Relativity theory

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Relativity theory

Page 1 of 8

Relativity theory16-02-2022 12:51
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Could anybody explain this to me. I have read that if we have identical twins and one of them is going to a space travel with a very fast spaceship( near the speed of light ) and when he returns the other twin has aged more. He could be an old man or even be dead. I have also read that it takes 8 minutes for a light to reach from sun to earth. Lets say that one twin stays on earth and the other twin sits on the photon which starts it jorney towards earth. Lets say both are 20 years old at the starting point. If they meet on earth, is the twin on earth aged a lot more?
16-02-2022 14:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Xadoman wrote: Could anybody explain this to me. I have read that if we have identical twins and one of them is going to a space travel with a very fast spaceship( near the speed of light ) and when he returns the other twin has aged more. He could be an old man or even be dead. I have also read that it takes 8 minutes for a light to reach from sun to earth. Lets say that one twin stays on earth and the other twin sits on the photon which starts it jorney towards earth. Lets say both are 20 years old at the starting point. If they meet on earth, is the twin on earth aged a lot more? You have to modify your scenario. Nobody can stay on a photon.
16-02-2022 15:19
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	You have to modify your scenario. Nobody can stay on a photon. Hypothetically. I just want to understand what happens if the sun would "switch off" all of a sudden. As much as I understand when the last foton and its passanger , one of the twins, reach to earth, the other twin is already gone long time ago. As much as I understand, the time dilation effect goes to infinity at the speed of light. That means during the flight infinite time goes by on earth. Which should mean that the sun never stops shining for us.
16-02-2022 16:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Xadoman wrote:Hypothetically. I just want to understand what happens if the sun would "switch off" all of a sudden. This is a totally different (and unrelated) scenario. It has nothing to do with Relativity. To answer this question, go turn off a lightbulb. Xadoman wrote:As much as I understand when the last foton and its passenger No photon can have a passenger or even cargo. Xadoman wrote: As much as I understand, the time dilation effect goes to infinity at the speed of light. I've already tried to help you once before and you insisted that your flawed understanding was correct and that my help was not wanted. If believing all this makes you happy, then great! I'm happy for you. Xadoman wrote:That means during the flight infinite time goes by on earth. Which should mean that the sun never stops shining for us. [eye roll] OK. No, ... but OK.
16-02-2022 16:50
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	To answer this question, go turn off a lightbulb. So if I switch of the light and my twin sits on the last photon from the lightbulb and travels at the speed of light towards me then we can not never meet because due to the time dilation effect I am already dead when my twin reaches to me. That means that the light bulb will never switch of for me. Relativity theory is just too complicated to understand for me anyway. It is just fun to think about that stuff.

16-02-2022 18:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Xadoman wrote:So if I switch of the light and my twin sits on the last photon from the lightbulb No photon can have any passenger or cargo. Xadoman wrote:and travels at the speed of light towards me No body of matter can be accelerated to the speed of light. Xadoman wrote: ... then we can not never meet because due to the time dilation effect I am already dead when my twin reaches to me. Incorrect. Your scenario is undefined, like a physics version of dividing by zero. Change your scenario. Then we can discuss it ... unless you don't want to discuss it. Xadoman wrote:That means that the light bulb will never switch of for me. Which tells you that there is something wrong with your scenario. Xadoman wrote:Relativity theory is just too complicated to understand for me anyway. It's a piece of cake. Easy-Peezy-Lemon-Squeezy. You just have to listen when it is explained to you. Xadoman wrote:It is just fun to think about that stuff. It's much more fun when you think about it correctly.
16-02-2022 22:54
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Xadoman is talking about thought experiments. Just the thought of a passenger on a photon. Haven't you ever taken a ride on a photon? There used to be many photons you could hop on.
16-02-2022 23:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	keepit wrote: Xadoman is talking about thought experiments. Just the thought of a passenger on a photon. Haven't you ever taken a ride on a photon? There used to be many photons you could hop on. Have you ever divided by zero? What possibilities are there to explore? What thought experiments can we devise centered around dividing by zero? Let me know your answers so I can best explain your error to you.
