Slow Clocks

  • 154 Replies
  • 27268 Views
?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2007, 10:52:31 AM »
That doesnt really answer the question though eh. If the clocks are synchronised once in position the higher one will still count slower. The effects of gravity being weaker will have an opposite effct no? the lesser the acceleration the less the amount? im willing to be put right here but as far as i understnd the effects of an acceleration on a clock is that it will slow the clocks own precieved time as it were. By this reckoning the clock feeling a lesser acceleration effect due to the earths gravitation (which i add you flat people have said time and time again doesnt even exist) would mean the clock runs faster not slower?

This appears to be counter acted by the fact that the hiher clock has greater velocity and therfore counts slower.

This could only happen on a Spherical earth couldnt it?

I have to go out now but thanks for your response


*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2007, 10:59:29 AM »
The higher clock ticks slower due to its velocity, but ticks faster due to a lesser gravitational potential.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2007, 01:10:40 PM »
TheEngineer said earlier both clocks are "accellerating" STRAIGHT UP at the SAME rate!
so they should remain synchronized. BUT they do NOT!

if i remember, the higher one should be going faster.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2007, 01:41:41 PM »
so they are accellerating at the SAME rate while REMAINING at the SAME distance relative to each other?
I said they are not accelerating at the same rate.
Learn to read, son.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2007, 02:28:42 PM »
ok, one more time:

clock one: sitting on a large rock on the beach.
clock two: sitting on a large rock overhang, EXACTLY 1000 feet straight above the first one!

clock 2 is faster.

and you say that's bcause the second one is accellerating FASTER, even thought all observers can easily see they are both MOVING at exactly the same speed relative to each other?

they are both still exactly where they were at the beginning, and neither has moved relative to the other. not ONE MILLIMETER!
acelleration means CHANGING VELOCITY!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2007, 02:33:27 PM »
and you say that's bcause the second one is accellerating FASTER, even thought all observers can easily see they are both MOVING at exactly the same speed relative to each other?
So then why is one running faster?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2007, 02:38:26 PM »
because Einstien's type of gravity is affecting space-time.

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2007, 02:40:51 PM »
Whoa Whoa Whoa!

Firstly where does the higher clock get this extra velocity from?

Thats important so please answer that one directly.

Secondly im afraid your are slightly wrong there eric. the second clock does actually have a different acceleration to the first and yes they do move relative to each other, just probably not in the way you are thinking. You need to think bigger. I believe the engineer knows what im refering to here and is avoiding the real point somewhat.

If both these clocks are sitting on the earth which is in turn being accelerated straight up to mimick gravitational attraction then should they not both have the same velocity and acceleration?

Bear in mind as i noted before that you guys state that the earth has no gravitational effects so you should dismiss this anyway from your reasoning. Even if you leave it in the lesser G effect due to altitude would make the clock run faster you just said that yourself right.

So i can only conclude that your flat earth being accelerated due to it not having any gravitation does now indeed have some? and also it manages to accelerate two points rigidly attached to the earth in one particular direction at different rates?

You seem to be talking nonsense to me and perhaps digging a hole here. So:

A, Where does the second clocks extra velocity arise from?

B, Does your flat earth now have gravitational attraction or not?

C, for the love of god please tell me why the clock at altitude will run slower in your flat earth?

Please eric just forget about gravity for a moment you are missing the whole point of this.

or maybe i am now.....

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2007, 02:45:52 PM »
because Einstien's type of gravity is affecting space-time.
So, they are accelerating at a different rate.  Thanks for seeing the point.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2007, 02:49:56 PM »
ok, the point i'm trying to make is that this contradicts the UA theory! they WOULD be accellerating at the exact same rate if THAT was true!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2007, 02:50:50 PM »
One is at a lower gravitational potential.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2007, 03:04:24 PM »
Do i really need to ask you again Engineer as you beginning to look rather silly

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2007, 03:17:58 PM »
A, Where does the second clocks extra velocity arise from?

B, Does your flat earth now have gravitational attraction or not?

C, for the love of god please tell me why the clock at altitude will run slower in your flat earth?
A)  It was stated in your original problem.

B)  It always has.

C)  It won't.  But of course, those in charge of such things, saying it will, on the RE, does not make it so.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2007, 03:36:55 PM »
ok in my origional problem the clock runs slower due to the fact that the earth is revolving. So now the flat earth is revolving?

So if the earth now has a gravitational attraction we are not being accelerated at 9.82 M/s^2 (as stated a billion...ish times by your entire FAQ and associated babble) but some other amount minus this gravitational attraction? care to diverge what this amount is?

