Slow Clocks

  • 154 Replies
  • 27245 Views
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #90 on: November 24, 2007, 11:03:23 AM »
Ok finally so on a flat earth this situation would not be possible, However, for some unknown reason this effect is observed in that clocks which are placed at a higher altitude do in fact show a slower rate of shall we say counting. Would you agree with this statement mr engineer (based on the evidence given to us by Mr einstien and the various given data and knowledge about this particular situation?
Based on Einstein, yes.  However, we must take someone else's word that this actually happens, as no clock available to me would be accurate enough to observe this phenomenon.

Quote
are you saying that all we know about relativity is wrong or do you believe that it is all true.
I believe it is true.

Quote
Would a faster moving clock actually run slower or is this theory a hoax?
Yes, a faster moving clock would run slower.


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

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #91 on: November 24, 2007, 11:16:08 AM »
Based on Einstein, yes.  However, we must take someone else's word that this actually happens, as no clock available to me would be accurate enough to observe this phenomenon.

Extract from website (probably in on the conspiracy eh)

Anyway, ever since hearing about clocks and relativity I wondered if it was possible for an amateur to pull off one of these flying or traveling clock relativity experiments.

Could one of us actually see the effects of GR on our atomic clocks? Or is the effect too small? Are the surplus cesium clocks we get on eBay accurate enough? What would it take to measure it? To me, seeing, measuring, and proving relativity was always a kind of holy grail of an amateur precise time hobby.


Web link:

http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/

I believe it is true.

Dont blame you.


Yes, a faster moving clock would run slower.

So now you are saying that clocks at the same altitude on the earth will run at different rates?

Strangely enough nobody on this earth has ever noticed this crazy phenomenom. Please explain

Andy

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #92 on: November 24, 2007, 11:22:40 AM »
So now you are saying that clocks at the same altitude on the earth will run at different rates?

Where did you get that from? Is your name Eric?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #93 on: November 24, 2007, 11:24:11 AM »
Can you please use the quote function?  It's very annoying trying to figure out what is my post and what is yours.

Quote
So now you are saying that clocks at the same altitude on the earth will run at different rates?
Did I?


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

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #94 on: November 24, 2007, 11:44:00 AM »
Ignoring any possibility of a conspiracy (just for the time being as stated we will no doubt come back to this) how is this situation a possibility on a flat earth
How many times do I have to say it won't happen?

Quote
Also while we are at it please could you confirm for me the rotation of a flat earth occurs around the centre point of the supposed disc just simply are we talking about the rotation of say a turntable?
Yes.


Terribly sorry about the quote thing as i need to quote from several different posts at the mo to make my point but sorry gotta do it you say: Did I?

well yes you have lets start at the begining  where you state that you believe einstiens theary which state that a clock moving faster will run slower ( i wont try to quote it cos it will annoy you but its there above me). Also above me is the fact that you believe the flat earth to be revolving about its centre( as of a turntable if i remember, once again its all above me). Also above me somwhere is tha fact that you believe that a clock which has a greater velocity will run slower. Its all there in black and white.

From these facts i can only conclude that two clocks at sea level one at the equater and another well anywhere other than the equater (lets just use the north pole for instance) would now (with your rotating flat earth) be at differening velocities and, therefore, due to einstiens theories, be runnig at differing rates. In conclusion clocks at the same (sea) level upon the earth now count at different rates no?

Andy

Quote
Hold your horses guys, he's gone off to think about it again.
This is the third time I've answered the question.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2007, 12:32:53 PM by Triskellion »

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #95 on: November 24, 2007, 11:48:19 AM »
See thats what happens if i try and use the quote thing.

I did  say i was intelectually challenged

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #96 on: November 24, 2007, 12:04:27 PM »
So now you are saying that clocks at the same altitude on the earth will run at different rates?

Where did you get that from? Is your name Eric?

No its not, is your name Tom?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #97 on: November 24, 2007, 12:05:52 PM »
No its not, is your name Tom?

Can't say it is. Sorry, I was just mocking you because this Eric guy on the forums commonly purports what people's arguments are.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #98 on: November 24, 2007, 12:09:51 PM »
Yes i know, and Tom is a guy on the forum who consistenly replies without thinking about what he is saying or what has been said before
 ;D

No offence intended

Andy

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #99 on: November 24, 2007, 12:24:31 PM »
Ok finally so on a flat earth this situation would not be possible, However, for some unknown reason this effect is observed in that clocks which are placed at a higher altitude do in fact show a slower rate of shall we say counting. Would you agree with this statement mr engineer (based on the evidence given to us by Mr einstien and the various given data and knowledge about this particular situation? Would you agree that this is the current RE thinking.
Secondly. you are going to suggest, are you not that this is all down to your conspiracy (i told you we would come back to this) so are you saying that your whole GR SR einstien and pretty much all of his forfathers and followers are in on this conspiracy, i.e are you saying that all we know about relativity is wrong or do you believe that it is all true. Would a faster moving clock actually run slower or is this theory a hoax?

So you didnt answer this here bit....could you do so please?

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #100 on: November 24, 2007, 12:42:09 PM »
Come on you gotta admit that is a good retort

So wheres my answers?

Even the cats are getting bored with this now

(they keep meowing at me and im sure its boredom)

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #101 on: November 24, 2007, 12:52:12 PM »
Could be hunger the are now biting me but i have said until i get an answer i shant feed them.

Now are you gonna be reponsible for these two kits starving to death?

this kinda thing makes you realise whats really important in life eh?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #102 on: November 24, 2007, 12:56:57 PM »
Might want to wait until TheEngineer comes back online.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #103 on: November 24, 2007, 01:02:17 PM »
Fair point

he probably readin up on clocks and stuff..... ive just bought some new speakers

the other half is so gonna kill me but well it is nearly christmas and all and i reckon they are gonna be the nuts

Im beginning to worry about the cats now though

One of them is looking at me and salivating!

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #104 on: November 24, 2007, 01:06:17 PM »
Fair point

he probably readin up on clocks and stuff..... ive just bought some new speakers

the other half is so gonna kill me but well it is nearly christmas and all and i reckon they are gonna be the nuts

Im beginning to worry about the cats now though

One of them is looking at me and salivating!

I can assure you that he wouldn't need to read up on clocks.

In other news, my cats are sleeping on my couch.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #105 on: November 24, 2007, 01:18:16 PM »
Well to be honest i wouldnt be so sure about the clock thing.  trust me (dont get me wrong im under no illusions of being clever and i dont under estimate the engineer but i think even he knows this is a tricky one) I am in no way trying to appear clever or even right cos i know im not ( clever that is i have no idea if im right or not yet)

My cats are now doing the whole rolling about on the floor thing looking cute in a feed me kinda way. Im gonna have to do it in a minute cos we are at the stage just before they start attacking the sofa. How do they know eh? if i dont do it soon il have a mouse to deal with

Little buggers

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #106 on: November 24, 2007, 02:04:43 PM »
well yes you have lets start at the begining  where you state that you believe einstiens theary which state that a clock moving faster will run slower ( i wont try to quote it cos it will annoy you but its there above me). Also above me is the fact that you believe the flat earth to be revolving about its centre( as of a turntable if i remember, once again its all above me). Also above me somwhere is tha fact that you believe that a clock which has a greater velocity will run slower. Its all there in black and white.
Right. 

Quote
From these facts i can only conclude that two clocks at sea level one at the equater and another well anywhere other than the equater (lets just use the north pole for instance) would now (with your rotating flat earth) be at differening velocities and, therefore, due to einstiens theories, be runnig at differing rates. In conclusion clocks at the same (sea) level upon the earth now count at different rates no?
Now I understand what you were asking.  Yes, the clock at the north pole and the one at the equator will be traveling at different velocities, due to the rotation of the FE, and thus, the one at the north pole will show less time dilation.

