. “So what’s your [my] problem?”. My problem (experiment) is as follows;

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 26 2008, 8:50 AM

cinci: Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependint on SR and GR and then concluude that SR and gR are wrong. I'd like to hear that.

Well Cinci, since it is I who seems to be out of sync with the logic of the intellectual world, or Relativists if you will, maybe it is you who should tell me how your logic works. Here is a problem (experiment) you can solve for me. When, or should I say ‘if’ you can solve this problem (experiment) we can move on to the orbiting clocks

Equipment needed:
Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year).
The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates.
One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian.
The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north.
Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants.

Requirements:
Double blind, neither observer can communicate with the other observer during the test.

Test:
The test will be conducted at sea level
Using their transom and sextant, each observer will, at the apex of noon on the day of the vernal equinox start their respective count down clocks.
Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.
The recordings will then be placed in an envelope, sealed and marked accordingly NORTH or EQUATOR and sent for analysis by four people, 2 Relativists and 2 Non-Relativists.
Both envelopes will be opened with all 4 people present.

Possibilities:
There are only 3 possible readings for either clock, which are;
1.) “0" the clock has counted down to “0"
2.) “+” the clock has not counted down to “0" and there is still time showing on the clock, and
3.) “-“ the clock has counted passed “0" and shows a negative reading

Conclusions:
What does General Relativity predict for the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict fro the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?

What does General Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0”, 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?

A knowledgeable Relativists should have no problem answering the questions Cinci. I predict that you, on the other hand, unless you have help, will either obfuscate or (mis-direct) the questions and/or ridicule me for asking. Remember Cinci, it is you who chose to address the “clocks at sea level” paragraph not I. When, or if, you can give me clarity of answers to these questions we can then proceed to the orbiting paragraph. Remember also Cinci, that it is your logic that is being tested here not mine. We already know how my logic is.

And don’t give me any “unethical question” crap, there is nothing underhanded about my question. It is you who, I suspect, will be underhanded in your response.

bob s

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 28 2008, 6:07 PM

cinci: The answer is clearly explained in YOUR article: Why don't you just read it?

Bob S: Why do you keep saying it’s MY article, I gave you the links and YOU claimed it validated YOUR side!

cinci: You posted it. If you want to disavow it now then go ahead an backpedal.
******************************************

cinci: I like the words in your article. Here they are again. If there is some part of it youdon't understand, then point it out:

BobS: I understand the article I just don’t understand you, that is why I prepared the problem (experiment). I would think you would be pleased to tell me what Relativity predicts.

cinci: If you understand the article and I agree with the article, then you understand me. The article tells you what relativity predicts.
*********************************

cinci: In my words, honest clocks at sealevel will pass time at the same rate. If you synchronize them they will stay synchronized.

Bob S: That is a pretty straight forward answer Cinci. I have to conclude that, when Einstein claimed in SR that a clock at the Equator would dilate time as opposed to a clock at the Pole he was using a dis-honest clock or was being deceptive as to where the clocks were to be placed, in either respect HE was being deceptive; in YOUR words Cinci. And YOU idolize Einstein’s work on SR.

cinci: He said that in 1905, 10 years before he developed general relativity. And he said it in reference to special realtivity and it is still true in reference to special relativity. If you look long enough you'll find comments by Einstien where he says special relativity is wrong because it doesn't include the effects of gravity. He's been honest, your porblem is that you listen to people like AAF and Pentcho who are not honest. Get the real story.
*************************************

cinci: The clocks run at the same rate so they will tick off the year at the same rate. If your question is "Why doesn't a clock at the equator run differently that the pole clock because of the difference in velocity, the article tells you it's because the raidus of the earth is different at the pole than at the equator."

Bob S: You seem so knowledgeable on the subject I fail to see why you wont help me understand by resolving my experiment (problem) by answering the questions.

cinci: I answered your questions and the article answered your questions. And you haven't bothered to tell me what your "problem" is. How about a clarifying statement instead of just repeating the same question that 's already been answered.
************************

cinci: If you're asking me to do calculations, I don't do general relativity calculations as they require tensor analysis and I don't work with tensor analysis and I've never given anybody reason to think I do. I will make certain special relativity calculations.