16-02-2022 23:48
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	All i know about that s undefined. Didn't think i'd hit a nerve ibd.
17-02-2022 08:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	keepit wrote:All i know about that s undefined. I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions. Is there a reason? keepit wrote:Didn't think i'd hit a nerve ibd. You didn't. You said something stupid but you don't realize why it is stupid. I'm trying to help you understand why it was stupid.
17-02-2022 17:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: All i know about that s undefined. Didn't think i'd hit a nerve ibd. So is 'riding on a photon'. IBD brings up a correct equivalence. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-03-2022 22:12
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	I found a guy who has a different view on " modern science". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZihVInR_w5Q&ab_channel=TheoriaApophasis I am not going to say whether he is right or wrong but it makes me think more about things. Why should we blindly belive what "modern science" tells us? Here is a video about how R. Feynman can not explain what a magnet is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA&ab_channel=firewalker I like Feynman but he indeed weaseled out of the question like some kind of politician.
31-03-2022 00:42
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	"Without thinking geometrically and just manipulating symbols he fell into a hole himself" . Stephen Cothers on Hilberts math on black holes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBIt7bHt9s I am only 14 minutes in but it seems another good video about the fraud of "modern science".
31-03-2022 04:19
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	Xadoman wrote: Could anybody explain this to me. I have read that if we have identical twins and one of them is going to a space travel with a very fast spaceship( near the speed of light ) and when he returns the other twin has aged more. He could be an old man or even be dead. I have also read that it takes 8 minutes for a light to reach from sun to earth. Lets say that one twin stays on earth and the other twin sits on the photon which starts it jorney towards earth. Lets say both are 20 years old at the starting point. If they meet on earth, is the twin on earth aged a lot more? None of Einstein's math actually works out fully as there are parts of the universe measured at traveling 5 times light speed and besides his math told him that the universe wasn't moving at all.
31-03-2022 04:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Swan wrote:None of Einstein's math actually works out fully as there are parts of the universe measured at traveling 5 times light speed LOL! What a schizzo retard. You, of all people, claiming to find fault with Einstein's math! LOL! LOL! ROFLOOSDHGDSFJGSCDGAJSLOL! Yawn. So some schmuckk tells you that "parts" of the universe were "measured" traveling 5 times the speed of light ... and not only do you not call booolsch't, not only do you simply believe it without question, you turn around and start regurgitating it on the internet! LOL! LOL! LOLOPSDJRMLWNCECDSFOL! Yawn. The O2 is keeping its distance from you, isn't it? LOL! Swan wrote:and besides his math told him that the universe wasn't moving at all. What math would that be? LOL! Yawn. LOL! Get back to your wanking, LOLAYWLOL! Attached image:

31-03-2022 10:20
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Hey IbdaMann, the GPS system by itself debunks relativity. Here is a quote from Tom van Flandern( the guy worked with the GPS project): "...the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet "the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch. They have basically blown off Einstein." I am afraid you have been "fuld" by "modern science".
31-03-2022 15:19
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:None of Einstein's math actually works out fully as there are parts of the universe measured at traveling 5 times light speed LOL! What a schizzo retard. You, of all people, claiming to find fault with Einstein's math! LOL! LOL! ROFLOOSDHGDSFJGSCDGAJSLOL! Yawn. So some schmuckk tells you that "parts" of the universe were "measured" traveling 5 times the speed of light ... and not only do you not call booolsch't, not only do you simply believe it without question, you turn around and start regurgitating it on the internet! LOL! LOL! LOLOPSDJRMLWNCECDSFOL! Yawn. The O2 is keeping its distance from you, isn't it? LOL! Swan wrote:and besides his math told him that the universe wasn't moving at all. What math would that be? LOL! Yawn. LOL! Get back to your wanking, LOLAYWLOL! Did Einstein's math tell him that the Universe was static or not moving? Answer Yes Interpretive statement, Hubble explained to Einstein that his math was all wrong, and hairy actually agreed Study history before babbling again
31-03-2022 16:51
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: Xadoman is talking about thought experiments. Just the thought of a passenger on a photon. Haven't you ever taken a ride on a photon? There used to be many photons you could hop on. Have you ever divided by zero? What possibilities are there to explore? What thought experiments can we devise centered around dividing by zero? Let me know your answers so I can best explain your error to you. I like dividing by 0... it's fun... It makes the calculator program on my computer display a "cannot divide by zero" message. Why can't the damn thing just give me a straight answer?!!
