Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[DazzaD]

Do you now understand that time ticks different at earth compared to the ISS (when it was orbiting the same orbit) ?
I seem you don’t
You even don’t understand this
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8011664&postcount=5564
do you ?

Let us try this again.

When you say "time ticks different" do you mean that you believe there is a "universal" clock that would be the same for all that we can compare these clocks against?

 

[Bjarne]

YOU were the one that claimed it was not the same!

I am giving you a chose
1.
Either you believe the laws of gravity not are the same, - in that case one second, at the ISS and the Earth can be the same length both places. But then either distances (1 meter) or/and speed cannot be the same both places.
2.
The other option is; that the law / equation + constant of gravity is the same both places, - in that case we cannot have 2 different time, for orbiting the same orbit, hence the definition of one second can’t be universal. . Furthermore comparable distances can also not.

My conclusion is; - option 2 is correct.

It may well have a LOT to do with integrals actually.. .quite possibly... is one "position" accelerating relative to the other "position"?

You can ignore that.
I mean blow the earth out of the solar system when the first earth-orbit is completed and meassured, - then measure time for one orbit with the ISS.
What I am saying is that it doesn’t need to happen at the same time. The dilemma doesn’t care about whether you can see the ISS. - One orbit is one orbit, and this is what clock would count. - But the clock on board of the ISS would NOT agree.
Is that really so differcult to get through the concrete.

Is the speed constant?

Is it a "circular motion" at "constant" speed?

Do you know what an integral is? Do you know why it may be needed? Do you know the difference between speed and velocity?

Also this is irrelevant.
You don’t need to make it more complicated as it is.

Let us try this again.

When you say "time ticks different" do you mean that you believe there is a "universal" clock that would be the same for all that we can compare these clocks against?

I am saying OUR definition of 1 second, only is valid for “us” – which mean a certain place / gravity “level” on Earth.

So it is OUR concrete definition of one second that is wrong, so soon you try to use it as a universal definition.. So simple is that..

 

[Daylightstar]

...

So it is OUR concrete definition of one second that is wrong, so soon you try to use it as a universal definition.. So simple is that..

And still, for Bjarne:

Bjarne = Absolute Reference Frame.

So simple is that..

 

[DazzaD]

I am giving you a chose
1.
Either you believe the laws of gravity not are the same, - in that case one second, at the ISS and the Earth can be the same length both places. But then either distances (1 meter) or/and speed cannot be the same both places.
2.
The other option is; that the law / equation + constant of gravity is the same both places, - in that case we cannot have 2 different time, for orbiting the same orbit, hence the definition of one second can’t be universal. . Furthermore comparable distances can also not.

My conclusion is; - option 2 is correct.


You can ignore that.
I mean blow the earth out of the solar system when the first earth-orbit is completed and meassured, - then measure time for one orbit with the ISS.
What I am saying is that it doesn’t need to happen at the same time. The dilemma doesn’t care about whether you can see the ISS. - One orbit is one orbit, and this is what clock would count. - But the clock on board of the ISS would NOT agree.
Is that really so differcult to get through the concrete.


Also this is irrelevant.
You don’t need to make it more complicated as it is.


I am saying OUR definition of 1 second, only is valid for “us” – which mean a certain place / gravity “level” on Earth.

So it is OUR concrete definition of one second that is wrong, so soon you try to use it as a universal definition.. So simple is that..

I choose neither because neither make sense. gibberish. You don't understand why the questions I ask are relevant? about speed, velocity, accelerating frames, integrals to find work done etc. and definitions of constants? Then you are 'not even wrong'.

 

[DazzaD]

so you are saying that if, say, an observer at a distant star watched the Earth orbit the Sun and timed it, and we then replaced the Earth somehow with the ISS moving in the exact same orbit in the same way, they would observe a different period for the ISS? or have I got you wrong?

 

[Reality Check]

...gibberish...
My conclusion is; - option 2 is correct.

Your conclusion should be that you have written gibberish and so your conclusion will always be wrong.

