The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. That CAN'T be true!
  4. Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Go Down

Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?

  • 186 Replies
  • 50115 Views
  • 2 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mad aetherist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 791
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?
« Reply #180 on: 16/04/2019 02:33:59 »
Quote from: Thebox on 14/04/2019 21:15:51
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/04/2019 21:04:22
Quote from: Thebox on 14/04/2019 20:44:58
This is what's happening with science ..
What?
Badly drawn graphs?
I could of been more precise and put years of things on such as Albert and CERN etc.  It's an example Mr C , they don't have to be precise .
The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
concept an idea or invention to help sell or publicize a commodity.
Science added concept time to the caesium . You got sold broken clocks .
Hafele Keating was/is a fraud.
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm
http://euclideanreality.com/pdf/Critical_Reflections_on_the_Hafele_and_Keating_Experiment.pdf
« Last Edit: 16/04/2019 02:47:04 by mad aetherist »
Logged
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    13.5%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?
« Reply #181 on: 16/04/2019 06:56:17 »
Quote from: Thebox on 15/04/2019 21:24:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/04/2019 20:49:34
Quote from: Thebox on 15/04/2019 20:29:23
Do you want to insist space itself is expanding or have you got some smarts since ?
No.
I'd like you to answer my question.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/04/2019 07:27:36
How come all clocks show the same change?

Cabin pressure
No, that makes no sense; we would see the effect of atmospheric pressure on earth bound clocks.
It's also not credible anyway; the caesium is in a vacuum chamber.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?
« Reply #182 on: 16/04/2019 07:15:25 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/04/2019 06:56:17
Quote from: Thebox on 15/04/2019 21:24:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/04/2019 20:49:34
Quote from: Thebox on 15/04/2019 20:29:23
Do you want to insist space itself is expanding or have you got some smarts since ?
No.
I'd like you to answer my question.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/04/2019 07:27:36
How come all clocks show the same change?

Cabin pressure
No, that makes no sense; we would see the effect of atmospheric pressure on earth bound clocks.
It's also not credible anyway; the caesium is in a vacuum chamber.

Did they use identical planes that  had  identical mass ?






The ground state constant became a different ground state constant ,  the clocks absorbed less energy from the planes than the earth maybe .  An air vacuum is also not an absolute field vacuum . Or maybe the results were just fake .


added- Isn't a change of frequency the same as a change of current ?

0649359890675eae4845f5bd3d5e5c74.gif?

Δv→Δi →Δf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current


Added - ok , so it looks like to me that there isn't a time dilation , they actually discovered how to measure a change of current flow of a N-flowing ''beam'' . 

I'd hate to try to do the conversion .

Added - arrr, I use to do some amateur dj , I understand about amps , had some huge speakers in the past etc , now I understand frequency , vibration and flow in full .


added - eureka  t=I   ::)

I=4d3bdd1569a5c1600322b1971be3b634.gif maybe....


added- The continuous flow of time  is proportional to the flow of current .

Of course time defined a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to aging .

Δi = var (x) 

 :P







Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?
« Reply #183 on: 16/04/2019 08:27:21 »
vmaxI = 515829c4b9a99bace822c58088bfdca0.gif
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    13.5%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?
« Reply #184 on: 16/04/2019 18:10:31 »
Quote from: Thebox on 16/04/2019 07:15:25
Did they use identical planes that  had  identical mass ?
No.
They even used planes moving at different speeds, and also satellites and just to make it interesting, muons.
And, in spite of that they still get the right change in elapsed time.
How do you explain how the clocks all "go wrong" to exactly the right extent?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?
« Reply #185 on: 17/04/2019 18:31:27 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/04/2019 18:10:31
in spite of that they still get the right change in elapsed time.

Elapsed timing Mr C ,  please use the correct semantics . 

I haven't personally done the experiment or observed the experiment so I'm not in a position to make a full analysis of the experiment and attempt to answer the whys' .
However I am in a position to correct the semantics and interpretation , 


ΔS→ΔU→Δv→Δf   

x≠xy

The above the mechanics of the experiment , no time function other than that added in equivalence that has no other use but that of the practitioneer .

f≠t  unless subjectively interpreted so .





Logged
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6476
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 708 times
Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?
« Reply #186 on: 17/04/2019 18:34:17 »
Quote from: Thebox on 12/04/2019 17:23:55
Fake sh1t , ...... science thinks we are all stupid and will believe all their bs they preach to us .

Quote from: mad aetherist on 16/04/2019 02:33:59
Hafele Keating was/is a fraud

This thread seems more conspiracy theory than real discussion of new theory.
Locked and moved
Logged
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: conspiracy theory  / paranoid delusions 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.204 seconds with 42 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.