Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400579
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck |
| Date | 2016-12-02 15:24 +0000 |
| Organization | The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989 |
| Message-ID | <o1s3n1$f93$2@pcls7.std.com> (permalink) |
| References | (19 earlier) <88d34940-e8a3-455e-91e5-95a29e3b6573@googlegroups.com> <o1pkuf$t9k$2@gioia.aioe.org> <0d5b1d3b-fd83-4d4e-b50f-2927f15dc343@googlegroups.com> <o1q46k$1oro$1@gioia.aioe.org> <57197671-e900-444d-a2cb-c6cf3961f4aa@googlegroups.com> |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 4:20:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/1/2016 2:00 PM, kenseto wrote: >> > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 12/1/2016 10:05 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> Both A and B use the same LT equation to predict the rate of each other >> >> >> >> No, this is where you are wrong. >> >> The Lorentz equation is NOT telling you the rate of the moving clock. >> >> That's not what it means. You THINK it means that, but you're wrong, and >> >> you can't even point to whatever you read that made you think that. >> > >> > Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t) >> > >> > This equation says that the passage of Delta(t') on the primed moving clock >> > is equal to gamma*Delta(t) on the umprimed observer's clock. >> >> No, that's not what that equation means. >Idiot, if you have another meaning for this equation let us know ....don't >just making bogus assertion. The proper definition is that an observer will measure a moving clock as ticking at the rate r' = r/gamma. Only a relatively moving observer will measure the clock as running slow in SR. >> Sorry. >> Where did you read that this is what that means? >Sorry.Where did you read that this is not what that means? The writings of Einstein.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:33 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-28 07:44 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-29 05:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-29 14:50 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:37 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 09:59 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 08:57 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 09:00 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 10:21 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 05:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 19:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-01 08:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:00 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-01 12:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:20 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-02 04:37 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 15:24 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-02 14:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 23:51 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-03 04:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 06:01 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-04 05:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 16:45 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-04 10:52 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 06:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:38 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 05:41 -0800
csiph-web