31-03-2022 23:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: Hey IbdaMann, the GPS system by itself debunks relativity. Here is a quote from Tom van Flandern( the guy worked with the GPS project): "...the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system "works." Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet "the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch. They have basically blown off Einstein." I am afraid you have been "fuld" by "modern science". Not a bit of it. The difference in time is not due to relative speeds (which creates a negligible difference) but due to the distance the satellite is from the receiver. It takes time for light to travel from orbit to the surface, even the low orbit that GPS uses. Light travels approx 300,000 meters per second in a vacuum. The satellite doesn't quite know where it is. That's one reason your receiver must be able to receive several satellites before it can get any idea of it's lateral position, and even more are required to get any idea of altitude. By the time you add it all up, the receiver can be accurate up to +-30ft lateral, and +-100 ft in altitude. The GPS satellites themselves recalibrate their position from time to time as they pass over fixed beacons on Earth. In between, they are just coasting in orbit, the speed of which varies somewhat due to inconsistent gravity fields from inconsistent density of Earth's surface and even within the mantle of Earth. In other words, GPS uses beacons on Earth itself as a 'gps' signal, measuring them in exactly the same way a GPS receiver does...by doppler. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-03-2022 23:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:None of Einstein's math actually works out fully as there are parts of the universe measured at traveling 5 times light speed LOL! What a schizzo retard. You, of all people, claiming to find fault with Einstein's math! LOL! LOL! ROFLOOSDHGDSFJGSCDGAJSLOL! Yawn. So some schmuckk tells you that "parts" of the universe were "measured" traveling 5 times the speed of light ... and not only do you not call booolsch't, not only do you simply believe it without question, you turn around and start regurgitating it on the internet! LOL! LOL! LOLOPSDJRMLWNCECDSFOL! Yawn. The O2 is keeping its distance from you, isn't it? LOL! Swan wrote:and besides his math told him that the universe wasn't moving at all. What math would that be? LOL! Yawn. LOL! Get back to your wanking, LOLAYWLOL! Did Einstein's math tell him that the Universe was static or not moving? Answer Yes Interpretive statement, Hubble explained to Einstein that his math was all wrong, and hairy actually agreed Study history before babbling again It did not say either way. The Universe has no known boundaries. For all practical purposes, at least, it's infinite in size. Before Einstein, it was assumed that there was an absolute zero speed. Newton's law of motion was able to work with this model, even though we no longer use it. Nothing about the changed model invalidates any part of Newtons law of motion. Einstein simply noted that there was no absolute zero speed. What you call zero is literally what you want to call zero. Speed is always a relative description, not an absolute one. You can call the ground zero speed and measure how fast your car is moving relative to it. You can call the wind zero speed and measure how fast your airplane is moving relative to it (airspeed), you can use the ground again and measure against that (groundspeed). You can call a current in the ocean zero speed and measure your boat's movement relative to is as a speed. You can call a single point in Earth's orbit zero speed and measure the speed of Earth relative to it as it orbits the Sun. And it goes on...and on... Are you moving? Or is the thing you are riding moving? Or is the planet you are riding it on moving? Or is the Sun moving? Or is the galaxy moving? What you call 'zero' is strictly up to you. However, Einstein's model does have an absolute speed: the speed of light in a vacuum. No matter how fast you are going, the speed of light relative to you is always the same. This was one of the things shown by the Michaelson-Morley experiment when they tried to measure the effect of the 'aether' on light. The experiment falsified the theory that light had to be waving in something. Turns out, it doesn't. Light waves need no medium at all! It also showed that no matter which light is moving 'relative' to a point in space, that speed is always the same. The result was Einstein's theory, and the time dilation problem that came with it. With the relative speeds even between satellites and Earth, this time dilation is small enough to be insignificant and can be safely ignored. That includes GPS. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-03-2022 23:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: Xadoman is talking about thought experiments. Just the thought of a passenger on a photon. Haven't you ever taken a ride on a photon? There used to be many photons you could hop on. Have you ever divided by zero? What possibilities are there to explore? What thought experiments can we devise centered around dividing by zero? Let me know your answers so I can best explain your error to you. I like dividing by 0... it's fun... It makes the calculator program on my computer display a "cannot divide by zero" message. Why can't the damn thing just give me a straight answer?!! I guess that's how your calculator spells 'infinity'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 31-03-2022 23:39
01-04-2022 02:53
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:None of Einstein's math actually works out fully as there are parts of the universe measured at traveling 5 times light speed LOL! What a schizzo retard. You, of all people, claiming to find fault with Einstein's math! LOL! LOL! ROFLOOSDHGDSFJGSCDGAJSLOL! Yawn. So some schmuckk tells you that "parts" of the universe were "measured" traveling 5 times the speed of light ... and not only do you not call booolsch't, not only do you simply believe it without question, you turn around and start regurgitating it on the internet! LOL! LOL! LOLOPSDJRMLWNCECDSFOL! Yawn. The O2 is keeping its distance from you, isn't it? LOL! Swan wrote:and besides his math told him that the universe wasn't moving at all. What math would that be? LOL! Yawn. LOL! Get back to your wanking, LOLAYWLOL! Did Einstein's math tell him that the Universe was static or not moving? Answer Yes Interpretive statement, Hubble explained to Einstein that his math was all wrong, and hairy actually agreed Study history before babbling again It did not say either way. The Universe has no known boundaries. For all practical purposes, at least, it's infinite in size. Before Einstein, it was assumed that there was an absolute zero speed. Newton's law of motion was able to work with this model, even though we no longer use it. Nothing about the changed model invalidates any part of Newtons law of motion. Einstein simply noted that there was no absolute zero speed. What you call zero is literally what you want to call zero. Speed is always a relative description, not an absolute one. You can call the ground zero speed and measure how fast your car is moving relative to it. You can call the wind zero speed and measure how fast your airplane is moving relative to it (airspeed), you can use the ground again and measure against that (groundspeed). You can call a current in the ocean zero speed and measure your boat's movement relative to is as a speed. You can call a single point in Earth's orbit zero speed and measure the speed of Earth relative to it as it orbits the Sun. And it goes on...and on... Are you moving? Or is the thing you are riding moving? Or is the planet you are riding it on moving? Or is the Sun moving? Or is the galaxy moving? What you call 'zero' is strictly up to you. However, Einstein's model does have an absolute speed: the speed of light in a vacuum. No matter how fast you are going, the speed of light relative to you is always the same. This was one of the things shown by the Michaelson-Morley experiment when they tried to measure the effect of the 'aether' on light. The experiment falsified the theory that light had to be waving in something. Turns out, it doesn't. Light waves need no medium at all! It also showed that no matter which light is moving 'relative' to a point in space, that speed is always the same. The result was Einstein's theory, and the time dilation problem that came with it. With the relative speeds even between satellites and Earth, this time dilation is small enough to be insignificant and can be safely ignored. That includes GPS. Have you thought about teaching at Princeton janitorial college?
01-04-2022 10:29
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev10ywLFq6E&list=PLFmocgH3VRTFMTtxYlrl8PecgZyAgMQsX&index=25&ab_channel=ThunderboltsProject S. Crothers rips multiple orifices into the big bang and black hole( spawned from relativity theory) mumbo jumbo.
01-04-2022 12:07
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Here is a question for those who like to think about nature. Does the moon spin or not? Most think that it spins but some think it does not. So which is it?
01-04-2022 15:39
Swan★★★★★ (5723)	Xadoman wrote: Here is a question for those who like to think about nature. Does the moon spin or not? Most think that it spins but some think it does not. So which is it? The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this synchronous rotation.