Frankly you are so wrong it is unbelievable that you continue to try and wriggle your way out of this and now its a conspiracy that every scientist involved with the measurement of anything quick enough to make a difference (which is quite a lot of things) is now also in on this massive conspiracy. You really are looking like a bit of a muppet now.

Still no offence intended im simply stating a fact here and i do hope you dont take it the wrong way but your answers to this are plain daft.

Andy

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2007, 03:49:42 PM »
ok in my origional problem the clock runs slower due to the fact that the earth is revolving. So now the flat earth is revolving?
I've always held the FE to rotate.

Quote
So if the earth now has a gravitational attraction we are not being accelerated at 9.82 M/s^2 (as stated a billion...ish times by your entire FAQ and associated babble) but some other amount minus this gravitational attraction? care to diverge what this amount is?
You misunderstand.  The gravitational attraction of the FE is not due to the curvature of space, but the acceleration of the Earth.

Quote
Frankly you are so wrong it is unbelievable
How?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #45 on: November 23, 2007, 04:01:22 PM »
Not for what you are stating but for what you actually are. You spend contless threads on here trying to make people look dumb, and frankly you succeed a lot of the time but here we have a proper argument and all you are doing is avoiding it by stating facts that dont answer anything.

For instance:

A, Where does the second clocks extra velocity arise from?

Answer: It was stated in your original problem.

no it wasnt. go back and have a look yourself. yes i said that the clock at altitude will run slower as it has a greater velocity and i asked how this was possible on your flat earth. You still after three pages have  not answered this question. and now because you cant you are just stating irrelevant facts that are not really related. now im pretty sure you are not as daft as you are appearing, but frankly im quite dissapointed to find that when you cant answer a question you resort to this total avoindance. honestly you are looking like the Tom B guy now.

Tell me in some simple way ok on a flat earth which is being accelerated to mimick gravitational attraction how.....oh my god do i really need to say this again!

How can two points both rigidly attached experience differing accelerations? now dont waffle on about lessing gravitational effects because that would actually have the reverse effect.

Andy

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #46 on: November 23, 2007, 04:13:45 PM »
Sorry i only read the last statement in your last post i missed the others. But if the flat earth is rotating then how exactly is it rotating? i.e. which plane, what velocity.

Also if the garvitational attraction of the flat earth is cause by its accleration then surely the higher clock will have the axact same well accelerationa and therefore gravitation no?

If not what is the difference and why?

Andy

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #47 on: November 23, 2007, 05:37:15 PM »
A, Where does the second clocks extra velocity arise from?

Answer: It was stated in your original problem.

no it wasnt. go back and have a look yourself. yes i said that the clock at altitude will run slower as it has a greater velocity
Right, I was talking about your RE example.

Quote
Tell me in some simple way ok on a flat earth which is being accelerated to mimick gravitational attraction how.....oh my god do i really need to say this again!
'Gravity' and acceleration are locally indistinguishable. 

Quote
How can two points both rigidly attached experience differing accelerations?
It's really not that difficult.  You are gravitating down due to the acceleration of the Earth, but you are also gravitating upwards, due to the gravitational field of the sun.  Your acceleration is lessened the higher up you go, but you are still on the earth.  You have an acceleration that is less than someone at sea level, but you are not moving through space relative to each other.

Quote
But if the flat earth is rotating then how exactly is it rotating? i.e. which plane, what velocity.

About its central axis.

Quote
Also if the garvitational attraction of the flat earth is cause by its accleration then surely the higher clock will have the axact same well accelerationa and therefore gravitation no?
Yes, if it is only being affected by the FE's acceleration.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #48 on: November 23, 2007, 06:46:42 PM »


C)  It won't.  But of course, those in charge of such things, saying it will, on the RE, does not make it so.
Temperature Differences
If you can't argue both sidces, you understand neither

?

Pope Zera

  • 329
  • +0/-0
  • A Firm Believer in NOTHING
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #49 on: November 23, 2007, 09:12:04 PM »


Seems to be decellerating to me.  Your arguement is invalid.

I think you will find that both the clocks are accelerating but they are doing so at different rates, while the higher clock will have a greater velocity. Perhaps i didnt really phrase it correctly so sorry about that. If my argument is invalid please explain how so? as that is what i am actually asking and give me the FE explanation for why this happens. Thanks

Andy

My diagram clearly shows the winged clock decellerating.  Until you can provide me with evidence of a non-winged clock, I have no reason to believe that any clocks accelerate.

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #50 on: November 24, 2007, 12:44:29 AM »
Firstly i cannot tell whether that picture has been altered in any way and this site does not accept photographic evidence. Secondly deceleration is still a form of acceleration its just negative so the clock will still show a different time.

