Einstein theorized, and scientists claim to have proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. But that is according to Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations. So let us consider a moving clock that is traveling fairly fast relative to earth, a clock in a GPS satellite. Suddenly, we are confronted with reality. A clock in a GPS satellite is faster, not slower than an identical clock on earth. Scientists tell us that the reason why a GPS satellite clock is faster is because it is in less gravitation than the clock on earth. They say that even though the effects of Special Relativity slow the clock down according to the Lorentz equations, the effects of General Relativity are greater, causing the clock to actually run faster than a clock on earth.
But if a clock in a satellite close enough to earth to be compelled to orbit around earth is faster than a clock on earth, what about a clock in a space probe like the ones that have actually left our solar system? It seems to me that a clock in one of these space probes would be even faster than a clock in a satellite orbiting earth.
That being the case, it seems we have made nonsense out of the Twins Paradox. If there was a twin in a space craft in deep space between stars, that twin would believe that it was taking the space craft a longer time to go from the vicinity of one star to the vicinity of another than his twin on earth would believe because more time would pass on the clock in the space craft.
But scientists would say, All we have to do is get the space craft going fast enough, and the clock on the space craft would be slower. I don't think they are going to get a space craft going that fast, but maybe there is a scientist somewhere who would be willing to tell us how fast the space craft would have to be going to have a slower clock than a clock on earth.

On 23-May-21 4:18 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
> Einstein theorized, and scientists claim to have proven that a moving
> clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. But that is
> according to Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations. So let us
> consider a moving clock that is traveling fairly fast relative to
> earth, a clock in a GPS satellite. Suddenly, we are confronted with
> reality. A clock in a GPS satellite is faster, not slower than an
> identical clock on earth. Scientists tell us that the reason why a
> GPS satellite clock is faster is because it is in less gravitation
> than the clock on earth. They say that even though the effects of
> Special Relativity slow the clock down according to the Lorentz
> equations, the effects of General Relativity are greater, causing the
> clock to actually run faster than a clock on earth. But if a clock in
> a satellite close enough to earth to be compelled to orbit around
> earth is faster than a clock on earth, what about a clock in a space
> probe like the ones that have actually left our solar system? It
> seems to me that a clock in one of these space probes would be even
> faster than a clock in a satellite orbiting earth. That being the
> case, it seems we have made nonsense out of the Twins Paradox. If
> there was a twin in a space craft in deep space between stars, that
> twin would believe that it was taking the space craft a longer time
> to go from the vicinity of one star to the vicinity of another than
> his twin on earth would believe because more time would pass on the
> clock in the space craft. But scientists would say, All we have to do
> is get the space craft going fast enough, and the clock on the space
> craft would be slower. I don't think they are going to get a space
> craft going that fast, but maybe there is a scientist somewhere who
> would be willing to tell us how fast the space craft would have to be
> going to have a slower clock than a clock on earth.
>

To what end? There will be a number. What of it?

So, Winn is yet another another person who thinks they're so smart that
they've identified an issue with relativity that everyone else has
overlooked for more than a century.

The reality, of course, is that Winn has completely misunderstood the
theory he's attempting to discuss, to the point that it's difficult to
know where to start in explaining it to him.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 11:18:50 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> ...how fast the space craft would have to be going to have a slower clock than a clock on earth.

Compared with a spacecraft in interstellar space, the gravitational time dilation of a clock on earth is mostly due to the Sun's gravitational field, and only a comparatively small amount is due to the Earth's gravitational field. The break-even speed is about 43000 m/sec, which is nearly three times the speed of the Voyager 2 space probe. Of course, even at these speeds the gravitational effect and the motion effect are both so small that it isn't trivial to even measure them. The effect would be significant only if the speed was a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Robert Winn wrote:

> Einstein theorized, and scientists claim to have proven that a moving
> clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. But that is according
> to Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations. So let us consider a
> moving clock that is traveling fairly fast relative to earth, a clock in

Stockport Extermination Covid Vaccine Centre
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=592X2D4NWYRK

Historical. Worth paying attention. All in line are *crisis_actors*.

"What's the death counts for today?"

Amazing, the aushwitz capos are ashamed. And also converted!!. They know
they are committing evil.

Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein theorized, and scientists claim to have proven that a moving
> clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. But that is according
> to Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations. So let us consider a
> moving clock that is traveling fairly fast relative to earth, a clock in
> a GPS satellite. Suddenly, we are confronted with reality. A clock in a
> GPS satellite is faster, not slower than an identical clock on earth.
> Scientists tell us that the reason why a GPS satellite clock is faster is
> because it is in less gravitation than the clock on earth. They say that
> even though the effects of Special Relativity slow the clock down
> according to the Lorentz equations, the effects of General Relativity are
> greater, causing the clock to actually run faster than a clock on earth.
> But if a clock in a satellite close enough to earth to be compelled to
> orbit around earth is faster than a clock on earth, what about a clock in
> a space probe like the ones that have actually left our solar system? It
> seems to me that a clock in one of these space probes would be even
> faster than a clock in a satellite orbiting earth.
> That being the case, it seems we have made nonsense out of the Twins
> Paradox. If there was a twin in a space craft in deep space between
> stars, that twin would believe that it was taking the space craft a
> longer time to go from the vicinity of one star to the vicinity of
> another than his twin on earth would believe because more time would pass
> on the clock in the space craft.
> But scientists would say, All we have to do is get the space craft going
> fast enough, and the clock on the space craft would be slower. I don't
> think they are going to get a space craft going that fast, but maybe
> there is a scientist somewhere who would be willing to tell us how fast
> the space craft would have to be going to have a slower clock than a clock on earth.
>

