Velocity Reviews > Proving an Einstein theory

# Proving an Einstein theory

richard
Guest
Posts: n/a

 09-26-2010
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ster-upstairs/

If this theory really is true consider this:

An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10 years
out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his clock be so far
off his mission goal may not have been reached?
Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks. So then if these
scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his timepiece to
the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that clock will be a second
or two off from those on the ground.
So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.

Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the base of
the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick for tick. Now
place on the roof and check again. According to Einstein, the roof top one
should be in the future.

At least digital clocks would not be effected.

Whiskers
Guest
Posts: n/a

 09-26-2010
On 2010-09-26, richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ster-upstairs/
>
> If this theory really is true consider this:
>
> An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10 years
> out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his clock be so far
> off his mission goal may not have been reached?

Only if he reaches the speed of light, or falls into a black hole, at which
moment time will stop for him but not for the people back on Earth. In
all other possible scenarios, his ten year trip will appear to last more
than ten years to the people bacvk home.

> Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks.

No. Einstein is saying that gravity affects the rate at which time
passes; clocks are merely familiar devices for measuring the passage of
time.

> So then if these
> scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his timepiece to
> the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that clock will be a second
> or two off from those on the ground.
> So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.

At the height of 'Big Ben', the difference is too small to have been
detectable at all until the latest most sensitive clocks were invented.
In any case, 'Big Ben' is carefully regulated to keep time within a small
margin of error compared with the network of 'standard' atomic clocks that
are used to define 'Earth time'. And you can be certain that any time you
hear the bong of the bell, the bell bonged in your (and its) past.

> Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the base of
> the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick for tick. Now
> place on the roof and check again. According to Einstein, the roof top one
> should be in the future.

No.

> At least digital clocks would not be effected.

The type of display fitted to a clock can make the clock immune to the
effects of 'time dilation'? Does that apply to the table the clock stands
on too, or not? What about the floor the table stands on?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

philo
Guest
Posts: n/a

 09-26-2010
On 09/26/2010 02:24 AM, richard wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ster-upstairs/
>
> If this theory really is true consider this:
>
> An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10 years
> out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his clock be so far
> off his mission goal may not have been reached?
> Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks. So then if these
> scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his timepiece to
> the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that clock will be a second
> or two off from those on the ground.
> So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.
>
> Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the base of
> the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick for tick. Now
> place on the roof and check again. According to Einstein, the roof top one
> should be in the future.
>
> At least digital clocks would not be effected.

The experiment has apparently been done with vessels orbiting the earth
and the theory was proven to be true...

but really...even though it's been explained to me it still does not
make sense.

Maybe someone here can explain it in language that I can understand...

Meat Plow
Guest
Posts: n/a

 09-26-2010
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 00:24:20 -0700, richard wrote:

> If this theory really is true consider this:

It's already been proven that satellites in orbit do not

--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

§ñühw¤£f
Guest
Posts: n/a

 09-26-2010
richard wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ster-upstairs/
>
> If this theory really is true consider this:
>
> An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10 years
> out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his clock be so far
> off his mission goal may not have been reached?

No. As long as he reaches his destination and returns successfully. Time
differences are factored in and will be expected.

> Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks.

GRavity (as in gravity wells) *affects* any physical object that
encounters them. So a large singularity would slow the clock (as
observed by the person holding it) as the event horizon is reached. Then
the stretching begins And as your molecules are torn apart you forget
why you gave a **** about clocks and "time" in the first place.

> So then if these
> scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his timepiece to
> the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that clock will be a second
> or two off from those on the ground.

Not by any appreciable amount. To get the real theoretical effect you
would have to have two watches sync'd: one on earth and one at say L5.
Now, in order to experience this phenom, spin the earth up a few hundred
years (earth time), now check the time peices. They would be off by a
small measure.

> So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.
>

All time is relative. Read up for moer better understandingses

> Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the base of
> the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick for tick. Now
> place on the roof and check again. According to Einstein, the roof top one
> should be in the future.
>

Not in any appreciable amount. But yes, if yer counting fractions of
nano-seconds. :/

> At least digital clocks would not be effected.

Uh....WTF?

Here, read this and edumacate yerself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society

--
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a

 09-27-2010
philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:i7ncl4\$dsj\$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:

> On 09/26/2010 02:24 AM, richard wrote:
>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ster-upstairs/
>>
>> If this theory really is true consider this:
>>
>> An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10
>> years out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his
>> clock be so far off his mission goal may not have been reached?
>> Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks. So then if
>> these scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his
>> timepiece to the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that
>> clock will be a second or two off from those on the ground.
>> So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.
>>
>> Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the
>> base of the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick
>> for tick. Now place on the roof and check again. According to
>> Einstein, the roof top one should be in the future.
>>
>> At least digital clocks would not be effected.

>
>
> The experiment has apparently been done with vessels orbiting the
> earth and the theory was proven to be true...
>
> but really...even though it's been explained to me it still does not
> make sense.
>
> Maybe someone here can explain it in language that I can understand...
>
>

The universe is wierd. Wierder than any writer can imagine.

That old saying about truth is stranger than fiction was understating a
universal truth. Do you know that if you create a good enough vacuum,
matter and anti-matter particles start being created in it
spontaneously?

There is no *reason* for it that we know, it's the result of a side
effect of the mathematics that generated the theory. Hell no one even
knows what gravity *is*. Or light. Or matter really. Or energy. They
just know how some of it behaves. Sometimes On a planet. And it was far
from a in physics in that regard either: Quantum Mechanics, Ernst Mach
stating that breaking the sound barrier was impossible and the absence
of a atomic nucleus are all things that were around or created while
Einstein was alive.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a

 09-27-2010
richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ster-upstairs/
>
> If this theory really is true consider this:
>

Of course it's *true*. That is to say special relativity is a law. In
the physics sense. How *Fox* states it I'm not going to even try to
unravel.

<snip>

nor am I going to try to work out some elementary school math problem
that's used to try to allow Fox to understand such.

The facts are:
1. You cannot go the *speed* of light.
1a. You could go faster than it, if there's a parallel for a complex
number in the real world.

2. As you get faster to the speed of light, you mass increases
exponentially reaching an asymtote at the speed of light.
2.a. As well your lenght in the direction of travel increases by
the same formula in the direction of travel.
2.b. as well time for the rest of the universe moves faster from
your perspective by the same formula.
2.c. The same affect is created by a large enough gravity field.
2.d. This formula is simple algebra and is called the Tau factor
(after the greek letter).

Look it up if you want to actually *understand* this strangeness. You
simply cannot without looking at the math. That was true in 1915 and
it's true now.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

Dan C
Guest
Posts: n/a

 09-27-2010
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:43:59 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

> richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ster-upstairs/
>>
>> If this theory really is true consider this:
>>

> Of course it's *true*. That is to say special relativity is a law. In
> the physics sense. How *Fox* states it I'm not going to even try to
> unravel.
>
> <snip>
>
> nor am I going to try to work out some elementary school math problem
> that's used to try to allow Fox to understand such.
>
> The facts are:
> 1. You cannot go the *speed* of light. 1a. You could go faster than it,
> if there's a parallel for a complex number in the real world.
>
> 2. As you get faster to the speed of light, you mass increases
> exponentially reaching an asymtote at the speed of light. 2.a. As well
> your lenght in the direction of travel increases by the same formula in
> the direction of travel. 2.b. as well time for the rest of the universe
> moves faster from your perspective by the same formula. 2.c. The same
> affect is created by a large enough gravity field. 2.d. This formula is
> simple algebra and is called the Tau factor (after the greek letter).
>
> Look it up if you want to actually *understand* this strangeness. You
> simply cannot without looking at the math. That was true in 1915 and
> it's true now.

Jesus you are one dumb ****.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he dropped the razor on his gonads.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg

Desk Rabbit
Guest
Posts: n/a

 09-27-2010
On 26/09/2010 08:24, richard wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ster-upstairs/
>
> If this theory really is true consider this:
>
> An astronaut is launced in a spaceship with the intent to travel 10 years
> out and back. As he moves farther away from earth, will his clock be so far
> off his mission goal may not have been reached?
> Einstein though is saying that gravity effects clocks. So then if these
> scientists are confirming his theory, then one can not set his timepiece to
> the time shown on Big Ben in London England as that clock will be a second
> or two off from those on the ground.
> So when it strikes the hour, it is actually doing so in your future.
>
> Now let's really test this theory. Put two clocks together at the base of
> the Empire state building. Synchronize them perfectly tick for tick. Now
> place on the roof and check again. According to Einstein, the roof top one
> should be in the future.
>
> At least digital clocks would not be effected.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

****ing hilarious!

You complete ****ing brain dead moron.

Desk Rabbit
Guest
Posts: n/a

 09-27-2010
On 27/09/2010 04:36, Dan C wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:43:59 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>
>> richard<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ster-upstairs/
>>>
>>> If this theory really is true consider this:
>>>

>> Of course it's *true*. That is to say special relativity is a law. In
>> the physics sense. How *Fox* states it I'm not going to even try to
>> unravel.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> nor am I going to try to work out some elementary school math problem
>> that's used to try to allow Fox to understand such.
>>
>> The facts are:
>> 1. You cannot go the *speed* of light. 1a. You could go faster than it,
>> if there's a parallel for a complex number in the real world.
>>
>> 2. As you get faster to the speed of light, you mass increases
>> exponentially reaching an asymtote at the speed of light. 2.a. As well
>> your lenght in the direction of travel increases by the same formula in
>> the direction of travel. 2.b. as well time for the rest of the universe
>> moves faster from your perspective by the same formula. 2.c. The same
>> affect is created by a large enough gravity field. 2.d. This formula is
>> simple algebra and is called the Tau factor (after the greek letter).
>>
>> Look it up if you want to actually *understand* this strangeness. You
>> simply cannot without looking at the math. That was true in 1915 and
>> it's true now.

>
> Jesus you are one dumb ****.

I'm disappointed, I thought you were going to tell him to format his
brain. A clean start might be an improvement?