Bob S: My problem (experiment) requires no calculations, it is multiple choice; 1.) 2.) Or 3.), simple as that! You do know what multiple choice is I hope.

cinci: I don't do multiple choice. If you can't translate what I've said into the answer to your multiple choice question then you will misinterpret whatever I pick. Tell me why what the article and my answer fail to inform you of and I'll try to help.
*********************************

cinci: So now I've given you the answer to your question in my words....again and in the words of your article...again. So what's your problem?

Bob S: No Cinci, you have given me a response not answers. “So what’s your [my] problem?”. My problem (experiment) is as follows;

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 26 2008, 8:50 AM

cinci: Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependint on SR and GR and then concluude that SR and gR are wrong. I'd like to hear that.

Well Cinci, since it is I who seems to be out of sync with the logic of the intellectual world, or Relativists if you will, maybe it is you who should tell me how your logic works. Here is a problem (experiment) you can solve for me. When, or should I say ‘if’ you can solve this problem (experiment) we can move on to the orbiting clocks

Equipment needed:
Two count-down clocks, each clock is set at 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in one year).
The two clocks are checked and verified to count down at equal rates.
One clock is placed by an observer at the North Pole facing south on the Prime Meridian.
The other clock is placed by another observer on the equator at the Prime meridian facing north.
Both observers have identically calibrated surveyor transoms and sextants.

Requirements:
Double blind, neither observer can communicate with the other observer during the test.

Test:
The test will be conducted at sea level
Using their transom and sextant, each observer will, at the apex of noon on the day of the vernal equinox start their respective count down clocks.
Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.
The recordings will then be placed in an envelope, sealed and marked accordingly NORTH or EQUATOR and sent for analysis by four people, 2 Relativists and 2 Non-Relativists.
Both envelopes will be opened with all 4 people present.

Possibilities:
There are only 3 possible readings for either clock, which are;
1.) “0" the clock has counted down to “0"
2.) “+” the clock has not counted down to “0" and there is still time showing on the clock, and
3.) “-“ the clock has counted passed “0" and shows a negative reading

Conclusions:
What does General Relativity predict for the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict fro the NORTH clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” Or 3.) “-“?

What does General Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0”, 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?
What does Special Relativity predict for the EQUATOR clock, 1.) “0", 2.) “+” or 3.) “-“?

A knowledgeable Relativists should have no problem answering the questions Cinci. I predict that you, on the other hand, unless you have help, will either obfuscate or (mis-direct) the questions and/or ridicule me for asking. Remember Cinci, it is you who chose to address the “clocks at sea level” paragraph not I. When, or if, you can give me clarity of answers to these questions we can then proceed to the orbiting paragraph. Remember also Cinci, that it is your logic that is being tested here not mine. We already know how my logic is.

And don’t give me any “unethical question” crap, there is nothing underhanded about my question. It is you who, I suspect, will be underhanded in your response.

cinci: The article says, and I agree, that the relative velocity of the clock at the equator relative to the clock at the pole causes the equator clock to run slower; however, the lower gravitational potential at the equator causes that clock to run faster than a clock at the pole. The effects are the same size so the clock stay synchronized. If you can't figure out your answers based on these comments (and apparently you can't), then having me picking them wouldn't help you.

My guess is that you think that if I say SR and GR make different direction predictions for the same clock you will presume that one or both theories are wrong. If that is your logic, then you are on the wrong track. I've already explained to you that the effects of gravitation and the effects of relative motion are distinctly different phenomena and nothing prevents both of them from occuring on the same clock. If you want to argue the case, then I refer you to YOUR article one more time.
***********************************************************************************************

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 29 2008, 12:37 AM

cinci: I don't do multiple choice. If you can't translate what I've said into the answer to your multiple choice question then you will misinterpret whatever I pick. Tell me why what the article and my answer fail to inform you of and I'll try to help.

And from, August 28 2008, 6:07 PM
cinci: If you're asking me to do calculations, I don't do general relativity calculations as they require tensor analysis and I don't work with tensor analysis and I've never given anybody reason to think I do. I will make certain special relativity calculations.