Robert, this is what happens when someone with the barest contact with the
ideas of relativity tries to extrapolate that superficial understanding.
It’s like standing on square 1 and trying to project what conclusion might
be drawn about square 362.

I’m sure you’re not familiar with the relation between SR and full GR
effects on relative clock rates for orbiting bodies as a function of
altitude. It’s true that the mix changes, and even flips over, as the
altitude varies. But it’s also true that this is only for stable orbits,
where there is a definite and fixed relation between speed and altitude.
Maybe you know this about orbits and maybe you don’t. But for cases of
space probes, that relation between speed and altitude is broken, and that
constraint is removed and so you can extrapolate a lot less about whether
clocks run faster or slower, from what you know about orbits.

And no, I’m not going to elaborate. If you choose to learn something about
square 2 before attempting to extrapolate to square 362, that’s up to you.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 11:35:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23-May-21 4:18 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
> > Einstein theorized, and scientists claim to have proven that a moving
> > clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. But that is
> > according to Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations. So let us
> > consider a moving clock that is traveling fairly fast relative to
> > earth, a clock in a GPS satellite. Suddenly, we are confronted with
> > reality. A clock in a GPS satellite is faster, not slower than an
> > identical clock on earth. Scientists tell us that the reason why a
> > GPS satellite clock is faster is because it is in less gravitation
> > than the clock on earth. They say that even though the effects of
> > Special Relativity slow the clock down according to the Lorentz
> > equations, the effects of General Relativity are greater, causing the
> > clock to actually run faster than a clock on earth. But if a clock in
> > a satellite close enough to earth to be compelled to orbit around
> > earth is faster than a clock on earth, what about a clock in a space
> > probe like the ones that have actually left our solar system? It
> > seems to me that a clock in one of these space probes would be even
> > faster than a clock in a satellite orbiting earth. That being the
> > case, it seems we have made nonsense out of the Twins Paradox. If
> > there was a twin in a space craft in deep space between stars, that
> > twin would believe that it was taking the space craft a longer time
> > to go from the vicinity of one star to the vicinity of another than
> > his twin on earth would believe because more time would pass on the
> > clock in the space craft. But scientists would say, All we have to do
> > is get the space craft going fast enough, and the clock on the space
> > craft would be slower. I don't think they are going to get a space
> > craft going that fast, but maybe there is a scientist somewhere who
> > would be willing to tell us how fast the space craft would have to be
> > going to have a slower clock than a clock on earth.
> >
> To what end? There will be a number. What of it?
>
> So, Winn is yet another another person who thinks they're so smart that
> they've identified an issue with relativity that everyone else has
> overlooked for more than a century.
>
> The reality, of course, is that Winn has completely misunderstood the
> theory he's attempting to discuss, to the point that it's difficult to
> know where to start in explaining it to him.
>
> Sylvia.
Well, you will notice that I did not theorize that there actually was a scientist who was willing to tell us something, I just said that mathematically, the possibility could exist. So what I do is use the correct equations for relativity, the Galilean transformation equations, in determining all of these times. Now here is how the equations work.
Scientists say that a moving clock at the surface of the earth is slower than a clock that is standing still. They say that the Galilean transformation equations cannot solve this problem.
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
What you have to do is understand junior high algebra. If t'=t, then t' cannot be used in the Galilean transformation equations to represent the time of a clock that is slower than t. It requires a second set of Galilean transformation equations to represent the time of the slower clock and velocity according to the time of the slower clock.
x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'
n' is the time of the slower clock. v' is the velocity of the slower moving clock relative to the clock that is not moving according to the time of the slower clock. Now what you might notice if you are not a scientist is that these equations work just as well for a faster clock as they do for a slower clock. So what we have is a situation where lengths are not contracting, space is not curving, and people who understand the equations are not confused. One clock is slower than the other the way Einstein specified, or one clock is faster than the other the way scientists of today claim they have observed a clock in a GPS satellite to be compared to a clock on earth. I know how confusing this must seem to college graduates.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 11:18:23 AM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> Well, you will notice that I did not theorize that there actually was a scientist who was
> willing to tell us something, I just said that mathematically, the possibility could exist.