On to more pressing topics

1  Right, I was talking about your RE example

Well thats where you have gone wrong. i was asking how this would be possible on the flat earth. A question which you still have not really answered.

2  It's really not that difficult.  You are gravitating down due to the acceleration of the Earth, but you are also gravitating upwards, due to the gravitational field of the sun.  Your acceleration is lessened the higher up you go, but you are still on the earth.  You have an acceleration that is less than someone at sea level, but you are not moving through space relative to each other.

Ok so now we are getting somewhere. on your flat earth we are accelerating upwards, as are the two clocks. The one at higher altitude, however, has a slightly lower acceleration due to the gravitation of the sun and stars. This higher clock should therefore now run faster should it not?

Lets just say for the time being that it does actually run slower as is well documented and predicted by currently held theories (of RE)

What im trying to get to here is what i have asked abot a billion times. What is the possible mechanism on a flat earth for the clock running slower. Not faster!

Now just bear with me here and please leave the conspiracy out of this just for the time being(we will come back to it later im sure) tell me how this would be possible on your flat earth being accelerated uniformly by UA. If it is not possible then please just state that rather than going all around the question but not answering it. You are, at present, using the debating tactics of a politician and frankly if you arent one already you should seriously consider becomming one as you are very good at it.

so simple answer and perhaps explanation please. Would this be possible and if so how so. i work well when i can visualise things but i still cannot see how this would be possible bearing in mind the higher clock must have a greater acceleration acting upon it or a greater velocity in order to run slower.

About its central axis

Ok so its rotating about its central axis. I can only assume you mean as in a wheel? so both clocks still are experiencing the same amount of rotational acceleration and are still at the same velocity (ignoring the effects of the sun and stars gravitation for now as this we have said will make the clock run faster). This reasoning doesnt, as far as i can tell, help does it?

Yes, if it is only being affected by the FE's acceleration

Ok here you are saying that the higher clock is being effected by the sun and stars gravitation also which effects the clocks overall acceleration. Problem you have here is that so is the clock at sea level. The distance between these two clocks is gonna be pretty marginal when compared to the distance of the sun and stars so the difference in effect is also pretty marginal and i would have thought could be left out of this really. i will though accept that there is a difference so we will leave it in. Once again and please for the last time.
This effect will make the higher clock run faster not slower!

If you cant think of an idea here please just say so im sure nobody will think any the less of you, i know i certainly wont (not that you care im sure). It would actually be quite refreshing to see you accept that you cant have an answer.  Or if you can have an answer then i would like to know what it is (remember we dont want the conspiracy just yet you will have time for that but in this example we need an answer which physically explains why this effect would occur or, if it indeed could at all)

I dont think it could




*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #51 on: November 24, 2007, 05:28:53 AM »
C, for the love of god please tell me why the clock at altitude will run slower in your flat earth?
C)  It won't.  But of course, those in charge of such things, saying it will, on the RE, does not make it so.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Tao of Pooh

  • 2126
  • +0/-0
  • I owe it all to good, clean living.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #52 on: November 24, 2007, 05:31:58 AM »
When I first read the title of this thread for a second I thought it said "slow cocks".  :o
Click dis:

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #53 on: November 24, 2007, 05:33:53 AM »
over 10,000 posts, and TheEngineer still soldiers on. I'm amazed that he never tires of this. It's supreme dedication.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #54 on: November 24, 2007, 05:36:47 AM »
When I first read the title of this thread for a second I thought it said "slow cocks".  :o

dirty dirty mind
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #55 on: November 24, 2007, 05:38:52 AM »
I see sex in everything. It scares me.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tao of Pooh

  • 2126
  • +0/-0
  • I owe it all to good, clean living.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #56 on: November 24, 2007, 05:45:55 AM »
When I first read the title of this thread for a second I thought it said "slow cocks".  :o

dirty dirty mind
What's your point?  ;)
Click dis:

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #57 on: November 24, 2007, 05:46:48 AM »
When I first read the title of this thread for a second I thought it said "slow cocks".  :o

dirty dirty mind
What's your point?  ;)

Everyone in the world either has a dirty mind, is in denial, or is a terrorist.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tao of Pooh

  • 2126
  • +0/-0
  • I owe it all to good, clean living.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #58 on: November 24, 2007, 05:48:58 AM »
I see sex in everything. It scares me.
Me too....well, not the scared part.
Click dis:

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #59 on: November 24, 2007, 05:49:36 AM »
I see sex in everything. It scares me.
Me too....well, not the scared part.

It only scares me when I get WIP.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness