Some troubling assumptions of SR

[Phineas T Puddleduck]

Especially bring it into arguement regarding "velocities don't add"; I
love it when they totally disregard conservation of energy.

If you don't understand the definition of energy, surely
you can't possibly understand conservation of energy.
That's just about the only thing about you that remotely
makes sense.
Dirk Vdm

$10 bucks says this guy is enraged as he just failed a basic newtonian dynamics
course.

[Jeff Root]

If you don't understand the definition of energy, surely
you can't possibly understand conservation of energy.

Dirk,

Can you provide a definition of energy? When I have
replied to the question "What is energy?" asked by others,
I have said that energy is something one learns about
through experience. Since energy is part of everything
that happens, people naturally acquire a great deal of
experience with it.

But still we need to define the term in some way so that
we know we're talking about the same thing when we use the
term. The standard description of energy that I quote when
I answer the question is that "Energy is the ability to do
work". (I'll go on to describe what work is, if need be.)
But that description seems to fall short of a definition.
Granted, all definitions one can find in a dictionary are
ultimately circular, because in reality all understanding
is based on experience. But is it possible to do better?
Can you define "energy"?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Lester Zick]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:40:00 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:23:07 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"

Unfortunately you don't. Says more for retards than you.

The most common type of clock is a harmonic oscillator. That works for
everything from a grandfather clock (a kind of pendulum clock) to a
quartz crystal timing circuit to an atomic clock.
Clocks based on harmonic oscillators will keep in pretty good step with
each other. I say "pretty good" because mechanical clocks are affected
by friction and temperature effects so they don't keep "perfect time".
That fact that clocks tend to stay in step with each other, at least for
a limited duration, leads to the metaphysical assumption of time
independent of clocks.
People have been using periodic or cyclic phenomenon to "keep time"
since the dawn of the human race. Our first clock was the earth with the
apparent motions of the sun, the moon and the stars resulting from the
revolution of the earth about its axis.

Armchair philosopers like Chester are not impressed by what
humatity has been doing since its dawn. They have decided that
time can not be defined without circularity, and to that purpose,
when you tell them to count their heart beat to see how many
beats it takes

Shirley you jest, Dutch. I mean you couldn't possibly be talking about
a non circular "beats per unit time" definition of time could you?

Where did I say "per unit of time", retard?

You didn't, Shirley. I just filled in the blanks for you. I said EM
frequency was a better measure of time than clocks were because unlike
clocks they didn't stop and you said the units of EM frequency were
count per unit time to make your point that my definition of time was
circular and I returned the favor by pointing out that your definition
of time as what clocks measure is just as circular because what it
measures is counts per unit time. That is unless you've been driven to
clocks without periodicity. In which case they're stopped.

~v~~

[Lester Zick]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:36:23 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:41:34 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"

Post by Lester Zick
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:40:00 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:23:07 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"

Unfortunately you don't. Says more for retards than you.

The most common type of clock is a harmonic oscillator. That works for
everything from a grandfather clock (a kind of pendulum clock) to a
quartz crystal timing circuit to an atomic clock.
Clocks based on harmonic oscillators will keep in pretty good step with
each other. I say "pretty good" because mechanical clocks are affected
by friction and temperature effects so they don't keep "perfect time".
That fact that clocks tend to stay in step with each other, at least for
a limited duration, leads to the metaphysical assumption of time
independent of clocks.
People have been using periodic or cyclic phenomenon to "keep time"
since the dawn of the human race. Our first clock was the earth with the
apparent motions of the sun, the moon and the stars resulting from the
revolution of the earth about its axis.

Armchair philosopers like Chester are not impressed by what
humatity has been doing since its dawn. They have decided that
time can not be defined without circularity, and to that purpose,
when you tell them to count their heart beat to see how many
beats it takes

Shirley you jest, Dutch. I mean you couldn't possibly be talking about
a non circular "beats per unit time" definition of time could you?

Where did I say "per unit of time", retard?

You didn't, Shirley. I just filled in the blanks for you.

Ha, he filled in the blanks for me.
Try to avoid filling blanks
You really don't have the brain for filling blanks.

Well someone really has to. It's about time you began to learn about
temporal physics.

Post by Lester Zick
I said EM
frequency was a better measure of time than clocks were because unlike
clocks they didn't stop and you said the units of EM frequency were
count per unit time to make your point that my definition of time was
circular and I returned the favor by pointing out that your definition
of time as what clocks measure is just as circular because what it
measures is counts per unit time.

A clock counts. Period.
"The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
You can use your heart to count the number of beats it takes
for a stone to fall from a tower. You call that number "the time"
and the unit of time is one heart beat.
You can use your heart to count the number of beats it takes
for a stone to fall from a tower that is twice as high.
You can use your heart to count the number of beats it takes
for a stone to fall from a tower that is 3 times as high.
etc...
With this you can find out that the distance covered by a falling
rock is proportional to the square of time.

Proportional to the square of what exactly?

Can't you read, retard?

Well, Shirley, apparently I can read better than you can explain. Time
is what a clock measures and a clock is what measures time. Circular
facto.

~v~~

[Lester Zick]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:38:12 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:15:08 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"

As I recollect most recently on this current thread DvdM lectured
on the commonly held opinion that "time is what a clock measures"
and I had the temerity to ask what a clock was?

"A clock is a device which executes a...repeatable periodic motion.
Objects in an ensemble of different kinds of object which are
suspected of being clocks may be sorted into the category 'clock'
by grouping together all those which keep in step. By a pair
keeping in step I mean that if B completes b cycles whenever A
completes a cycles, then b/a is a conserved quantity. Elapsed time
is proportional to the number of cycles of motion completed by a
clock. Any arbitrary one of a collection of clocks may be chosen
to be the one for which the constant of proportionality is deemed
to be 1. From then on, that specimen defines the units in which
time is measured....The ensemble of objects must be at the same
place and in the same state of motion when the sorting is done....
In the case of a pendulum oscillating in a gravitational field,
the clock is not the pendulum, but the pendulum earth combination."
Satisfied?

I have enormous respect for Franz and always have

Franz was extremely allergic to your kind.
Appart from being a crank, a crackpot and a troll,
that probably implies that you are autistic as well.

And Franz was also extremely allergic to those who couldn't spell.

~v~~