So, you don’t “do calculations” and you “don’t do multiple choice”. Well. I conclude from your response Cinci, that, other that rhetoric you have little else to offer. If only you could keep your rhetoric consistent you would have some credibility. Just remember Cinci, I offered you a chance to set the record straight but my problem (experiment) was just beyond your capabilities. I’ll bet the ‘6 year old’ can “do multiple choice”. On the plus side Cinci, your grammar has improved.

bob s

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 29 2008, 12:37 AM

cinci: I don't do multiple choice. If you can't translate what I've said into the answer to your multiple choice question then you will misinterpret whatever I pick. Tell me why what the article and my answer fail to inform you of and I'll try to help.

And from, August 28 2008, 6:07 PM
cinci: If you're asking me to do calculations, I don't do general relativity calculations as they require tensor analysis and I don't work with tensor analysis and I've never given anybody reason to think I do. I will make certain special relativity calculations.

Bob S: So, you don’t “do calculations” and you “don’t do multiple choice”. Well. I conclude from your response Cinci, that, other that rhetoric you have little else to offer. If only you could keep your rhetoric consistent you would have some credibility. Just remember Cinci, I offered you a chance to set the record straight but my problem (experiment) was just beyond your capabilities. I’ll bet the ‘6 year old’ can “do multiple choice”. On the plus side Cinci, your grammar has improved.

cinci: I gave you the answers you need. The fact you won't accept them makes it clear you were trying to ask a loaded question......again. It's easy to see you aren't being honest here or trying to understand relativity because I did explain all you need to know about your problem and I asked you some pretty simple questions. But I get no answers, just empty rhetoric.

And I didn't say I don't "do calculations". I see you've picked up one of AAF's bad habits. You could pick a better role model.
******************************

Re: Stanley 16, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 27 2008, 7:03 PM

Stan: OK, bob; there is no clock at the South Pole! And it's alright to have a clock at the Equator facing north. But the clock at the North Pole is still facing south on the Prime Meridian. Since it's at the North Pole and facing south, this clock must have been placed by the observer face down. That is where the south direction at the North Pole is pointing; right, bob? Thereupon, the observer at the North Pole can't read the clock beside him; since that clock is placed face down in this experiment; correct bob? Please, bob, answer with 'YES' or 'No'! Is your next word no?

Stanley, now that Cinci have pretty much ended our discussion about my problem (experiment) I will answer your question if you are still interested...even if you are not interested I am going to answer your questions.

Premise:
Since it's at the North Pole and facing south, this clock must have been placed by the observer face down.

The first 2 related questions read;
That is where the south direction at the North Pole is pointing; right, bob?
And,
Thereupon, the observer at the North Pole can't read the clock beside him; since that clock is placed face down in this experiment; correct bob?

Their premise is false Stanley, therefor the questions are moot.

And the third question, “Is your next word no?” Actually my next word was “that’s” but good guess Stan.

bob s

Re: Stanley 16, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 27 2008, 7:03 PM

Bob S: Stan: OK, bob; there is no clock at the South Pole! And it's alright to have a clock at the Equator facing north. But the clock at the North Pole is still facing south on the Prime Meridian. Since it's at the North Pole and facing south, this clock must have been placed by the observer face down. That is where the south direction at the North Pole is pointing; right, bob? Thereupon, the observer at the North Pole can't read the clock beside him; since that clock is placed face down in this experiment; correct bob? Please, bob, answer with 'YES' or 'No'! Is your next word no?

Stanley, now that Cinci have pretty much ended our discussion about my problem (experiment) I will answer your question if you are still interested...even if you are not interested I am going to answer your questions.

Premise:
Since it's at the North Pole and facing south, this clock must have been placed by the observer face down.

cinci: So all this is BS and you got it wrong anyway? A clock facing down is not facing south. It's facing down. Directions on the earth are directions tangent to the Earth wherever you are. Any direction away from the north pole and tangent to the surface of the Earth is facing south.


**************************************

The first 2 related questions read;
That is where the south direction at the North Pole is pointing; right, bob?
And,

Thereupon, the observer at the North Pole can't read the clock beside him; since that clock is placed face down in this experiment; correct bob?

Their premise is false Stanley, therefore the questions are moot.

cinci: The problem statement, "Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.", doesn't preclude turning the clock over even it it were face down.

