Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #575631 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-03 09:01 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-02-05 23:04 -0800 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 111 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 09:01 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-03 10:02 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 17:33 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-03 19:15 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:28 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 10:48 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Wills Duket <nbm@tiitu.va> - 2022-02-03 19:28 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 17:18 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz goes off the rails "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-03 18:21 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-04 15:49 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-03 22:34 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-04 19:06 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 10:55 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-05 10:46 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 22:56 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-05 21:46 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-05 12:19 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 01:36 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:34 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-07 22:23 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 07:26 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 15:35 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 08:11 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 16:18 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 04:42 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 13:00 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Yasmani Kabai <yask@oennw.jp> - 2022-02-07 18:48 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 20:03 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 04:15 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Randall Hodge <tiie@ncsde.ca> - 2022-02-08 20:12 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-10 02:54 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-11 02:13 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 05:24 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-11 23:25 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 05:39 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-04 12:15 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 06:26 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-04 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-04 11:00 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-05 10:52 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:56 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 19:30 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-05 12:19 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 07:21 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 15:42 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 11:22 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 19:35 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 06:48 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-06 15:14 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-06 16:26 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 15:18 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:14 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 19:25 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:40 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 20:19 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:24 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 19:30 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:46 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 20:19 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 21:58 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Moris Colon <cvb@nwnbw.ca> - 2022-02-06 17:51 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-05 15:12 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Moris Colon <cvb@nwnbw.ca> - 2022-02-05 23:55 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 11:11 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Moris Colon <cvb@nwnbw.ca> - 2022-02-06 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-06 16:28 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 07:35 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-07 15:45 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-06 09:01 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-06 10:05 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-06 21:51 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 07:44 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 15:59 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-07 21:29 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 20:12 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-08 13:32 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 05:16 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 08:57 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-08 16:28 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 05:36 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:04 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:22 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:27 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:33 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:37 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 06:42 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:46 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 07:15 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 16:03 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 08:12 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 05:50 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Scot Dino <ueue@nbvm.ar> - 2022-02-12 05:11 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 22:21 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 15:57 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 07:20 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 16:34 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 07:43 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-12 16:50 +0100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 08:03 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 14:44 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-12 00:46 -0500
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-11 22:22 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 11:40 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-06 11:05 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-06 00:23 +0000
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-05 18:00 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-06 11:23 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-02-05 20:40 -0800
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-02-06 17:05 +1100
Re: Einstein screwed up the definition of TIME Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 23:04 -0800
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 14:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <su5spa$12ie$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576813 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 9:04:12 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:28:24 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 2/8/2022 11:57 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 7:32:26 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Again: where is that absolute frame, >>>>> >>>>> represents No clock is at rest in the absolute frame and thus you can’t >>>>> find the absolute frame......every clocks moving in the E-Matrix.and >>>>> thus a clock second of every clock contains a different amount of absolute time. >>>>> >>>>>> how can I know that I am at rest with respect to it, >>>>> >>>>> You can’t.....no object is at rest in the e-Matrix. >>>> So this absolute frame is undetectable and can never be detected. It >>>> can have no effect on us, because if it did, it would be detectable. >>>> So your absolute frame doesn’t exist at all. >>>> >>> Moron, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock represents a >>> specific amount of absolute time.The only difference is that it does not >>> represent the same interval of absolute time on different frames. Gee you >>> are so fucking stupid. >>>> >>>>>> and which clock displays absolute time? >>>>> >>>>> Every clock’s clock second displays a specific interval of absolute time. >>>> How much is that specific interval, Stupid Ken? >>> >> Absolute time means that identical processes take the same amount of time >> in different reference frames. > All the processes of nature are running on absolute time. That means that > identical processes will take the same amount of absolute time to complete in all frames Yes, that’s the claim that absolute time would make. Just a reminder, Ken, that no more than a couple days ago, you found yourself having to say that there are no identical processes in nature. Do you remember saying that, or is that lost in the fog of yesterday? > >> And physics has value because there are >> identical processes at work in different physical systems. >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 00:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <su7hkd$1sbk$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576799 |