Again, compared with a spacecraft in interstellar space, the gravitational time dilation of a clock on earth is mostly due to the Sun's gravitational field, and only a comparatively small amount is due to the Earth's gravitational field. This is a simple high school homework problem. The break-even speed is about 43000 m/sec, which is nearly three times the speed of the Voyager 2 space probe.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 2:26:07 AM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Robert Winn:
> > > GPS satellite clock is faster is because it is
> > > in less gravitation than the clock on earth.
> Yes. Less "gravitation|acceleration" == Faster clock.
> > > we have made nonsense out of the Twins Paradox.
> No, _you_ imagine it's nonsense, not "us".
>
> The traveling, accelerating Twin's clock ticks slower.
> Notionally, he's accelerating from c to Zero to -c.
> > > get the space craft going fast enough, and
> > > the clock on the space craft would be slower.
> Yes but you ignore the traveling Twin's acceleration.
> Special Relativity assumes no acceleration.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 2:26:07 AM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> The traveling, accelerating Twin's clock ticks slower.
> Notionally, he's accelerating from c to Zero to -c.
> > > get the space craft going fast enough, and
> > > the clock on the space craft would be slower.
> Yes but you ignore the traveling Twin's acceleration.
> Special Relativity assumes no acceleration.
Well, it seems to me that if the space craft is to come to a stop at the star it is going toward, then it has to reach a maximum speed, maintain that speed for a while, and then decelerate. So just consider the clock on the space craft during the time it is at constant speed between stars. What is the clock doing during that time?

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 4:03:26 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> Consider the clock on the space craft during the time it is at constant speed between
> stars. What is the clock doing during that time?

The break-even speed, at which the reduced gravitational potential effect in interstellar space exactly offsets the speed effect is 43000 meters/sec. For speeds less than that, the clock will be ticking faster than a clock on earth, and for speeds greater than that it will be ticking slower (in terms of the asymptotic coordinates).

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 4:55:00 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> Robert, this is what happens when someone with the barest contact with the
> ideas of relativity tries to extrapolate that superficial understanding.
> It’s like standing on square 1 and trying to project what conclusion might
> be drawn about square 362.
>
> I’m sure you’re not familiar with the relation between SR and full GR
> effects on relative clock rates for orbiting bodies as a function of
> altitude. It’s true that the mix changes, and even flips over, as the
> altitude varies. But it’s also true that this is only for stable orbits,
> where there is a definite and fixed relation between speed and altitude.
> Maybe you know this about orbits and maybe you don’t. But for cases of
> space probes, that relation between speed and altitude is broken, and that
> constraint is removed and so you can extrapolate a lot less about whether
> clocks run faster or slower, from what you know about orbits.
>
> And no, I’m not going to elaborate. If you choose to learn something about
> square 2 before attempting to extrapolate to square 362, that’s up to you.
>
Thank you for your response, Odd Bodkin. What you are saying is that it is just much too complicated for an ordinary person to understand. It does not seem complicated to me. If a clock is slower in a moving frame of reference, then these equations show the motion according to the time of the slower clock.

x = x' - v'n'
y = y'
z = z'
n = n'

where n' is time according to the slower clock, and v' is the velocity of frame of reference S relative to frame of reference S' according to the time of the slower clock. So if

x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

shows what is happening according to the time of the clock that is not moving, then everything is explained. What you would need to do as a scientist proving your idea to be correct instead of the Galilean transformation equations, would be to show why the Galilean transformation equations are wrong instead of just saying, You are too stupid to understand what is going on. Your mistake is that the only mathematics you show concerns square 1, square 2, and square 362. which means nothing in terms of the problem being considered.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 4:18:42 PM UTC-7, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 4:03:26 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> > Consider the clock on the space craft during the time it is at constant speed between
> > stars. What is the clock doing during that time?
> The break-even speed, at which the reduced gravitational potential effect in interstellar space exactly offsets the speed effect is 43000 meters/sec.. For speeds less than that, the clock will be ticking faster than a clock on earth, and for speeds greater than that it will be ticking slower (in terms of the asymptotic coordinates).
That is about 14 miles per second. Now, Mercury is traveling at 30 miles per second in its orbit around the sun. The earth is traveling at 20 miles per second in its orbit. Then we get out to Neptune, which is going 3.37 miles per second in its orbit. But all of these speeds are measured according to the time of a clock on earth. Supposedly a clock on Mercury would be faster than a clock on earth because Mercury is moving faster than earth and is in greater gravitation. A clock on Neptune would be faster than a clock on earth because it is going slower and is in less gravitation. So my question would be, why is a clock at the distance of Neptune from the sun faster than a clock on earth moving at 3.37 miles per second, but a clock in deep space only has to be traveling at 2.6 miles per second to be slower than a clock on earth. That seems to be incorrect to me.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 5:12:19 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> > The break-even speed, at which the reduced gravitational potential effect in interstellar
> > space exactly offsets the speed effect is 43000 meters/sec. For speeds less than that,
> > the clock will be ticking faster than a clock on earth, and for speeds greater than that it
> > will be ticking slower (in terms of the asymptotic coordinates).
>
> That is about 14 miles per second.

No, there are about 1609 meters in a mile, so 43000 meters/sec equals about 26.7 miles/sec. How do you get 14?