Quote
So wheres my answers?
Patience is a virtue often lost.


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

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #107 on: November 24, 2007, 02:27:17 PM »
I have never had the slightest bit of patience for you surely with your vast intellect you have worked this out already.

Could you possibly answer the questions put to you or is this too difficult . Il quote it but i will have to repost as it is too difficult for me.

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #108 on: November 24, 2007, 02:30:39 PM »
Ok finally so on a flat earth this situation would not be possible, However, for some unknown reason this effect is observed in that clocks which are placed at a higher altitude do in fact show a slower rate of shall we say counting. Would you agree with this statement mr engineer (based on the evidence given to us by Mr einstien and the various given data and knowledge about this particular situation? Would you agree that this is the current RE thinking.
Secondly. you are going to suggest, are you not that this is all down to your conspiracy (i told you we would come back to this) so are you saying that your whole GR SR einstien and pretty much all of his forfathers and followers are in on this conspiracy, i.e are you saying that all we know about relativity is wrong or do you believe that it is all true. Would a faster moving clock actually run slower or is this theory a hoax?

An answer maybe please?

The bold bit could be the one you are struggling with (just a friendly hint)

So you didnt answer this here bit....could you do so please?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #109 on: November 24, 2007, 02:30:50 PM »
I've answered every question you have asked like three times now.  Can you not read?


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

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #110 on: November 24, 2007, 02:32:55 PM »
Ok finally so on a flat earth this situation would not be possible, However, for some unknown reason this effect is observed in that clocks which are placed at a higher altitude do in fact show a slower rate of shall we say counting. Would you agree with this statement mr engineer (based on the evidence given to us by Mr einstien and the various given data and knowledge about this particular situation?
Based on Einstein, yes.


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

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #111 on: November 24, 2007, 02:34:44 PM »
If you think you have then im very sorry obviously i dont hsve your ( or anyone else's ability with reading but just one last time then. just for me the bit in bold would you agree with that statement?

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #112 on: November 24, 2007, 02:41:59 PM »
Ok we kinda got crossed there eh but im afraid you (the apparent master of relativity on this shite..sorry site) need to go and re-read your relativity theory as you really dont actually know what the hell you are talking about here and, as i have stated in my previous posts, i do not want ot insult you. Frankly i dont think i need to as you seem to be doing it very adequately yourself

  Congrats

P.S.

two questions and these are real easy ones if you are embarresed at all you could pm me but i would feel safer in this world knowing the answers:

1, are you really an engineer? and

2, If so who do you work for?

Just to be on the safe side you understand, i do value my brethrens life.

Andy

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #113 on: November 24, 2007, 02:44:23 PM »
Ok we kinda got crossed there eh but im afraid you (the apparent master of relativity on this shite..sorry site) need to go and re-read your relativity theory as you really dont actually know what the hell you are talking about
Ok, care to show me?  Everything I have said is consistent with SR and GR.  I would appreciate the correction where you see fit, however.


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

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #114 on: November 24, 2007, 02:52:13 PM »
Ok, care to show me?  Everything I have said is consistent with SR and GR.  I would appreciate the correction where you see fit, however.

I can't wait to see his response.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #115 on: November 24, 2007, 03:13:52 PM »
Well ok im gonna give you just a little cos i do respect you its not much but its a start.

For 6 pages now you have tried to argue with me about how a clock at altitude will run slower due to the effects of altitude on a round earth (due to einstiens theory of SR). Im not gonna quote it all because i know it annoys you but read back, be my guest its all there. You have catagorically stated that due to SR this would on a RE be a fact. Plain and simple fact is, it wont run slower at all for reasons i dont think you can comprehend yet, as you are to set in your "i know it all" ways. To be fair you do put up a pretty good fight here although you avoid the actual point far to much to make your replys anywhere near worthwhile at the moment i think you could work on that.

 I think you probably grasp the whole relativity thing better than me,theoretically, but maybe at a level which doesnt let you see the bigger picture.

