Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372835 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-28 02:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-31 07:41 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 02:08 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 05:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-29 15:45 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 07:43 -0800
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 06:35 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-28 18:13 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 15:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-29 18:50 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:06 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-12-30 11:06 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 15:42 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-12-31 10:02 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:18 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-02 14:25 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 21:39 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-03 15:22 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 09:27 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-04 20:43 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:50 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-05 20:47 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-05 19:31 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 20:01 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-05 20:28 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-09 11:44 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 22:18 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:41 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 23:10 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 16:45 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-12-30 13:48 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 07:17 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-12-30 18:02 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 11:22 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 11:48 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 22:40 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 01:21 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-31 14:34 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:47 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 00:03 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 21:15 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:40 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 13:14 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-30 14:32 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:32 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:23 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 19:38 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 23:20 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 23:24 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 00:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 05:49 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-04 16:59 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 08:02 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-04 08:45 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-03 23:14 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 15:36 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:30 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 00:35 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 22:05 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 19:11 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:16 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 14:03 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-31 13:07 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 09:20 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2015-12-31 16:08 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 08:41 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 10:57 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 19:33 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:50 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 11:08 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 06:14 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 15:30 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 06:56 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 16:30 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 07:54 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:24 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-02 10:46 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2015-12-31 18:59 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 12:08 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-01 08:34 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 16:42 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 18:38 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-01 11:07 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-01 15:58 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 12:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 14:10 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-02 16:11 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 20:06 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-31 15:22 -0600
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 02:34 +0300
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-31 19:28 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:35 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 22:22 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:23 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 19:21 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 07:15 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-28 16:07 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-28 21:43 +0100
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 11:38 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 21:09 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 22:35 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:38 -0800
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 02:31 -0800
Re: Is Pentcho's Brain Sane? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 05:07 -0800
Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 15:00 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-30 09:06 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 11:02 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 19:44 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-30 13:26 -0800
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-30 22:12 +0000
Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-31 07:41 -0800
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 15:40 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20151231154035.3c25b85d79d8b0c3918a9e27@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #372949 |
Waye Kitchens to Anton Shepelev: > > The Starmaker: > > > Anton Shepelev: > > > > > > > You have introduced two inertial frames of > > > > reference, in which case yes, the clocks in > > > > each frame will seem to tick slower to an > > > > observer in the other frame. There is no > > > > contradiction in that as long as the two > > > > clocks are spatially separated. > > > > > > Okay, one item at a time... > > > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick > > > slower? > > > > You do not seem to know the meaning of 'seem' > > Because [it?] is NOT an appearance, Antone. > Please relearn your tensors. You do not appear to know the meaning of 'appear'. Everything observed appears to the observer, be it a hallucination or a computer display. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n639n2$qf4$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #373004 |
Anton Shepelev wrote: >> > You do not seem to know the meaning of 'seem' >> >> Because [it?] is NOT an appearance, Antone. >> Please relearn your tensors. > > You do not appear to know the meaning of 'appear'. > Everything observed appears to the observer, be it a hallucination or a > computer display. This is where you got it wrong. It is not only an appearance, since all interrelations are both as much physical as they can get. There is no speed higher than c to contradict that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 14:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56845B83.45D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #372948 |