> Supposedly a clock on Mercury would be faster than a clock on earth because Mercury
> is moving faster than earth and is in greater gravitation.

Right.

> A clock on Neptune would be faster than a clock on earth because it is going
> slower and is in less gravitation.

Right again.

> Why is a clock at the distance of Neptune from the sun faster than a clock on
> earth moving at 3.37 miles per second, but a clock in deep space only has to be
> traveling at 2.6 miles per second to be slower than a clock on earth.

Huh? Where did you get 2.6? Up above you incorrectly stated 14, and now you even more incorrectly state 2.6. The correct break-even speed in interstellar space is 26.7 miles/sec. Understand?

Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 4:55:00 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>> Robert, this is what happens when someone with the barest contact with the
>> ideas of relativity tries to extrapolate that superficial understanding.
>> It’s like standing on square 1 and trying to project what conclusion might
>> be drawn about square 362.
>>
>> I’m sure you’re not familiar with the relation between SR and full GR
>> effects on relative clock rates for orbiting bodies as a function of
>> altitude. It’s true that the mix changes, and even flips over, as the
>> altitude varies. But it’s also true that this is only for stable orbits,
>> where there is a definite and fixed relation between speed and altitude.
>> Maybe you know this about orbits and maybe you don’t. But for cases of
>> space probes, that relation between speed and altitude is broken, and that
>> constraint is removed and so you can extrapolate a lot less about whether
>> clocks run faster or slower, from what you know about orbits.
>>
>> And no, I’m not going to elaborate. If you choose to learn something about
>> square 2 before attempting to extrapolate to square 362, that’s up to you.
>>
> Thank you for your response, Odd Bodkin. What you are saying is that it
> is just much too complicated for an ordinary person to understand.

No I’m not saying that. I’m a woodworker, an ordinary person, and I
understand it. On the other hand, I have enough interest in the subject to
do some reading. This seems to be the difference with you.

> It does not seem complicated to me. If a clock is slower in a moving
> frame of reference, then these equations show the motion according to the
> time of the slower clock.
>
> x = x' - v'n'
> y = y'
> z = z'
> n = n'
>
> where n' is time according to the slower clock, and v' is the velocity
> of frame of reference S relative to frame of reference S' according to
> the time of the slower clock. So if
>
> x'=x-vt
> y'=y
> z'=z
> t'=t
>
> shows what is happening according to the time of the clock that is not
> moving, then everything is explained. What you would need to do as a
> scientist proving your idea to be correct instead of the Galilean
> transformation equations, would be to show why the Galilean
> transformation equations are wrong

Well I’m not a scientist. And I don’t think a scientist is obligated to
show you anything. If you want to learn, you will learn. If you don’t, you
won’t.

> instead of just saying, You are too stupid to understand what is going
> on. Your mistake is that the only mathematics you show concerns square
> 1, square 2, and square 362. which means nothing in terms of the problem being considered.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 5/23/21 4:26 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Robert Winn:
>>> GPS satellite clock is faster is because it is in less
>>> gravitation than the clock on earth.
>
> Yes. Less "gravitation|acceleration" == Faster clock.

No. The clock never ticks "faster" (or "slower") -- all clocks ALWAYS
tick at their usual rate, independent of their motion or location. This
is MUCH more subtle than clocks simply ticking faster or slower.

An analysis using GR requires a complete experiment be described, not
just overly simplistic statements like yours -- in such an analysis, to
obtain agreement with experiment one must use the clock's usual tick
rate. In short, all types of "time dilation" are related to the geometry
of the experiment (in spacetime); the clocks themselves are not affected.

> [... other nonsense omitted]

> Yes but you ignore the traveling Twin's acceleration. Special
> Relativity assumes no acceleration.

This is just plain not true. SR can handle acceleration just fine; it is
curved manifolds (gravitation) that SR cannot handle (requires GR).

You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to
write about it -- all you do is display your personal ignorance. Of
course that goes double for Winn.

