Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Daylightstar]

...
Let us say you live at planet C... planet XZY
Slower or faster ?

Isn't it difficult Bjarne, when you can't properly express what goes on in your head?

 

[Bjarne]

I will try to translate this question.

Around a sun there are three planets, A, B, and C. These three planets share the same orbital path around the sun and are clustered together, like three cyclists drafting each other. Planet A will be considered the lead planet. These three planets orbit the sun not at the sun's equator, but at +45 degree latitude. The speed of these three planets in their orbit is 50,000 km/s. There are three additional identical planets, X, Y, Z, (X is the lead planet) but they are travelling counter to A, B, and C as well as at -45 degree latitude. We shall label these three additional planets, the Counter planets. In addition, X, Y, and Z, travel in their orbit at 100,000 km/s.

Forget about orbits, this wills only confuse you.

Let us say you live at planet C
Above you head suddenly 3 planets would overtake your home planet "C"
The speed of the planets ZXY (above your head) = 100,000 km/s

We assume you know these planet (ZXY ) really are faster, - it is not planet ABC that is faster.
The planets; ABC, - is relative to planets ZXY, - in rest.

Question:
Would time on the planets (ZXY ) tick slower or faster compared to time at planet C where you live?

Now imaging that exactly when Planet "X" is above you head a rocket (from planet X) would be launched and move in the opposite motion direction of the planets ZXY motion direction.
Speed of that rocket (in the opposite direction as the motion direction of planet ZXY ) = 100,000 km/s - (towards "east").

Which mean speed of the rocket relative to your speed (at planet C) = zero, - but relative to the planets ZXY it would be 100.000 km/s ( The planets ZXY continues to move with 100,000 km/s - towards "west")

Now...
How would time tick at the captains watch (at the spacecraft) , - relative to the time at the planets ZXY .
Slower or faster ?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
The planets; ABC, - is relative to planets ZXY, - in rest.
...

You see, this way you make it blatantly obvious that you know nothing about relativity!
Let alone the rest of your post.

By the way, why don't you make some effort to improve your spelling?

 

[Bjarne]

You see, this way you make it blatantly obvious that you know nothing about relativity!
Let alone the rest of your post.

By the way, why don't you make some effort to improve your spelling?

This post only shows that you haven’t understood that observation of speed seen from the perspective of the Earth, and relative to the Earth always begins with speed zero. This is yours reference frame, and that is relative to everything else, and therefore in rest.

• Why do you not read some relativity before you
  
  too much?
• Why are you afraid to answer the questions?

 

[Daylightstar]

This post only shows that you haven’t understood that observation of speed seen from the perspective of the Earth, and relative to the Earth always begins with speed zero. This is yours reference frame, and that is relative to everything else, and therefore in rest.

• Why do you not read some relativity before you [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/crazygreen_v2/realmad.gif[/qimg] too much?
• Why are you afraid to answer the questions?

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}
You haven't actually defined a frame of reference .....

About the yapping thingy....is that a yapping frog?
I like it

 

[Bjarne]

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}
You haven't actually defined a frame of reference .....

Read again

 

[Daylightstar]

Read again

Okay...

... observation-of-speed-seen-from-the-perspective-of-the-Earth,-and-relative-to-the-Earth-always-begins-with-speed-zero. This is yours reference frame, and that is relative to everything else, and therefore in rest.
...

^{Italics and stuff added by Daylightstar.}
So sorry, no frame of reference defined.

 

[Paul]

Why do you not read some relativity before you http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/crazygreen_v2/realmad.gif too much?

That is priceless, coming from someone who doesn't even know enough to be called ignorant.

 

[Paul]

I can see either you did not watch the Video, or you did (as expcted) not understood it, or you did (as expected) ignore the reality it was proven.

This is what your genius says about himself on his YouTube channel:

Check out my list of New World Order
videos and documentaries on my web
site. Get an education in what's really
going on in the world. Stop eating porn.
These people intend to kill you ... really.

 

[Bjarne]

Okay...

^{Italics and stuff added by Daylightstar.}So sorry, no frame of reference defined.

You have the Earth (this is planet C) and above you head you do have a spacecraft.
It would look like it was hanging in the air just above you head, just almost like the Moon.
So the speed of that object would be zero relative to you. ( But relative to planet X it would be 100,000 km/s, - but this is a different story)

What more do you need to know, to be able to answer that earth-perspective-(reference-frame)-time-dilation-question?


The other question is; imaging you was living at planet X you would have planet X as reference frame that planet is moving 100,000 km/s towards east.
Towards west you have launched a spacecraft moving 100,000 km/s
How is time ticking on board of the spacecraft watch, relative to a wacth at planet X?

What more do you need to know, to be able to answer the planet-X-perspective- (reference frame)-time-dilation-question?