What a waste of time.
***********************************

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 29 2008, 3:41 PM

In Re: Stanley 16, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 27 2008, 7:03 PM

Stan: OK, bob; there is no clock at the South Pole! And it's alright to have a clock at the Equator facing north. But the clock at the North Pole is still facing south on the Prime Meridian. Since it's at the North Pole and facing south, this clock must have been placed by the observer face down. That is where the south direction at the North Pole is pointing; right, bob? Thereupon, the observer at the North Pole can't read the clock beside him; since that clock is placed face down in this experiment; correct bob? Please, bob, answer with 'YES' or 'No'! Is your next word no?

cinci: So all this is BS and you got it wrong anyway? A clock facing down is not facing south. It's facing down. Directions on the earth are directions tangent to the Earth wherever you are. Any direction away from the north pole and tangent to the surface of the Earth is facing south.

And,

cinci: The problem statement, "Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.", doesn't preclude turning the clock over even it it were face down.

You are a blatant Idiot Cinci, it is your twin Stanley 16 that made the statement quoted in blue not me. If you can not tell the difference between who and what I am quoting and what I am saying how could you have ever comprehended what VanFlandern had to say. I “got” nothing wrong Cinci. The closest I have come to being wrong is when I said “you have to have a twin Cinci, because no one person could be as stupid as you”, I was almost wrong because that was an understatement, I should have said triplets! Now you have a chance to prove (as in demonstrate) me almost wrong again and go for quadruplets.

Bob s

In Re: Stanley 16, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 27 2008, 7:03 PM

Stan: OK, bob; there is no clock at the South Pole! And it's alright to have a clock at the Equator facing north. But the clock at the North Pole is still facing south on the Prime Meridian. Since it's at the North Pole and facing south, this clock must have been placed by the observer face down. That is where the south direction at the North Pole is pointing; right, bob? Thereupon, the observer at the North Pole can't read the clock beside him; since that clock is placed face down in this experiment; correct bob? Please, bob, answer with 'YES' or 'No'! Is your next word no?

cinci: So all this is BS and you got it wrong anyway? A clock facing down is not facing south. It's facing down. Directions on the earth are directions tangent to the Earth wherever you are. Any direction away from the north pole and tangent to the surface of the Earth is facing south.

And,

cinci: The problem statement, "Using the same sextant and surveyors transom, the observers will, at the return of the apex of noon on the vernal equinox the following year stop each clock and the readout of each clock will be recorded.", doesn't preclude turning the clock over even it it were face down.

Bob S: You are a blatant Idiot Cinci, it is your twin Stanley 16 that made the statement quoted in blue not me. If you can not tell the difference between who and what I am quoting and what I am saying how could you have ever comprehended what VanFlandern had to say. I “got” nothing wrong Cinci. The closest I have come to being wrong is when I said “you have to have a twin Cinci, because no one person could be as stupid as you”, I was almost wrong because that was an understatement, I should have said triplets! Now you have a chance to prove (as in demonstrate) me almost wrong again and go for quadruplets.

cinci: Look again doofus, I left the attrution to "Stan" in my message. The attribution to you was just to show where I got it. The critiques of the comments don't make sense no matter whose they are.

But since you haven't answered any of my questions about your "experiment", Stanley's explanation makes more sense than anything you've said. So either answer my questions and clear up what your "experiment" is about or I'll assume it's even dumber than Stanley's explanation.

As to comprehending van Flandern, you're one who seems to want to packpedal away from it. You seem to still be having a problem understanding why two different effects can have opposite effects?

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 29 2008, 6:26 PM

cinci: Look again doofus, I left the attrution to "Stan" in my message. The attribution to you was just to show where I got it. The critiques of the comments don't make sense no matter whose they are.

You may have made an attribution to Stan but you criticized me for making the foolish statements. You thought I was talking to Stanley and all I was doing was quoting him. You made a mistake Cinci, again!

cinci: But since you haven't answered any of my questions about your "experiment", Stanley's explanation makes more sense than anything you've said. So either answer my questions and clear up what your "experiment" is about or I'll assume it's even dumber than Stanley's explanation.