Tom Roberts

On 24-May-21 4:18 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 11:35:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 23-May-21 4:18 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
>>> Einstein theorized, and scientists claim to have proven that a
>>> moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. But that
>>> is according to Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations. So
>>> let us consider a moving clock that is traveling fairly fast
>>> relative to earth, a clock in a GPS satellite. Suddenly, we are
>>> confronted with reality. A clock in a GPS satellite is faster,
>>> not slower than an identical clock on earth. Scientists tell us
>>> that the reason why a GPS satellite clock is faster is because it
>>> is in less gravitation than the clock on earth. They say that
>>> even though the effects of Special Relativity slow the clock down
>>> according to the Lorentz equations, the effects of General
>>> Relativity are greater, causing the clock to actually run faster
>>> than a clock on earth. But if a clock in a satellite close enough
>>> to earth to be compelled to orbit around earth is faster than a
>>> clock on earth, what about a clock in a space probe like the ones
>>> that have actually left our solar system? It seems to me that a
>>> clock in one of these space probes would be even faster than a
>>> clock in a satellite orbiting earth. That being the case, it
>>> seems we have made nonsense out of the Twins Paradox. If there
>>> was a twin in a space craft in deep space between stars, that
>>> twin would believe that it was taking the space craft a longer
>>> time to go from the vicinity of one star to the vicinity of
>>> another than his twin on earth would believe because more time
>>> would pass on the clock in the space craft. But scientists would
>>> say, All we have to do is get the space craft going fast enough,
>>> and the clock on the space craft would be slower. I don't think
>>> they are going to get a space craft going that fast, but maybe
>>> there is a scientist somewhere who would be willing to tell us
>>> how fast the space craft would have to be going to have a slower
>>> clock than a clock on earth.
>>>
>> To what end? There will be a number. What of it?
>>
>> So, Winn is yet another another person who thinks they're so smart
>> that they've identified an issue with relativity that everyone else
>> has overlooked for more than a century.
>>
>> The reality, of course, is that Winn has completely misunderstood
>> the theory he's attempting to discuss, to the point that it's
>> difficult to know where to start in explaining it to him.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> Well, you will notice that I did not theorize that there actually was
> a scientist who was willing to tell us something, I just said that
> mathematically, the possibility could exist. So what I do is use the
> correct equations for relativity, the Galilean transformation
> equations, in determining all of these times. Now here is how the
> equations work. Scientists say that a moving clock at the surface of
> the earth is slower than a clock that is standing still. They say
> that the Galilean transformation equations cannot solve this
> problem. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t What you have to do is understand
> junior high algebra. If t'=t, then t' cannot be used in the Galilean
> transformation equations to represent the time of a clock that is
> slower than t. It requires a second set of Galilean transformation
> equations to represent the time of the slower clock and velocity
> according to the time of the slower clock. x = x' - v'n' y = y' z =
> z' n = n' n' is the time of the slower clock. v' is the velocity of
> the slower moving clock relative to the clock that is not moving
> according to the time of the slower clock. Now what you might notice
> if you are not a scientist is that these equations work just as well
> for a faster clock as they do for a slower clock. So what we have is
> a situation where lengths are not contracting, space is not curving,
> and people who understand the equations are not confused. One clock
> is slower than the other the way Einstein specified, or one clock is
> faster than the other the way scientists of today claim they have
> observed a clock in a GPS satellite to be compared to a clock on
> earth. I know how confusing this must seem to college graduates.
>

You fixate on the idea that one clock runs slower than the other, which
is a notion repeatedly pushed by popular science representations of
relativity, but that is not what the theory actually says.

Sylvia.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 5:47:14 PM UTC-7, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 5:12:19 PM UTC-7, Robert Winn wrote:
> > > The break-even speed, at which the reduced gravitational potential effect in interstellar
> > > space exactly offsets the speed effect is 43000 meters/sec. For speeds less than that,
> > > the clock will be ticking faster than a clock on earth, and for speeds greater than that it
> > > will be ticking slower (in terms of the asymptotic coordinates).
> >
> > That is about 14 miles per second.
> No, there are about 1609 meters in a mile, so 43000 meters/sec equals about 26.7 miles/sec. How do you get 14?
> > Supposedly a clock on Mercury would be faster than a clock on earth because Mercury
> > is moving faster than earth and is in greater gravitation.
> Right.
> > A clock on Neptune would be faster than a clock on earth because it is going
> > slower and is in less gravitation.
> Right again.
>
> > Why is a clock at the distance of Neptune from the sun faster than a clock on
> > earth moving at 3.37 miles per second, but a clock in deep space only has to be
> > traveling at 2.6 miles per second to be slower than a clock on earth.
> Huh? Where did you get 2.6? Up above you incorrectly stated 14, and now you even more incorrectly state 2.6. The correct break-even speed in interstellar space is 26.7 miles/sec. Understand?
Yes, this is how I get scientists to talk to me. So exactly how do you compute the break-even speed in interstellar space?

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 6:23:53 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Robert Winn <rbw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > is just much too complicated for an ordinary person to understand.
> No I’m not saying that. I’m a woodworker, an ordinary person, and I
> understand it. On the other hand, I have enough interest in the subject to
> do some reading. This seems to be the difference with you.
> > It does not seem complicated to me. If a clock is slower in a moving
> > frame of reference, then these equations show the motion according to the
> > time of the slower clock.
> >
> > x = x' - v'n'
> > y = y'
> > z = z'
> > n = n'
> >
> > where n' is time according to the slower clock, and v' is the velocity
> > of frame of reference S relative to frame of reference S' according to
> > the time of the slower clock. So if
> >
> > x'=x-vt
> > y'=y
> > z'=z
> > t'=t
> >
> > shows what is happening according to the time of the clock that is not
> > moving, then everything is explained. What you would need to do as a
> > scientist proving your idea to be correct instead of the Galilean
> > transformation equations, would be to show why the Galilean
> > transformation equations are wrong
> Well I’m not a scientist. And I don’t think a scientist is obligated to
> show you anything. If you want to learn, you will learn. If you don’t, you
> won’t.
> > instead of just saying, You are too stupid to understand what is going
> > on. Your mistake is that the only mathematics you show concerns square
> > 1, square 2, and square 362. which means nothing in terms of the problem being considered.
> >
Well, so just go ahead and show why you think that the Galilean transformation equations, correctly used, are not the correct equations.