On 2/11/2022 8:36 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:28:24 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 2/8/2022 11:57 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 7:32:26 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >>>> Again: where is that absolute frame, >>> >>> represents No clock is at rest in the absolute frame and thus you can’t find the absolute frame......every clocks moving in the E-Matrix.and thus a clock second of every clock contains a different amount of absolute time. >>> >>>> how can I know that I am at rest with respect to it, >>> >>> You can’t.....no object is at rest in the e-Matrix. >> So this absolute frame is undetectable and can never be detected. It >> can have no effect on us, because if it did, it would be detectable. >> So your absolute frame doesn’t exist at all. >> > Moron, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific amount of absolute time.The only difference is that it does not represent the same interval of absolute time on different frames. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > Moron, a ruler meter at the rest frame of the ruler represents a specific amount of absolute length.The only difference is that it does not represent the same interval of absolute length on different frames. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-11 22:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <42f94fe6-35c8-4ae8-86ff-e90fbc1780b4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576888 |
On Saturday, 12 February 2022 at 06:46:56 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 2/11/2022 8:36 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:28:24 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 2/8/2022 11:57 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 7:32:26 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> > >>>> Again: where is that absolute frame, > >>> > >>> represents No clock is at rest in the absolute frame and thus you can’t find the absolute frame......every clocks moving in the E-Matrix.and thus a clock second of every clock contains a different amount of absolute time. > >>> > >>>> how can I know that I am at rest with respect to it, > >>> > >>> You can’t.....no object is at rest in the e-Matrix. > >> So this absolute frame is undetectable and can never be detected. It > >> can have no effect on us, because if it did, it would be detectable. > >> So your absolute frame doesn’t exist at all. > >> > > Moron, a clock second at the rest frame of the clock represents a specific amount of absolute time.The only difference is that it does not represent the same interval of absolute time on different frames. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > > > Moron, a ruler meter at the rest frame of the ruler represents a > specific amount of absolute length. No, stupid Mike, wrong as usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-05 11:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b30af806-17a4-4d4b-9e4c-0d9a4e28ab5dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #575947 |
On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > He said that: "time is what the clock shows > > > > > >And your idea of time is...? > > > > Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > Including clocks? Yes and that’s why a clock come back shows a different time after journey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 11:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <j68hmjFm5pdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #575998 |
On 06-Feb-22 6:40 am, Ken Seto wrote: > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows >>>> >>>> And your idea of time is...? >>> >>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. >> Including clocks? > > Yes and that’s why a clock come back shows a different time after journey. If the clocks are operating on absolute time, then they would all read the same when brought back to the same place. Even you appear to concede that they don't. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 00:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Qtven6m5qSo6o6FIJLG7Yqt7O5s@jntp> |
| In reply to | #576026 |
Le 06/02/2022 à 01:05, Sylvia Else a écrit : > If the clocks are operating on absolute time, then they would all read > the same when brought back to the same place. Even you appear to concede > that they don't. I am very surprised that there are still people who deny the principle of the relativity of space and time. It is very difficult to make half of humanity understand that time is relative, and the other half that space is a reference mollusk. It's quite hopeless. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-05 18:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <61FF2BBB.3166@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #576031 |
Richard Hachel wrote: > > Le 06/02/2022 à 01:05, Sylvia Else a écrit : > > > If the clocks are operating on absolute time, then they would all read > > the same when brought back to the same place. Even you appear to concede > > that they don't. > > I am very surprised that there are still people who deny the principle of > the relativity of space and time. > It is very difficult to make half of humanity understand that time is > relative, and the other half that space is a reference mollusk. > It's quite hopeless. > > R.H. Correction: It's called spacetime, NOT space and time. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 11:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6200203D.1E93@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #576043 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Richard Hachel wrote: > > > > Le 06/02/2022 à 01:05, Sylvia Else a écrit : > > > > > If the clocks are operating on absolute time, then they would all read > > > the same when brought back to the same place. Even you appear to concede > > > that they don't. > > > > I am very surprised that there are still people who deny the principle of > > the relativity of space and time. > > It is very difficult to make half of humanity understand that time is > > relative, and the other half that space is a reference mollusk. > > It's quite hopeless. > > > > R.H. > > Correction: It's called spacetime, NOT space and time. Maybe you don't understand the difference between space and time AND spacetime... Einstein uses spacetime...meaning it is a single term. For example, bread and butter is correct, but there is no breadbutter. So, if you gonna teach relativity you have to use breadbutter instead of bread and butter. wata you call those things shaped like a moon you eat over there..crescents? moon crescents?? ooh la la! Is a flat chat the speed of light??? nothing faster than a flat chat.. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-05 20:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aba4468d-8f40-4513-ad29-41f76231911en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576026 |
On Sunday, 6 February 2022 at 01:05:42 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 06-Feb-22 6:40 am, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows > >>>> > >>>> And your idea of time is...? > >>> > >>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > >> Including clocks? > > > > Yes and that’s why a clock come back shows a different time after journey. Which is exactly what happens in SR/GR. > If the clocks are operating on absolute time, then they would all read > the same when brought back to the same place. Even you appear to concede > that they don't. Of course clocks tick proper time, and of course they get out of sync if they follow different trajectories. Moreover, since *all* (working) clocks, *locally*, i.e. per themselves and to whomever is aging with them, tick *the one and only* proper time, we can indeed call proper time, a technical term only, "absolute time", which is just what it is. (And Sylvia is yet another incompetent ass who should be kicked hard out here.) HTH, Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-06 17:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <j696okFprjgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #576046 |
On 06-Feb-22 3:40 pm, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On Sunday, 6 February 2022 at 01:05:42 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 06-Feb-22 6:40 am, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows >>>>>> >>>>>> And your idea of time is...? >>>>> >>>>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. >>>> Including clocks? >>> >>> Yes and that’s why a clock come back shows a different time after journey. > > Which is exactly what happens in SR/GR. > >> If the clocks are operating on absolute time, then they would all read >> the same when brought back to the same place. Even you appear to concede >> that they don't. > > Of course clocks tick proper time, and of course they get out of sync if they > follow different trajectories. > > Moreover, since *all* (working) clocks, *locally*, i.e. per themselves and to > whomever is aging with them, tick *the one and only* proper time, we can indeed > call proper time, a technical term only, "absolute time", which is just what it is. > > (And Sylvia is yet another incompetent ass who should be kicked hard out here.) > > HTH, > > Julio That is not what people generally, and Ken in particular, mean by absolute time. Redefining it doesn't change anything. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-05 23:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dc7e5d86-a301-4861-86a0-6de8bc1ca1a9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576026 |
On Sunday, 6 February 2022 at 01:05:42 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 06-Feb-22 6:40 am, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:19:59 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 6:15:19 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> He said that: "time is what the clock shows > >>>> > >>>> And your idea of time is...? > >>> > >>> Time is absolute and all processes of nature are operated on absolute time. > >> Including clocks? > > > > Yes and that’s why a clock come back shows a different time after journey. > If the clocks are operating on absolute time, then they would all read > the same when brought back to the same place. Even you appear to concede > that they don't. But, of course, anyone can check GPS; outside the insane scenarios of Your insane church they absolutely do.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web