I do not believe you asked any questions that would make clear my experiment (problem). And if you did ask such questions you could have at least re-posted with a date and time so I could verify your claim that you did ask questions for clarification. I re-posted my problem (experiment) for your convenience, Hell, I even gave you the answers but I wont tell you where they are. You refused to do the experiment (problem), remember, ‘you don’t do no GR maths and you don’t do no multiple choice’. Take heart though Cinci, you seem to be very good at mis-quoting people.

cinci: As to comprehending van Flandern, you're one who seems to want to packpedal away from it. You seem to still be having a problem understanding why two different effects can have opposite effects?

I have in no way “back pedaled” on GPS. GPS does not use the maths of either SR and/or GR. SR is fantasy and GR is falsity; that’s my premise and I’m sticking to it! Also, I have no problem understanding why “two different effects can have opposite effects?”. You however, seem to have a problem understanding the difference between a statement and a question. “?” implies a question but yours is not posed as a question. You should calm down and do some proof (as in verification) reading of your work before you press to ‘respond...’ icon.

bob s

*cinci: Look again doofus, I left the attrution to "Stan" in my message. The attribution to you was just to show where I got it. The critiques of the comments don't make sense no matter whose they are.*

Bob S: *You may have made an attribution to Stan but you criticized me for making the foolish statements. You thought I was talking to Stanley and all I was doing was quoting him.*

cinci: I critiqued the statements. If they aren't yours then what's your problem? You must have a guilty conscience.
***********************************

Bob S: *You made a mistake Cinci, again!*

cinci: Another page out of AAF's book. I've notice a lot of non-relativists think that if they can just show that anybody who supports relativity is wrong about anything (whether it has anything to do with relativity or not), then they think they've proved relativity is wrong. I suppose I should expect this sort of thing from illogical people.
*****************************************

*cinci: But since you haven't answered any of my questions about your "experiment", Stanley's explanation makes more sense than anything you've said. So either answer my questions and clear up what your "experiment" is about or I'll assume it's even dumber than Stanley's explanation.*

Bob S: *I do not believe you asked any questions that would make clear my experiment (problem). And if you did ask such questions you could have at least re-posted with a date and time so I could verify your claim that you did ask questions for clarification. I re-posted my problem (experiment) for your convenience, Hell, I even gave you the answers but I wont tell you where they are. You refused to do the experiment (problem), remember, ‘you don’t do no GR maths and you don’t do no multiple choice’. Take heart though Cinci, you seem to be very good at mis-quoting people.*

cinci: I refused to calculate the experiment and gave vaild reasons why I wouldn't. I also gave you all the information needed to determine what was happening in your experiment....so did YOUR article. Your only response has been insulting remarks, the last refuge and forte of an antirelativist...excuse me, a non-relativist.
*****************************

*cinci: As to comprehending van Flandern, you're one who seems to want to packpedal away from it. You seem to still be having a problem understanding why two different effects can have opposite effects?*

Bob S: *I have in no way “back pedaled” on GPS. GPS does not use the maths of either SR and/or GR. SR is fantasy and GR is falsity; that’s my premise and I’m sticking to it!*

cinci: Now all you have to do is explain why you would qoute an article that says you don't know what you're talking about.
**************************

Bob S: *Also, I have no problem understanding why “two different effects can have opposite effects?”.*

cinci: Yes you do. You implied that it meant the theories are wrong.
*************************************

Bob S: *You however, seem to have a problem understanding the difference between a statement and a question. “?” implies a question but yours is not posed as a question. You should calm down and do some proof (as in verification) reading of your work before you press to ‘respond...’ icon.*

cinci: Well maybe you should learn to understand the English language. Here's one of my "questions" that is a question but doesn't require a "?":

"Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependent on SR and GR and then conclude that SR and GR are wrong. I'd like to hear that."

And I'm still waiting for a response....got one?
***********************************

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 29 2008, 9:01 PM

cinci: Well maybe you should learn to understand the English language. Here's one of my "questions" that is a question but doesn't require a "?":
"Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependent on SR and GR and then conclude that SR and GR are wrong. I'd like to hear that."

And I'm still waiting for a response....got one?

That statement (question sic) Cinci, was made before I made my response, you said that you asked questions “about” my problem (experiment), read it for your self. Are you going to resort to lying (as in un-truthful).

cinci: But since you haven't answered any of my questions about your "experiment", Stanley's explanation makes more sense than anything you've said. So either answer my questions and clear up what your "experiment" is about or I'll assume it's even dumber than Stanley's explanation.

You cop-out on a response to my experiment (problem), remember what you said Cinci; ’I don’t wanna bob s Oh...boo hoo, boo hoo! everyone will know how illiterate I am’. Hey, I paraphrased it. I don't think it is because you "don't" do GR maths or multiple choice, rather, it is becasuse you 'can't' do GR maths or multiple choice! But, you have 'implied' that you know enough about GR and SR to have responded to my simple, multiple choice, problem (experiment). Boy! did JR and AAF ever call that one right or what.

bob s

cinci: Well maybe you should learn to understand the English language. Here's one of my "questions" that is a question but doesn't require a "?":

"Some time you have to give me the logic that you use to take and article that says the GPS system accuracy is dependent on SR and GR and then conclude that SR and GR are wrong. I'd like to hear that."

And I'm still waiting for a response....got one?

Bob S: That statement (question sic) Cinci, was made before I made my response, you said that you asked questions “about” my problem (experiment), read it for your self. Are you going to resort to lying (as in un-truthful).

cinci: Yes, and this wasn't one of them. This was an example of a question that isn't phrased as a question. Try to keep up, won't you?

cinci: If you simply scroll up, you can find all the questions I asked. Too complicated for you?
*************************


cinci: But since you haven't answered any of my questions about your "experiment", Stanley's explanation makes more sense than anything you've said. So either answer my questions and clear up what your "experiment" is about or I'll assume it's even dumber than Stanley's explanation.

Bob S: You cop-out on a response to my experiment (problem), remember what you said Cinci; ’I don’t wanna bob s Oh...boo hoo, boo hoo! everyone will know how illiterate I am’. Hey, I paraphrased it.

cinci: Paraphrased? How about "Made it up."
****************************

Bob S: I don't think it is because you "don't" do GR maths or multiple choice, rather, it is becasuse you 'can't' do GR maths or multiple choice! But, you have 'implied' that you know enough about GR and SR to have responded to my simple, multiple choice, problem (experiment). Boy! did JR and AAF ever call that one right or what.

cinci: As I keep saying, all you need to know is in YOUR posted article and I have made even further explanatory comments on that. If you're too lazy to do a little thinking of your own, my answering picking your multiple choice isn't going to help you.
*****************************

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 29 2008, 11:38 PM

cinci: As I keep saying, all you need to know is in YOUR posted article and I have made even further explanatory comments on that. If you're too lazy to do a little thinking of your own, my answering picking your multiple choice isn't going to help you.

Give it up Cinci; Accept defeat and go lie on the back porch where the rest of the Relativists are lying. You have your Depends in a twist because I did not answer questions that were not posed as questions. You charlatan, you can hardly construct a sentence that reads like a sentence let alone ask questions that are not posed as questions. It can be done but not by you!

All you are doing Cinci, is throwing up a smoke screen to cover up the fact that you are afraid, afraid Cinci!, to respond to my experiment (problem) because you know in your heart; in the deepest regions of your lying, black heart, that if you had answered the questions in my problem (experiment) I would destroy you (intellectually wise) and vaporize Einstein’s “castle in the sky” and I would do it using Your words.

Your Emperor has no clothes Cinci, no clothes at all.

bob s

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 29 2008, 11:38 PM

cinci: As I keep saying, all you need to know is in YOUR posted article and I have made even further explanatory comments on that. If you're too lazy to do a little thinking of your own, my answering picking your multiple choice isn't going to help you.

Bob S: Give it up Cinci; Accept defeat and go lie on the back porch where the rest of the Relativists are lying. You have your Depends in a twist because I did not answer questions that were not posed as questions. You charlatan, you can hardly construct a sentence that reads like a sentence let alone ask questions that are not posed as questions. It can be done but not by you!

cinci: OK. I give up trying to get you to be rational. From here on it's just a matter of how silly you want to look.
***********************************

Bob S: All you are doing Cinci, is throwing up a smoke screen to cover up the fact that you are afraid, afraid Cinci!, to respond to my experiment (problem) because you know in your heart; in the deepest regions of your lying, black heart, that if you had answered the questions in my problem (experiment) I would destroy you (intellectually wise) and vaporize Einstein’s “castle in the sky” and I would do it using Your words.

cinci: I gave you the benefit of doubt for a while but now I think Stanley did your experiment in. You're just floundering now.
*********************************

Bob S: Your Emperor has no clothes Cinci, no clothes at all.

cinci: Gee Bob, is that the way you like to think of me?