On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 8:13:58 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 24-May-21 4:18 am, Robert Winn wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 11:35:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 23-May-21 4:18 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
> >>> Einstein theorized, and scientists claim to have proven that a
> >>> moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. But that
> >>> is according to Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations. So
> >>> let us consider a moving clock that is traveling fairly fast
> >>> relative to earth, a clock in a GPS satellite. Suddenly, we are
> >>> confronted with reality. A clock in a GPS satellite is faster,
> >>> not slower than an identical clock on earth. Scientists tell us
> >>> that the reason why a GPS satellite clock is faster is because it
> >>> is in less gravitation than the clock on earth. They say that
> >>> even though the effects of Special Relativity slow the clock down
> >>> according to the Lorentz equations, the effects of General
> >>> Relativity are greater, causing the clock to actually run faster
> >>> than a clock on earth. But if a clock in a satellite close enough
> >>> to earth to be compelled to orbit around earth is faster than a
> >>> clock on earth, what about a clock in a space probe like the ones
> >>> that have actually left our solar system? It seems to me that a
> >>> clock in one of these space probes would be even faster than a
> >>> clock in a satellite orbiting earth. That being the case, it
> >>> seems we have made nonsense out of the Twins Paradox. If there
> >>> was a twin in a space craft in deep space between stars, that
> >>> twin would believe that it was taking the space craft a longer
> >>> time to go from the vicinity of one star to the vicinity of
> >>> another than his twin on earth would believe because more time
> >>> would pass on the clock in the space craft. But scientists would
> >>> say, All we have to do is get the space craft going fast enough,
> >>> and the clock on the space craft would be slower. I don't think
> >>> they are going to get a space craft going that fast, but maybe
> >>> there is a scientist somewhere who would be willing to tell us
> >>> how fast the space craft would have to be going to have a slower
> >>> clock than a clock on earth.
> >>>
> >> To what end? There will be a number. What of it?
> >>
> >> So, Winn is yet another another person who thinks they're so smart
> >> that they've identified an issue with relativity that everyone else
> >> has overlooked for more than a century.
> >>
> >> The reality, of course, is that Winn has completely misunderstood
> >> the theory he's attempting to discuss, to the point that it's
> >> difficult to know where to start in explaining it to him.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > Well, you will notice that I did not theorize that there actually was
> > a scientist who was willing to tell us something, I just said that
> > mathematically, the possibility could exist. So what I do is use the
> > correct equations for relativity, the Galilean transformation
> > equations, in determining all of these times. Now here is how the
> > equations work. Scientists say that a moving clock at the surface of
> > the earth is slower than a clock that is standing still. They say
> > that the Galilean transformation equations cannot solve this
> > problem. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t What you have to do is understand
> > junior high algebra. If t'=t, then t' cannot be used in the Galilean
> > transformation equations to represent the time of a clock that is
> > slower than t. It requires a second set of Galilean transformation
> > equations to represent the time of the slower clock and velocity
> > according to the time of the slower clock. x = x' - v'n' y = y' z =
> > z' n = n' n' is the time of the slower clock. v' is the velocity of
> > the slower moving clock relative to the clock that is not moving
> > according to the time of the slower clock. Now what you might notice
> > if you are not a scientist is that these equations work just as well
> > for a faster clock as they do for a slower clock. So what we have is
> > a situation where lengths are not contracting, space is not curving,
> > and people who understand the equations are not confused. One clock
> > is slower than the other the way Einstein specified, or one clock is
> > faster than the other the way scientists of today claim they have
> > observed a clock in a GPS satellite to be compared to a clock on
> > earth. I know how confusing this must seem to college graduates.
> >
> You fixate on the idea that one clock runs slower than the other, which
> is a notion repeatedly pushed by popular science representations of
> relativity, but that is not what the theory actually says.
>
> Sylvia.
I know what the theory actually says. I saw the problem with the theory the first time it was ever explained to me. Our physics teacher in high school explained to us that Einstein had theorized and scientists had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. So for the moving clock, I visualized a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was immediately obvious to me that the pilot of the airplane was going to get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground if the clock in the airplane was slower. But then I read Einstein's book on the subject. Einstein says that from the airplane, the pilot would see the clock on the ground as being slower.. That did not make sense to me, so I studied the equations that scientists were using. They always showed the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground getting the same speed for the airplane, the magnitude of v.. So I realized that I had identified Einstein's mistake, since there is no experiment in existence where the times of a slower clock and a faster clock are going to result in the same speed for something moving. It took me some more time to realize that the equations that scientists threw away in 1887, the Galilean transformation equations, were the correct equations for relativity. The results of the Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained by the Galilean transformation equations. You just have to use them correctly.