The the laws of physics in this case are the same. Those laws are General Relativity. They state that two clocks in the same gravitational field (e.g. both on the surface of the Earth or both in the ISS) will run at the same rate. They state that two clocks in different gravitational fields (e.g. one on the surface of the Earth and another in the ISS) will run at different rates according to the other clock.

So we have

• A clock on the surface of the Earth ticking away at the standard second per second.
• A clock in the ISS ticking away at the standard second per second.
• If you use either clock to measure the rate of the other clock then the measured rate will differ from the clock you are using.

 

[Bjarne]

Your conclusion should be that you have written gibberish and so your conclusion will always be wrong.

The the laws of physics in this case are the same. Those laws are General Relativity. They state that two clocks in the same gravitational field (e.g. both on the surface of the Earth or both in the ISS) will run at the same rate. They state that two clocks in different gravitational fields (e.g. one on the surface of the Earth and another in the ISS) will run at different rates according to the other clock.

So we have

• A clock on the surface of the Earth ticking away at the standard second per second.
• A clock in the ISS ticking away at the standard second per second.
• If you use either clock to measure the rate of the other clock then the measured rate will differ from the clock you are using.

Mother cow have known this is 2351294576450537126,6537446½ billion years.
Of course time is ticking different.

But when the ISS and the Earth is orbiting the excact same orbit, - with the excact same speed, but time consumption is different, then also the orbit circumference is also different.

So you seem to believe that the orbit circumference can be both 250 million km and at the same time 500 million km – right?

Or how would you solve the problem ?

 

[Daylightstar]

Mother cow have known this is 2351294576450537126,6537446½ billion years.
Of course time is ticking different.

But when the ISS and the Earth is orbiting the excact same orbit, - with the excact same speed, but time consumption is different, then also the orbit circumference is also different.

So you seem to believe that the orbit circumference can be both 250 million km and at the same time 500 million km – right?

Or how would you solve the problem ?

^{"Mother cow" bolding by Daylightstar}
Why do you keep bringing your mother in, Bjarne?

 

[Daylightstar]

...

Or how would you solve the problem ?

Pruning.

 

[Paul]

Bjarne, are you perhaps the tiniest bit aware of the meaning of exactly?

 

[Farsight]

It is about someone obsessing with old understanding of science that has been superseded with modern understanding of science.
It is about someone obsessing with scientists and committing the argument from authority fallacy.
It is about someone displaying ignorance of physics.

I'm not displaying ignorance of physics, RC. I'm afraid you are. You don't understand something, and when somebody like me explains it to you and backs the explanation up with hard scientific evidence, you reject it.

The "reading original material" bit is especially inane. Have you read Newton's original material (in Latin!), Einstein's original material (in German!), etc.?

Yes, of course I have. Hence die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert.

And why do you think that understanding physics stopped with Newton/Einstein/etc.?

I don't. But that's no reason for you to dismiss Einstein because you think you know better.

Note that you did not understand the defintion of a second

It is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation. This remains the same according to an observer sitting at the clock.

I do. The second varies with gravitational potential because the speed of the radiation approaching the observer varies. The observer is similarly affected.

P.S. You are still commiting the basic mistake of not specifying your observer (which I have also done a couple of times!). According to an observer at those optical clocks looking at their own clock, their clock always tick away at one second per second. If that observer looks at the other clock then they will measure a different rate even through the clocks are identical.

I'm not making any mistakes. The thing that affects the propagation of light affects all electromagnetic processes. Here, let me try to get it across really simply: you're a clockwork man, and you're holding a clockwork clock. You plunge it into an oil-bath, which makes the clock go slower. Now jump in after it. You can't tell that the clock's going slower, because you're going slower too.

 

[Daylightstar]

... somebody like me ...

What exactly do you mean by this?

 

[Bjarne]

I'm not displaying ignorance of physics, RC. I'm afraid you are. You don't understand something, and when somebody like me explains it to you and backs the explanation up with hard scientific evidence, you reject it.