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 30 2008, 10:43 AM

cinci: I gave you the benefit of doubt for a while but now I think Stanley did your experiment in.

At least Stanley knows how to pose a question that looks like a question. I just hope he does not try and lead any Boy Scout Troops on hikes. And that should be “benefit of [the] doubt”; just trying to help!

Bob S: Your Emperor has no clothes Cinci, no clothes at all.

cinci: Gee Bob, is that the way you like to think of me?

Now that You mention it, Yes! That is how I picture you; a naked, sweaty, bitter old man, sitting at a computer, venting hostilities while waiting for your ExLax to work. Your Emperor, on the other hand, didn’t have a computer.

bob s

Bob S: “All you are doing Cinci, is throwing up a smoke screen to cover up the fact that you are afraid, afraid Cinci!, to respond to my experiment (problem) because you know in your heart; in the deepest regions of your lying, black heart, that if you had answered the questions in my problem (experiment) I would destroy you (intellectually wise) and vaporize Einstein's “castle in the sky” and I would do it using Your words”.



Cincirob: “I gave you the benefit of doubt for a while but now I think Stanley did your experiment in. You're just floundering now”.



AAF: Bob's Experiment is unassailable. And it is still standing regardless of what you and Stan have said or done so far. Stan's 'south and north and east and west' are simply irrelevant to the problem at hand. So bite the bullet, Cincirob; and answer Bob's Question, unless you're a chicken, or worse yet an ostrich hiding its head in the sands, which I suspect you are not!

cinci: I gave you the benefit of doubt for a while but now I think Stanley did your experiment in.

Bob S: At least Stanley knows how to pose a question that looks like a question. I just hope he does not try and lead any Boy Scout Troops on hikes. And that should be “benefit of [the] doubt”; just trying to help!

cinci: I apologize for crediting you with more intelligence than you apparently have.
***************************

Bob S: Your Emperor has no clothes Cinci, no clothes at all.

cinci: Gee Bob, is that the way you like to think of me?

Bob S: Now that You mention it, Yes! That is how I picture you; a naked, sweaty, bitter old man, sitting at a computer, venting hostilities while waiting for your ExLax to work. Your Emperor, on the other hand, didn’t have a computer.

cinci: Have you considered therapy?
**************************

AAF: Bob's Experiment is unassailable. And it is still standing regardless of what you and Stan have said or done so far. Stan's 'south and north and east and west' are simply irrelevant to the problem at hand. So bite the bullet, Cincirob; and answer Bob's Question, unless you're a chicken, or worse yet an ostrich hiding its head in the sands, which I suspect you are not!

cinci: Why haven't we seen your answer to his "unassailable" experiment (whatever that means)? Perhaps becasue I've proved you wrong too many times in the past?

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 30 2008, 4:48 PM

Cinci: "unassailable" experiment (whatever that means)?

You see Cinci, when you ask a question properly you get an answer, and here it is;

unassailable: Main Entry: (un-as-sail-able)
Function: adjective
Date: 1596
:not assailable : not liable to doubt, attack, or question (source)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unassailable

And:
Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 30 2008, 4:41 PM

cinci: Have you considered therapy?

I am the therapist, Cinci, I am known as “The Relativity Whisperer”. I have save many from “Demon Relativity” and returned them to sanity. They put their clothes on and returned to a productive life.

bob s

Cinci: "unassailable" experiment (whatever that means)?

You see Cinci, when you ask a question properly you get an answer, and here it is;

unassailable: Main Entry: (un-as-sail-able)
Function: adjective
Date: 1596
:not assailable : not liable to doubt, attack, or question (source)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unassailable

cinci: Yes, and as usual with non-relativists, it's not the answer to the question I asked.
***********************************

And:
Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 30 2008, 4:41 PM

cinci: Have you considered therapy?

Bob S: I am the therapist, Cinci, I am known as “The Relativity Whisperer”. I have save many from “Demon Relativity” and returned them to sanity. They put their clothes on and returned to a productive life.

cinci: I guess the question is why you had their clothes off in the first place.
***************************

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 30 2008, 7:19 PM

Cinci: "unassailable" experiment (whatever that means)?

bobs: You see Cinci, when you ask a question properly you get an answer, and here it is;

unassailable: Main Entry: (un-as-sail-able)
Function: adjective
Date: 1596
:not assailable : not liable to doubt, attack, or question (source)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unassailable

cinci: Yes, and as usual with non-relativists, it's not the answer to the question I asked.
***********************************

OK, that’s one for you Cinci, but I was hard pressed to think you did not know the meaning of “experiment” so here it is;

experiment
Main Entery: ex-per-i-ment Function: noun, Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French esperiment, from Latin experimentum, from experiri Date: 4th century
a: test, trial, b: a tentative procedure or policy, c: an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law (source)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment

When the words are placed together such as “unassailable experiment” it means that the experiment is not liable to doubt, attack or question. Which means, in the present use, is that questions may be asked ‘about’ the experiment but the experiment itself is unassailable.


And:
Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 30 2008, 4:41 PM

cinci: Have you considered therapy?

Bob S: I am the therapist, Cinci, I am known as “The Relativity Whisperer”. I have save many from “Demon Relativity” and returned them to sanity. They put their clothes on and returned to a productive life.

cinci: I guess the question is why you had their clothes off in the first place.

I am surprised Cinci, a question not posed as a question; I’ll bet you had help. Be that as it may, your question is based on facts not yet in evidence. You have no more evidence that I had their clothes off than a mis-representation of what I said, which was “they” put their clothes on. Why would you assume “I” had their clothes other than to try and trick me. I did notice that you did not deny my image of you; failure to deny, is to admit Cinci! and that, old brown eyes, is the Law!

bob s

Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 30 2008, 7:19 PM

Cinci: "unassailable" experiment (whatever that means)?

bobs: You see Cinci, when you ask a question properly you get an answer, and here it is;

unassailable: Main Entry: (un-as-sail-able)
Function: adjective
Date: 1596
:not assailable : not liable to doubt, attack, or question (source)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unassailable

cinci: Yes, and as usual with non-relativists, it's not the answer to the question I asked.
***********************************

Bob S: "OK, that’s one for you Cinci,.........."

cinci: You mean one more.
******************************

Bob S: "...............but I was hard pressed to think you did not know the meaning of “experiment” so here it is;

experiment
Main Entery: ex-per-i-ment Function: noun, Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French esperiment, from Latin experimentum, from experiri Date: 4th century
a: test, trial, b: a tentative procedure or policy, c: an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law (source)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment

When the words are placed together such as “unassailable experiment” it means that the experiment is not liable to doubt, attack or question. Which means, in the present use, is that questions may be asked ‘about’ the experiment but the experiment itself is unassailable."

cinci: Yes, but I didn't assail the experiment, I gave you all the information you needed to know about it.
**************************

Bob S: "And:
Re: Cincirob, Motions under the Influence of a Gravitational Field August 30 2008, 4:41 PM

cinci: Have you considered therapy?

Bob S: I am the therapist, Cinci, I am known as “The Relativity Whisperer”. I have save many from “Demon Relativity” and returned them to sanity. They put their clothes on and returned to a productive life.

cinci: I guess the question is why you had their clothes off in the first place."

Bob S: I am surprised Cinci, a question not posed as a question; I’ll bet you had help. Be that as it may, your question is based on facts not yet in evidence. You have no more evidence that I had their clothes off than a mis-representation of what I said, which was “they” put their clothes on. Why would you assume “I” had their clothes other than to try and trick me. I did notice that you did not deny my image of you; failure to deny, is to admit Cinci! and that, old brown eyes, is the Law!

cinci: I didn't misrepresent anything. You didn't give me enough information so I guessed. Try to be more thorough in the future.

As far as denying the image, far be it from me to deny you your fantasies.
**************************

One can only assume what another thinks. And the assumption is usually wrong. Things are not the way they used to be, and they never were. The King is dead. Long live the King!
Sarcasm, one of our many services.