On Monday, 24 May 2021 at 03:53:53 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 5/23/21 4:26 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> > Robert Winn:
> >>> GPS satellite clock is faster is because it is in less
> >>> gravitation than the clock on earth.
> >
> > Yes. Less "gravitation|acceleration" == Faster clock.
> No. The clock never ticks "faster" (or "slower") -- all clocks ALWAYS
> tick at their usual rate

Only in your delusional world where all observers
are FORCED to THE BEST WAY of The Shit. We have
GPS now, anyone can check - Cs clocks on Earth tick
at 9 192 631 770, while those on satellites at
9 192 631 774. You've admitted it many times,
poor scum.

On Monday, 24 May 2021 at 05:13:58 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> You fixate on the idea that one clock runs slower than the other, which
> is a notion repeatedly pushed by popular science representations of
> relativity, but that is not what the theory actually says.

Too bad for Your theory, lady, because that's exactly what
is happening in the real world.

On 24-May-21 3:17 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 8:13:58 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 24-May-21 4:18 am, Robert Winn wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 11:35:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 23-May-21 4:18 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
>>>>> Einstein theorized, and scientists claim to have proven that a
>>>>> moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. But that
>>>>> is according to Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations. So
>>>>> let us consider a moving clock that is traveling fairly fast
>>>>> relative to earth, a clock in a GPS satellite. Suddenly, we are
>>>>> confronted with reality. A clock in a GPS satellite is faster,
>>>>> not slower than an identical clock on earth. Scientists tell us
>>>>> that the reason why a GPS satellite clock is faster is because it
>>>>> is in less gravitation than the clock on earth. They say that
>>>>> even though the effects of Special Relativity slow the clock down
>>>>> according to the Lorentz equations, the effects of General
>>>>> Relativity are greater, causing the clock to actually run faster
>>>>> than a clock on earth. But if a clock in a satellite close enough
>>>>> to earth to be compelled to orbit around earth is faster than a
>>>>> clock on earth, what about a clock in a space probe like the ones
>>>>> that have actually left our solar system? It seems to me that a
>>>>> clock in one of these space probes would be even faster than a
>>>>> clock in a satellite orbiting earth. That being the case, it
>>>>> seems we have made nonsense out of the Twins Paradox. If there
>>>>> was a twin in a space craft in deep space between stars, that
>>>>> twin would believe that it was taking the space craft a longer
>>>>> time to go from the vicinity of one star to the vicinity of
>>>>> another than his twin on earth would believe because more time
>>>>> would pass on the clock in the space craft. But scientists would
>>>>> say, All we have to do is get the space craft going fast enough,
>>>>> and the clock on the space craft would be slower. I don't think
>>>>> they are going to get a space craft going that fast, but maybe
>>>>> there is a scientist somewhere who would be willing to tell us
>>>>> how fast the space craft would have to be going to have a slower
>>>>> clock than a clock on earth.
>>>>>
>>>> To what end? There will be a number. What of it?
>>>>
>>>> So, Winn is yet another another person who thinks they're so smart
>>>> that they've identified an issue with relativity that everyone else
>>>> has overlooked for more than a century.
>>>>
>>>> The reality, of course, is that Winn has completely misunderstood
>>>> the theory he's attempting to discuss, to the point that it's
>>>> difficult to know where to start in explaining it to him.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>> Well, you will notice that I did not theorize that there actually was
>>> a scientist who was willing to tell us something, I just said that
>>> mathematically, the possibility could exist. So what I do is use the
>>> correct equations for relativity, the Galilean transformation
>>> equations, in determining all of these times. Now here is how the
>>> equations work. Scientists say that a moving clock at the surface of
>>> the earth is slower than a clock that is standing still. They say
>>> that the Galilean transformation equations cannot solve this
>>> problem. x'=x-vt y'=y z'=z t'=t What you have to do is understand
>>> junior high algebra. If t'=t, then t' cannot be used in the Galilean
>>> transformation equations to represent the time of a clock that is
>>> slower than t. It requires a second set of Galilean transformation
>>> equations to represent the time of the slower clock and velocity
>>> according to the time of the slower clock. x = x' - v'n' y = y' z =
>>> z' n = n' n' is the time of the slower clock. v' is the velocity of
>>> the slower moving clock relative to the clock that is not moving
>>> according to the time of the slower clock. Now what you might notice
>>> if you are not a scientist is that these equations work just as well
>>> for a faster clock as they do for a slower clock. So what we have is
>>> a situation where lengths are not contracting, space is not curving,
>>> and people who understand the equations are not confused. One clock
>>> is slower than the other the way Einstein specified, or one clock is
>>> faster than the other the way scientists of today claim they have
>>> observed a clock in a GPS satellite to be compared to a clock on
>>> earth. I know how confusing this must seem to college graduates.
>>>
>> You fixate on the idea that one clock runs slower than the other, which
>> is a notion repeatedly pushed by popular science representations of
>> relativity, but that is not what the theory actually says.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> I know what the theory actually says.

Apparently not, because if you did, you wouldn't have written what follows.

I saw the problem with the theory the first time it was ever explained
to me.