Even Mother Cow has many times tried to explain him that he does not deserve the name "Reality Check" - But > Limit Reality Check.
But well we are all dreamers, so live and let live, - so long we all are happy everything is all right.

 

[Daylightstar]

Even Mother Cow ...

Why do you keep bringing your mother in, Bjarne?

 

[Farsight]

What exactly do you mean by this?

Somebody who's doesn't believe everything in his good book.

I should say a bit more I suppose: this is a sceptics website, and there's people here who are rightly sceptical of say Young Earth Creationists. No amount of logic or evidence will sway those YECs one iota. It's similar for spiritualist types, and people who believe in fairies or homeopathy. None of them will entertain any logic or evidence that challenges the belief they've had drummed into them. They always find some way to close their eyes to simple logic and dismiss the patent evidence. With experience you realise that this trait isn't limited to the obvious garbage, and that people are convictional by nature. You come to appreciate that there's a spectrum of conviction out there, and it extends into other spheres, including physics. Then you find the same old dismissal and denial from people who can offer no counter-evidence and no counter-argument, but who nevertheless remain utterly convinced that what they believe is right. All along the line, they always do. Then you look in the mirror and say What if I'm like that? You start looking at your own beliefs, and saying Why do I believe this? It gets pretty interesting when you realise that you've been doing it too. After that, nothing's the same again.

 

[Daylightstar]

So, if I understand you correctly, you say you've made the transition from what you'd probably call a dismissive and denialist skeptic to a believer in something.
You, as a believer in something, would then, considering your reference to a spectrum of conviction extending to physics and the implied suffering of dismissal and denial by you, in essence be a crackpot.

Are you a crackpot?

 

[Paul]

Are you a crackpot?

jumps up and down excitedly with hand in the air

Ooh sir, sir!
Me sir!
I know the answer sir!

 

[Reality Check]

Yes. That's why I put it in quotes.

Missed this: Quote mining is not putting text in quotes. That is quoting.
Quote mining is:

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/#cite_note-0

You cited Paul Gerber on wiki and mined the ariticle to imply that his work on the precession of Mercury was correct. I gave the rest of the text that you should have quoted which states that his work was wrong.

 

[Paulhoff]

Even Mother Cow has many times tried to explain him that he does not deserve the name "Reality Check" - But > Limit Reality Check.
But well we are all dreamers, so live and let live, - so long we all are happy everything is all right.

You know Bjarne, if you would pull that cow out of your ass, maybe you would get more credit from others.

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not displaying ignorance of physics, RC.

That thread (Relativity+) does display and record your ignorance of physics, Farsight.
Start with the first page where you show that you have no idea what the the electron’s electromagnetic field looks like.
Or read my last post in that thread:

What Farsight needs to understand is

• Treating all particles including electrons as point particles as is done in quantum mechnaics leads to one of the most accurately tested theory in physics (Quantum Electrodynamics).
• He seems to grasp that a macroscopic particle with the properties of an electron is impossible because the surface would be moving faster than the speed of light.
• But he wants to replace a point particle with an "extended entity" like a wave (but not a wave?). The problem is that if that "extended entity" has any extent then part of it will also be moving faster than the speed of light.

or
Please give a complete and understandable explanation of "spinning the spin axis"? (20th April 2010)
This is about your ignorance of the Stern-Gerlach experiment or at least your delusion that it starts with spins already aligned in 2 directions, thus the 2 bands. It starts with randomly oriented spins.

Post to that thread (rather than derail this one) and reply to some of the criticisms of your fantasies.

And now you admit that you have not read Newton in the original Latin - so you must know nothing about classical mechanics !

But that's no reason for you to dismiss Einstein because you think you know better.

That is insane - I do not dismiss Einstein.
What I dismiss is your obsession with Einstein.

I do. The second varies with gravitational potential because the speed of the radiation approaching the observer varies. The observer is similarly affected.

The second is always a second according to the observer and their clock.
What the observer measures is that a different clock in a different gravitational potential ticks at a different rate.