Still afraid to answer the questions?

 

[Daylightstar]

Are you finished with your multiple edits of your last post? Or do you want to add something?

 

[Daylightstar]

Allright, I guess you are.


So, let's parse your question and see if I understand what you meant to ask correctly.

You propose three clocks, one clock which is part of the frame of reference (zero velocity) and two clocks traveling with matching relativistic velocities of 100,000 km/s, with respect to the frame of reference.
Here you want to know how the clock speeds of the traveling clocks relate to the clock speed of the clock in the frame of reference.

Then, one of the traveling clocks suddenly matches the zero velocity of the frame of reference, and now you want to know how the clock speed of the remaining traveling clock relates to the clock speed of the clock which now matches the zero-velocity of the frame of reference.

Is this what you meant to ask?

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.science27.com/forum/abc7.jpg
OK
Let us say you live at planet C
Above you head suddenly 3 planets would overtake your home planet "C" with a speed of 100,000 km/s
We assume you know these planet are faster, - it is not planet ABC that is faster.
Would time on these planets (XZY) tick slower or faster compared to time at planet C ?

That is really badly stated but:
Me living on planet C would measure time dilation for clocks on planets X, Y and Z.

Exactly when Planet "X" is above you head a rocket would be launched, in the opposite motion direction (compared to planets XZY) so that exactly above you head the rocket would move in the opposite direction also with 100,000 km/h
Wich mean speed relative to you speed of the rocket would be zero, but relative to planet XZY it would be 100.000 km/s
How would time tick at the captains watch, - relative to the time at planet XZY
Slower or faster ?

An observer on planets XZY would measure the captains watch ticking lower (time dilation).

That is standard relativity, i.e. any observer moving with a velocity relative to a clock will measure that the clock is ticking slower than what an observer moving with the clock will measure.

The question just exposes your ignorance once again.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Isn't good to know that planets move east?

And remember everyone, you have up to two hours to make all the edits you want.

 

[Bjarne]

I have simplified the image. But the questions are the same.

REFERENCE FRAME 1
Above you head you do have a spacecraft (above the North pole of the Earth) .
It look like it was hanging a spacecraft in the air just above you head.
The speed of that object is zero relative to you. (we have ignored gravity of the Earth)
So planet C (the Earth) is in relative rest compared to the spacecraft.
( But relative to planet X it would be 100,000 km/s west, - but this is a different reference frame and hence a different story)
Now, - how is time ticking at the watch on board at the spacecraft relative to yours watch (you live at planet C).
(We ignore gravity and rotation influences of the Earth.)
No answers so far.


REFERENCE FRAME 2
Planet X moves east 100,000 km/s. - Just above the Earth's northpole a spacecraft (from planet X) is launched moving 100,000 km/s west relative to planet X.
How would the clock tick at planet X relative to the spacecraft.
RC Wrote

An observer on planets XZY would measure the captains watch ticking lower (time dilation).
That is standard relativity, i.e. any observer moving with a velocity relative to a clock will measure that the clock is ticking slower than what an observer moving with the clock will measure.

Yes RC is correct.
Time at the spacecraft must relative to time at planet X be slower.


REFERENCE FRAME 3
How would the clock tick at planet C relative to a clock at planet X
RC Wrote;

Me living on planet C would measure time dilation for clocks on planets X.

I guess RC mean time is ticking slower at planet X relative to a clock at planet C
What do RC mean?
Is a clock seen from the perspective of C, ticking slower at planet X?
Or do RC mean; ticking faster ?

So left is only to answer 1½ questions

 

[Paul]

How, - how is time ticking at the watch on board at the spacecraft relative to yours watch (you live at planet C).
(We ignore gravity and rotation influences of the Earth.)
No answers so far.

You don't actually think you're being clever with that question, do you?

What is the obvious answer going to add to the conversation?

 

[Paul]

Is a clock seen from the perspective of C, ticking slower at planet X?
Or do RC mean; ticking faster ?

So left is only to answer 1½ questions

Another demonstration of you lack of knowledge.

Read up on time dilation.

 

[Bjarne]

You don't actually think you're being clever with that question, do you?
What is the obvious answer going to add to the conversation?

I guess you have smell the gunpowder already anyway don’t be a sissy, reply to the question.

Read up on time dilation.

Ok 1 Q left

 

[Daylightstar]

...
What do RC mean?...

The same as:

...
An observer on planets XZY would measure the captains watch ticking lower (time dilation).

That is standard relativity, i.e. any observer moving with a velocity relative to a clock will measure that the clock is ticking slower than what an observer moving with the clock will measure.
...

To which you replied with:

...
Yes RC is correct....

 

[Daylightstar]

No answers so far.
...

...

Ok 1 Q left

The same of course. As Paul said, it is indeed obvious and doesn't add anything.