You naively thought you'd spotted an issue that everyone else had
overlooked, and rather than try to understand the theory properly, you
arrogantly assumed that you were right, and everyone else was wrong.

Our physics teacher in high school explained to us that Einstein had
theorized and scientists had proven that a moving clock is slower than a
clock that is not moving. So for the moving clock, I visualized a clock
in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on
the ground. It was immediately obvious to me that the pilot of the
airplane was going to get a faster speed for the airplane than an
observer on the ground if the clock in the airplane was slower. But
then I read Einstein's book on the subject. Einstein says that from the
airplane, the pilot would see the clock on the ground as being slower.
That did not make sense to me, so I studied the equations that
scientists were using. They always showed the pilot of the airplane and
the observer on the ground getting the same speed for the airplane, the
magnitude of v. So I realized that I had identified Einstein's mistake,
since there is no experiment in existence where the times of a slower
clock and a faster clock are going to result in the same speed for
something moving. It took me some more time to realize that the
equations that scientists threw away in 1887, the Galilean
transformation equations, were the correct equations for relativity.
The results of the Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained by the
Galilean transformation equations. You just have to use them correctly.
>

Sylvia.

On 24-May-21 3:05 pm, Robert Winn wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 6:23:53 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Robert Winn <rbw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> is just much too complicated for an ordinary person to understand.
>> No I’m not saying that. I’m a woodworker, an ordinary person, and I
>> understand it. On the other hand, I have enough interest in the subject to
>> do some reading. This seems to be the difference with you.
>>> It does not seem complicated to me. If a clock is slower in a moving
>>> frame of reference, then these equations show the motion according to the
>>> time of the slower clock.
>>>
>>> x = x' - v'n'
>>> y = y'
>>> z = z'
>>> n = n'
>>>
>>> where n' is time according to the slower clock, and v' is the velocity
>>> of frame of reference S relative to frame of reference S' according to
>>> the time of the slower clock. So if
>>>
>>> x'=x-vt
>>> y'=y
>>> z'=z
>>> t'=t
>>>
>>> shows what is happening according to the time of the clock that is not
>>> moving, then everything is explained. What you would need to do as a
>>> scientist proving your idea to be correct instead of the Galilean
>>> transformation equations, would be to show why the Galilean
>>> transformation equations are wrong
>> Well I’m not a scientist. And I don’t think a scientist is obligated to
>> show you anything. If you want to learn, you will learn. If you don’t, you
>> won’t.
>>> instead of just saying, You are too stupid to understand what is going
>>> on. Your mistake is that the only mathematics you show concerns square
>>> 1, square 2, and square 362. which means nothing in terms of the problem being considered.
>>>
> Well, so just go ahead and show why you think that the Galilean transformation equations, correctly used, are not the correct equations.
>

The problem with the Galilean equations is not that they are inherently
flawed, or contradictory, but just that they don't give results that
match experiments.

It is not possible to decide which theory is correct by thinking about it.

Sylvia.

On Monday, 24 May 2021 at 09:07:20 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> The problem with the Galilean equations is not that they are inherently
> flawed, or contradictory, but just that they don't give results that
> match experiments.

Sorry, lady, but Your insane gurus have lied to You about that.

Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 6:23:53 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Robert Winn <rbw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> is just much too complicated for an ordinary person to understand.
>> No I’m not saying that. I’m a woodworker, an ordinary person, and I
>> understand it. On the other hand, I have enough interest in the subject to
>> do some reading. This seems to be the difference with you.
>>> It does not seem complicated to me. If a clock is slower in a moving
>>> frame of reference, then these equations show the motion according to the
>>> time of the slower clock.
>>>
>>> x = x' - v'n'
>>> y = y'
>>> z = z'
>>> n = n'
>>>
>>> where n' is time according to the slower clock, and v' is the velocity
>>> of frame of reference S relative to frame of reference S' according to
>>> the time of the slower clock. So if
>>>
>>> x'=x-vt
>>> y'=y
>>> z'=z
>>> t'=t
>>>
>>> shows what is happening according to the time of the clock that is not
>>> moving, then everything is explained. What you would need to do as a
>>> scientist proving your idea to be correct instead of the Galilean
>>> transformation equations, would be to show why the Galilean
>>> transformation equations are wrong
>> Well I’m not a scientist. And I don’t think a scientist is obligated to
>> show you anything. If you want to learn, you will learn. If you don’t, you
>> won’t.
>>> instead of just saying, You are too stupid to understand what is going
>>> on. Your mistake is that the only mathematics you show concerns square
>>> 1, square 2, and square 362. which means nothing in terms of the
>>> problem being considered.
>>>
> Well, so just go ahead and show why you think that the Galilean
> transformation equations, correctly used, are not the correct equations.
>

Well, the problem as I see it is that you use the Galilean transforms
incorrectly by changing the meanings of the variables, and then call that
using them correctly. I think I’ve mentioned this a few times before but
since it’s a dead horse, you are determined to beat it.

I know this might be very frustrating to an insurrectionist who favors the
restoration of a fascist to executive office.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables