Relativity theory

Xadoman wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
IbdaMann, please explain how ....

No, no, no, .....

It is your turn to explain this:

Your explanation is what comes next. The floor is yours.

Xadoman wrote:Do not you agree there is a big difference between the parts I bolded out? Are you still gonna say it is just a spatial problem and has nothing to do with creating energy out of nothing?

.

Now you are being dishonest, and this is not the first time.

You are asking many questions that have been answered and you are refusing to acknowledge that you fully understand the correct answer by ignoring your responsibility to explain this:

It's your turn to explain, not to ask questions.

Explain. The floor is yours.

This is not an answer - " hey, this is just a spatial problem, look, it obviously rotates".

Xadoman wrote:

You are asking many questions that have been answered

They have not been answered sufficiently. This is not an answer - " hey, this is just a spatial problem, look, it obviously rotates".
Saying that the moon rotates violates the laws of physics- you guys are creating energy out of nothing. The moon has zero rotational energy as Tesla has pointed out. You guys on the other hand keep insisting that moon could

run 1,000,000,000 horsepower for a period of 1,323 years.

James_ wrote:https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/jun/dark-matter-slowing-spin-milky-ways-galactic-bar

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/jun/dark-matter-slowing-spin-milky-ways-galactic-bar

Why should any rational adult believe in the existence of "dark matter"?

James_ wrote: It was in 1919 that astronomers verified Einstein's paper.

James_ wrote:When the velocity of the speed of light is concerned gravity's effect should've been minimal.

James_ wrote: The only way light could bend more than matter which travels about 1/10,000 the speed of light is if light followed what propagates its motion.

James_ wrote: Kind of shows where there's work that's left to be done.

James_ wrote:At the same time, light bending more than matter when passing near the Sun requires light to be interacting with what propagates its motion.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: It was in 1919 that astronomers verified Einstein's paper.

Astronomers did not verify a paper. They demonstrated the energy/mass equivalence by showing that even electromagnetic energy has mass (while not being matter) and that gravity therefore bends light.

James_ wrote:When the velocity of the speed of light is concerned gravity's effect should've been minimal.

There is no "would'a/could'a/should'a" in science. Science predicts nature, i.e. the future tense, and does not exist in the subjunctive.

James_ wrote: The only way light could bend more than matter which travels about 1/10,000 the speed of light is if light followed what propagates its motion.

Ummmm ... nope.

Astronomers cherry-picked a scenario whereby light would be passing a black hole (i.e. strong gravitational field). The hypothesis was that if Einstein is correct, the light will bend from the black hole's gravity. If the light does not bend then light obviously does not have the mass that Einstein claims will be affected by the black hole's gravity.

Einstein's model was not shown to be false.

James_ wrote: Kind of shows where there's work that's left to be done.

I don't follow you.

James_ wrote:At the same time, light bending more than matter when passing near the Sun requires light to be interacting with what propagates its motion.

Light does not bend more than matter.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

Light does not bend more than matter.

.

Into the Night wrote:
To stop the Earth would probably kill a lot of people. It would be like a 1000 mph wreck.

Why should any rational adult believe in the existence of "dark matter"?

Xadoman wrote:Why should a rational adult belive in gravitational "time dilation"?

Xadoman wrote:Why should a rational adult belive in black holes?

Xadoman wrote:Did you know that according to Einstein it is not gravity that holds things together in space but "curved time space"?

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:Why should a rational adult belive in gravitational "time dilation"?

Demonstrated. It's why GPS satellites cannot be synchronized.

Xadoman wrote:Why should a rational adult belive in black holes?

Observed, at least their effects are.

Xadoman wrote:Did you know that according to Einstein it is not gravity that holds things together in space but "curved time space"?

Did you know that it doesn't matter what Einstein thought? All that matters is what General Relativity specifies ... and it remains standing.

I notice that you won't admit that the moon rotates. Your dishonesty is earning you mockery. Spongy Iris offered a conceptualization involving using a cell phone; essentially, you know that if the earth were suddenly to become invisible, the moon would rotate through an entire 360 view of space. Did you want to admit to your silliness now?

.

Demonstrated. It's why GPS satellites cannot be synchronized.

Observed, at least their effects are.

I notice that you won't admit that the moon rotates

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:Why should a rational adult belive in gravitational "time dilation"?

Demonstrated. It's why GPS satellites cannot be synchronized.

Xadoman wrote:Why should a rational adult belive in black holes?

Observed, at least their effects are.

Xadoman wrote:Did you know that according to Einstein it is not gravity that holds things together in space but "curved time space"?

Did you know that it doesn't matter what Einstein thought? All that matters is what General Relativity specifies ... and it remains standing.

I notice that you won't admit that the moon rotates. Your dishonesty is earning you mockery. Spongy Iris offered a conceptualization involving using a cell phone; essentially, you know that if the earth were suddenly to become invisible, the moon would rotate through an entire 360 view of space. Did you want to admit to your silliness now?

.

Swan wrote:Are you the nuclear physicist who never left his mommies basement? Silly

Xadoman wrote:

Demonstrated. It's why GPS satellites cannot be synchronized.

Sand clock on earth can not be synhronised with sand clock in space. Does not mean there is a time dilation.

Xadoman wrote:

Observed, at least their effects are.

Fairy tales and movies, nothing more. Infinite density in infinitely small space is sillyness.

Xadoman wrote:

I notice that you won't admit that the moon rotates

Xadoman wrote:
Venus is closing to zero rotational body from sidereal view. It actually has at that moment 1 rotation to lose before becoming tidally locked to the sun. From sidereal view by your logic venus stop spinning and then it will start to spin again. Are you going to say that tidal forces stop venus spinning and then accelerate it to spin again

Xadoman wrote:
Here is a demonstration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw&ab_channel=csaitruthorg

At approximately 4 minutes you can see a zero rotational body. It actually rotates but its orbiting motion gives an illusion that it does not rotate. This is what the Venus is closing to - to a zero rotational body from sidereal view. It is a transitory position as Venus has at that point one more rotation to bleed off by tidal forces before becoming tidally locked to the sun.

Into the Night wrote:Sand clocks don't really work in space, dude.

Sand clocks don't really work in space, dude.

Nope. It will stay spinning.

Xadoman wrote:

Sand clocks don't really work in space, dude.

That is the problem. What makes you think other clocks work perfectly and show "time dilation".

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Sand clocks don't really work in space, dude.

That is the problem. What makes you think other clocks work perfectly and show "time dilation".

Are you joking? Do you really not understand how hourglasses work?

An hourglass cannot function where there is no gravity whereas any spring-loaded or electric clock will function just fine.

Time dilation occurs because of differences between inertial frames of reference.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Are you the nuclear physicist who never left his mommies basement? Silly

To your growing list of silly delusions we'll add your conviction that the moon does not rotate in an absolute sense.

Remind me, how is it you are so familiar with schizzo meds?

.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Sand clocks don't really work in space, dude.

That is the problem. What makes you think other clocks work perfectly and show "time dilation".

Are you joking? Do you really not understand how hourglasses work?

An hourglass cannot function where there is no gravity whereas any spring-loaded or electric clock will function just fine.

Time dilation occurs because of differences between inertial frames of reference.

And the space station is spinning too!

Swan wrote:As I already told you the moon rotates around the Earth every 27.3 days,

Swan wrote:I am not sure why you deny this.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:As I already told you the moon rotates around the Earth every 27.3 days,

Does the moon rotate around the earth ... or does it revolve around the earth? Why should any rational adult believe that the earth is somehow the moon's axis?

You didn't do too well in science class. Ask me how I know.

Swan wrote:I am not sure why you deny this.

I'm not sure why you believe the earth is somehow the moon's axis but it cannot be. The earth is visible from the moon's surface. It can't be the moon's axis.

Remind me, why are you taking schizzo meds?

.

Swan wrote:Again the moon both rotates around the Earth and it also rotates on it's own axis.

Are you joking? Do you really not understand how hourglasses work?

An hourglass cannot function where there is no gravity whereas any spring-loaded or electric clock will function just fine.

Time dilation occurs because of differences between inertial frames of reference.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Again the moon both rotates around the Earth and it also rotates on it's own axis.

Are you aware that Xadoman is the one claiming that the moon does not rotate?

You seem to be making lame attempts to attack me over Xadoman's position. I totally appreciate the attention and you know that I enjoy mixing it up with you, but I can't take credit for claiming that the moon doesn't rotate.

.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Are you the nuclear physicist who never left his mommies basement? Silly

To your growing list of silly delusions we'll add your conviction that the moon does not rotate in an absolute sense.

Remind me, how is it you are so familiar with schizzo meds?

.

As I already told you the moon rotates around the Earth every 27.3 days, I am not sure why you deny this. However if you do take your meds on time you may be able to comprehend.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Sand clocks don't really work in space, dude.

That is the problem. What makes you think other clocks work perfectly and show "time dilation".

Are you joking? Do you really not understand how hourglasses work?

An hourglass cannot function where there is no gravity whereas any spring-loaded or electric clock will function just fine.

Time dilation occurs because of differences between inertial frames of reference.

And the space station is spinning too!

Actually the space station does not spin at all, it does however orbit the Earth at 17,000 mph

Now you know

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually the space station does not spin at all, it does however orbit the Earth at 17,000 mph

Now you know

The space station spins once every 92 minutes.

Xadoman wrote:

Are you joking? Do you really not understand how hourglasses work?

An hourglass cannot function where there is no gravity whereas any spring-loaded or electric clock will function just fine.

Time dilation occurs because of differences between inertial frames of reference.

Conditions are different. For example in space there is no air and therefore no air friction. Also the clock in space is further from the earth than a clock on earth. There are spinning object in clocks so tidal forces are different because of the distance difference etc etc. The velocities are different causing different centrifugal forces which will end up causing different frictions in shafts etc etc.
The perfect synhronization of clocks is a fairy tale. There are so many factors which will fück up the synhronization and this is not a mysterious "time dilation".

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Again the moon both rotates around the Earth and it also rotates on it's own axis.

Are you aware that Xadoman is the one claiming that the moon does not rotate?

You seem to be making lame attempts to attack me over Xadoman's position. I totally appreciate the attention and you know that I enjoy mixing it up with you, but I can't take credit for claiming that the moon doesn't rotate.

.

The moon has 4 rotations and one straight line direction of movement that I am aware of.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually the space station does not spin at all, it does however orbit the Earth at 17,000 mph

Now you know

The space station spins once every 92 minutes.

New, updated pic.

92 minutes is less than an hour on the space station when they use an hourglass.

.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Are you the nuclear physicist who never left his mommies basement? Silly

To your growing list of silly delusions we'll add your conviction that the moon does not rotate in an absolute sense.

Remind me, how is it you are so familiar with schizzo meds?

.

As I already told you the moon rotates around the Earth every 27.3 days, I am not sure why you deny this. However if you do take your meds on time you may be able to comprehend.

The Moon doesn't orbit Earth. They orbit each other around a point called a barycenter. Moon doesn't rotate around the Earth. It spins. The Moon is not inside the Earth.

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually the space station does not spin at all, it does however orbit the Earth at 17,000 mph

Now you know

The space station spins once every 92 minutes.

New, updated pic.

92 minutes is less than an hour on the space station when they use an hourglass.

.

...and now Swans's head is also spinning.

For your safety, please exit the ride via the red X...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Again the moon both rotates around the Earth and it also rotates on it's own axis.

Are you aware that Xadoman is the one claiming that the moon does not rotate?

You seem to be making lame attempts to attack me over Xadoman's position. I totally appreciate the attention and you know that I enjoy mixing it up with you, but I can't take credit for claiming that the moon doesn't rotate.

.

The moon has 4 rotations and one straight line direction of movement that I am aware of.

Just one. The Moon doesn't move in a straight line.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The Moon doesn't orbit Earth. They orbit each other around a point called a barycenter. Moon doesn't rotate around the Earth. It spins. The Moon is not inside the Earth.

As I already told you the moon rotates around the Earth every 27.3 days, I am not sure why you deny this.

There is a reason that you teach here and not at a University

Friction is not a factor to time.

Whenever you have two bodies, both masses contribute to the gravity between them and they both affect each other.

Xadoman wrote:

IBDaMann wrote: Whenever you have two bodies, both masses contribute to the gravity between them and they both affect each other.

What gravity?

Xadoman wrote: Bending time space is the one to be blamed keeping them together according to Einstein.