01-04-2022 16:35
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Congratulation, you have been brainwashed by experts, Swan
01-04-2022 20:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: Here is a question for those who like to think about nature. Does the moon spin or not? Most think that it spins but some think it does not. So which is it? The Moon spins at the same period as it's orbit (they are synchronous), leaving the surface of the Moon as we see if from Earth the same. No matter where the Moon is in orbit, we see the same side of the Moon. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-04-2022 20:47
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Moon does not spin. If it would spin then we would see all the sides of the moon. You can try it out by walking around the living room table. Are you spinning or are you orbiting? You are orbiting around the table but do not spin. If you would start to spin around your axis then you would show all the sides of your body to the table. Also, another example, if you drive with your car around the circular trajector , does it mean that you spin over your axis? Nope. You are orbiting around the centre of circular trajector. The car has no spin. The car could have a spin if the road is slippery and makes a 360 degree around its axle.
01-04-2022 22:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: Moon does not spin. If it would spin then we would see all the sides of the moon. Quite the reverse. If the Moon didn't spin, we would see all sides of the Moon, once a month. As it is, the Moon spins at a rate equal to the period of it's orbit, leaving the same side of the Moon always facing Earth. Xadoman wrote: You can try it out by walking around the living room table. Are you spinning or are you orbiting? You are orbiting around the table but do not spin. If you would start to spin around your axis then you would show all the sides of your body to the table. Also, another example, if you drive with your car around the circular trajector , does it mean that you spin over your axis? Nope. You are orbiting around the centre of circular trajector. The car has no spin. The car could have a spin if the road is slippery and makes a 360 degree around its axle. The Earth does not orbit the Moon. False equivalence fallacies. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 01-04-2022 22:46
02-04-2022 00:02
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Running circles around the table is not spinning. The table is an earth and the runner is a moon. This is orbiting. Spinning is revolving around your own axle. If the runner starts to spin over his axis in the same time while running then he would show all his parts towards the table ( earth). Also, consider driving a car along the eqator. The bottom of the car always faces the earth( just like the moon faces always the earth with only one side). Is the car spinning? Nope, it just drives around the world. If the car could somehow spin around its axis during the driving then it would show also the upper side towards the earth.

02-04-2022 00:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: Running circles around the table is not spinning. The table is an earth and the runner is a moon. This is orbiting. Spinning is revolving around your own axle. If the runner starts to spin over his axis in the same time while running then he would show all his parts towards the table ( earth). I can't speak for all runners in your example, but if such runner is, say, running to your left, you will typically only see their left ear. They are spinning at the same period as orbiting the table. Xadoman wrote: Also, consider driving a car along the eqator. The bottom of the car always faces the earth( just like the moon faces always the earth with only one side). Is the car spinning? Yes. Xadoman wrote: Nope, it just drives around the world. It is also spinning. Xadoman wrote: If the car could somehow spin around its axis during the driving then it would show also the upper side towards the earth. Not if the spin is the same as it's speed along the curvature of the Earth. Of course, cars generally won't make it around the world that way. No road. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-04-2022 01:31
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Xadoman wrote: Moon does not spin. I was just about to agree with you, but Into the Night being a pilot and all....well he's probably right on this. This kind of thing rattles my brain a bit, so I do what I always do to figure stuff out. I started making pictures. Sure enough, it does appear the moon MUST rotate. In my picture, for the 3 on the clock to always face the earth, I had to ROTATE it 180 degrees. Notice the red second hand. Hope this helps. I know my beer will taste just a bit better tonight. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Attached image:
02-04-2022 02:59
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Gas, take this clock into your hand and hold it for exmple at 3 a clock( facing upwards ofcourse). Now make a full revolution over you axis holding the clock in your hand. Did you feel any spinning of the clock in your hand? Nope. The clock did not spin at all. You still hold the clock at 3 a clock. Now make another full revolution over your axis but this time simultaneously with the aid of another hand start to slowly rotate the clock in your hand so that it makes a full revolution over its axis as well. You quickly understand that all the numbers on the clock will slip through your holding hand. At this point it becomes clear that the moon does not spin over its axis. Yes, it is quite a mindf..ck but it is what it is. Edited on 02-04-2022 03:00
02-04-2022 03:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Xadoman wrote:Did you feel any spinning of the clock in your hand? Nope. Now I understand why you are confused. The problem turns out to be you. You believe that spinning must be felt ... and if you don't feel it spinning, it must not be spinning. Of course you don't believe the moon rotates ... you don't feel it rotating. I'm glad we were able to clear that up. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-04-2022 04:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Xadoman wrote:Hey IbdaMann, the GPS system by itself debunks relativity. I have to hear this one. Xadoman wrote:Here is a quote from Tom van Flandern( the guy worked with the GPS project): "...the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. No, they did not. Xadoman wrote:They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks False. Why are you citing this blurb instead of calling boooooolsch't? Aaaahhh, I know, you don't understand Relativity sufficiently to know when someone is booooolsch'ting you. Regarding the first point above, the GPS engineers are the engineers. They are not the DoD customer. I don't know why you believe that the DoD would ever write into the contract that engineers can fuqq with the clocks. Regarding the second point, nobody, I believe, in the DoD thinks that objects in different inertial frames of reference can somehow be synchronized. They understand Relativity and, unlike you, know what an inertial frame of reference is. Instead, the DoD does the best it can by using ground stations to send out a time pulse to minimize error. Xadoman wrote: Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. Did you catch the goalpost shift there? Did you notice that the speaker did not say "with perfect precision"? Did you catch the admission that there [would be] error? Xadoman wrote:In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth's surface), and since in Einstein's theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. ... and they do. They are fed timestamps from ground stations. Constantly. Xadoman wrote:This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. Nope. They work just fine as you noticed. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-04-2022 06:40
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Moon does not spin - it is tidally locked to earth my friends Already billions of years ago supposedly. If it would spin then we would surely see the other side of it This is why we have here on earth day and night alternations- because the earth spins. If it were tidally locked to sun ( no spin) we would have no day and night alternations.
02-04-2022 06:46
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Xadoman wrote: Moon does not spin - it is tidally locked to earth my friends Already billions of years ago supposedly. If it would spin then we would surely see the other side of it This is why we have here on earth day and night alternations- because the earth spins. If it were tidally locked to sun ( no spin) we would have no day and night alternations. So the moon doesn't have day and night? That's a new one for me. Thanks bro. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
02-04-2022 06:51
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Here is a visual: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL3rOdAR-Xk&ab_channel=olegs So the moon doesn't have day and night? That's a new one for me. Thanks bro. I am talking about the earth. We have day and night alternations because of the spin of the earth. Simple as that. Without the spin in tidal lock the earth would face the sun with just only one face just like the moon faces earth currently. Edited on 02-04-2022 06:54
02-04-2022 07:05
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Xadoman wrote: Here is a visual: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL3rOdAR-Xk&ab_channel=olegs So the moon doesn't have day and night? That's a new one for me. Thanks bro. I am talking about the earth. We have day and night alternations because of the spin of the earth. Simple as that. Without the spin in tidal lock the earth would face the sun with just only one face just like the moon faces earth currently. I'm talking about the moon. The moon has day and night alternations because of the spin of the moon. Simple as that. Without the spin the moon would face the sun with just only one face. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
02-04-2022 08:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	GasGuzzler wrote:So the moon doesn't have day and night? That's a new one for me. Thanks bro. Well, duhhh! That's why they call it the DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. Think about it. The moon is tidally locked to the earth. The tides locked the moon to the earth a billion years ago. You don't see the tides just floating off into space, do you? Just like you don't see the moon floating off into space. Tidally locked. Attached image:

Page 1 of 8

Join the debate Relativity theory:

Threads	Replies	Last post
I have a theory	123	16-06-2023 19:16
Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness.	111	08-06-2023 02:39
What is the cause of climate change based on the greenhouse gas theory?	82	04-02-2023 20:51
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22
Grand Unified Theory	32	12-05-2022 19:54