Im just guessing here but i imagine you read a book or whatever on the whole theory of it all (just before you start to poke fun at that comment you know full well what i mean)and as you were reading it/studying it you tried to let it make sense by fitting to your own minds view of the world. This is a mistake, the world around us doesnt truly fit any idea that you, i or anyone even the great Einstien or Hawkins, Dawkins themselves can really understand unfortunately. Take it from me this place is too big, too crazy for you, I, even Mr Einstien himself to understand fully at the moment but keep your mind open i think you are doing well here (better than me im sure). Il leave you now to work out the rest for yourself as im sure as hell i cant. It was nice to have this debate with you and my brain is now thouroughly warmed and i thank you for that, Sincerely

I cant help feeling though that your obvious talent is a little wasted on this site.

That makes me sad

Andy

Ever thought about joining us in the conspiracy?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2007, 03:19:15 PM by Triskellion »

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #116 on: November 24, 2007, 04:11:21 PM »
For 6 pages now you have tried to argue with me about how a clock at altitude will run slower due to the effects of altitude on a round earth (due to einstiens theory of SR).
Right.  So far, so good.

Quote
You have catagorically stated that due to SR this would on a RE be a fact.
Right.  That's two for two.  Very good.

Quote
Plain and simple fact is, it wont run slower at all for reasons i dont think you can comprehend yet
Hold on, what?  You don't believe in Relativity now?  I'm confused, can you show me why they would not run slower?

Quote
I think you probably grasp the whole relativity thing better than me,theoretically, but maybe at a level which doesnt let you see the bigger picture.
And that bigger picture would be...?  But, wait, didn't you just claim Relativity was not true?

Quote
Im just guessing here but i imagine you read a book or whatever on the whole theory of it all (just before you start to poke fun at that comment you know full well what i mean)and as you were reading it/studying it you tried to let it make sense by fitting to your own minds view of the world. This is a mistake, the world around us doesnt truly fit any idea that you, i or anyone even the great Einstien or Hawkins, Dawkins themselves can really understand unfortunately. Take it from me this place is too big, too crazy for you, I, even Mr Einstien himself to understand fully at the moment but keep your mind open i think you are doing well here (better than me im sure).
Uh, what?

So, where did I go wrong?  You forgot to put that part in there.


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

?

Bushido

Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #117 on: November 24, 2007, 04:35:03 PM »
What is the FE explanation for the fact that clocks at higher altitudes (i.e in a faster moving system) will go slower than a clock at sea level. if the UA is ressponsible for us sticking to this planet then surely this effect would not be seen?

Andy

...
The ratio of the centrifugal acceleration at the Equator to the acceleration of free fall near Earth's surface, according to RE Theory is approximately 1/291. The number 291 is the fifty second element of the sequence defined as a(n) = n-th prime + n (ex. first prime is 2, so the first element of this sequence is 2 + 1 = 3, the second prime number is 3, so the second element is 3+ 2 = 5, the third prime number is 5, so the third element is 5 + 3 = 8, and, the fifty second prime number is 239, so the fifty second element of the sequence is 239 + 52 = 291).
...

?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #118 on: November 25, 2007, 02:21:34 AM »

Hold on, what?  You don't believe in Relativity now?  I'm confused, can you show me why they would not run slower?

Can you show me where i said i did not believe in relativity?

Quote
Uh, what?

So, where did I go wrong?  You forgot to put that part in there.
[/quote]

I was hoping you would work that part out for yourself

Just as a side note are you still claiming that clocks will run at defferent rates when placed at different latitudes?

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Slow Clocks
« Reply #119 on: November 25, 2007, 04:22:08 AM »
Just as a side note are you still claiming that clocks will run at defferent rates when placed at different latitudes?
Ignoring that the earth is flat, and ignoring that it rotates, this is true according to relativity and a RE.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 04:23:44 AM by Username »
If you can't argue both sides, yo under.s?t.and neitheer