Anton Shepelev wrote: > > The Starmaker to Anton Shepelev > on the twins paradox: > > > > You have introduced two inertial frames of > > > reference, in which case yes, the clocks in > > > each frame will seem to tick slower to an ob- > > > server in the other frame. There is no contra- > > > diction in that as long as the two clocks are > > > spatially separated. > > > > Okay, one item at a time... > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slow- > > er? > > You do not seem to know the meaning of 'seem': > > To appear, or to appear to be; to have a show or > semblance; to present an appearance; to look; to > strike one's apprehension or fancy as being; to > be taken as. I saw the word 'seem', I ignored it because I thought it was just a mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 15:32 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20151231153217.52593bda1d71058b8e6b4496@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #372955 |
The Starmaker to Anton Shepelev: > > The Starmaker: > > > Anton Shepelev: > > > > > > > You have introduced two inertial frames of > > > > reference, in which case yes, the clocks in > > > > each frame will seem to tick slower to an > > > > observer in the other frame. There is no > > > > contradiction in that as long as the two > > > > clocks are spatially separated. > > > > > > Okay, one item at a time... > > > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick > > > slower? > > > > You do not seem to know the meaning of 'seem' > > I saw the word 'seem', I ignored it because I > thought it was just a mistake. It wasn't. Whereas observations depend on the frame of reference whence they are made, they cannot be identified with objective reality, which is one. But being *determined* by the frame of reference, they cannot be called subjective either. Therefore, they are different but compatible views on the same objective reality. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 16:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56886A19.6014@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #372940 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? You..."When"? 'When' does the clock tick slower? The answer is very simple.. except 'experts' in GR SR don't seem to know the answer. Maybe it's because you get your information from the internet.. or behind the times books and magazine articles. Maybe you don't understand the Question! 'When' does the clock tick slower? How can I make the question...simplier? Maybe mutilple choice will help yous? The clock on the ground ticks slower than the clock on the top. The question is not how slow on the ground ticks.. the question is...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 16:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56886ABF.6AD5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #373150 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > You..."When"? > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > The answer is very simple.. > > except 'experts' in GR SR don't > seem to know the answer. > > Maybe it's because you > get your information > from the internet.. > or behind the times > books and magazine articles. > > Maybe you don't > understand the Question! > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > How can I make the question...simplier? > > Maybe mutilple choice will help yous? > > The clock > on the ground > ticks slower > than the clock > on the top. > > The question is not > how slow on the ground > ticks.. > the question is... 'When' does the clock tick slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 19:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <568897BD.6E91@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #373152 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > You..."When"? > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > The answer is very simple.. > > > > except 'experts' in GR SR don't > > seem to know the answer. > > > > Maybe it's because you > > get your information > > from the internet.. > > or behind the times > > books and magazine articles. > > > > Maybe you don't > > understand the Question! > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > How can I make the question...simplier? > > > > Maybe mutilple choice will help yous? > > > > The clock > > on the ground > > ticks slower > > than the clock > > on the top. > > > > The question is not > > how slow on the ground > > ticks.. > > the question is... > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? Okay, I think i see the problem here... the word "When" is stumping you. So, I'll rephrase the question...that might help https://www.google.com/#q=define+when 1. At what time, does the clock tick slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 23:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5688CBCA.341E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #373159 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > You..."When"? > > > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > The answer is very simple.. > > > > > > except 'experts' in GR SR don't > > > seem to know the answer. > > > > > > Maybe it's because you > > > get your information > > > from the internet.. > > > or behind the times > > > books and magazine articles. > > > > > > Maybe you don't > > > understand the Question! > > > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > How can I make the question...simplier? > > > > > > Maybe mutilple choice will help yous? > > > > > > The clock > > > on the ground > > > ticks slower > > > than the clock > > > on the top. > > > > > > The question is not > > > how slow on the ground > > > ticks.. > > > the question is... > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > Okay, I think i see the problem here... > > the word "When" is stumping you. > > So, I'll rephrase the question...that might help > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > 1. > At what time, does the clock tick slower? No, I don't think that's going to work... When does the clock tick slower? or When does the clock run slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 23:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5688CCB2.1E4E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #373170 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > > > > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > You..."When"? > > > > > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > The answer is very simple.. > > > > > > > > except 'experts' in GR SR don't > > > > seem to know the answer. > > > > > > > > Maybe it's because you > > > > get your information > > > > from the internet.. > > > > or behind the times > > > > books and magazine articles. > > > > > > > > Maybe you don't > > > > understand the Question! > > > > > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > How can I make the question...simplier? > > > > > > > > Maybe mutilple choice will help yous? > > > > > > > > The clock > > > > on the ground > > > > ticks slower > > > > than the clock > > > > on the top. > > > > > > > > The question is not > > > > how slow on the ground > > > > ticks.. > > > > the question is... > > > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > Okay, I think i see the problem here... > > > > the word "When" is stumping you. > > > > So, I'll rephrase the question...that might help > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > 1. > > At what time, does the clock tick slower? > > No, I don't think that's going to work... > > When does the clock tick slower? > > or > > When does the clock run slower? You got a mechanical clock at the north pole, with a guy looking at it And you got a mechanical clock at the equator, with a girl looking at it Of course, the clock runs a little slower at the equator.. but the question is... When does it run slower? In the summertime? Winter time? Spring, or Fall??? Or in the mornings, or in the afternoon, or evenings. When does it run slower???? Or does it run slower when she keeps looking at the clock all the time, no matter what time of day it is or what month it is.. comparison to the clock at the north pole where the guy is looking at it? When does the clock run slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 00:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5c43e854-86f3-456f-a61a-2405d55a7e4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373171 |
As I mentioned and proved in another post, Einstein's relativities were thought experiments, no more and no less: SCIENCE FICTION, not better than Isaac Asimov or G.H. Wells. Omar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 05:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6df4c92f-8b4e-4e29-a61b-57447933a0dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373174 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:09:39 AM UTC-7, Omar Shabsigh wrote: > > As I mentioned and proved in another post, Einstein's relativities were > thought experiments > .... > Omar That is a vague claim that insinuates denigration. It's irrelevant that Einstein performed thought experiments (and, BTW, several actual experiments supporting E's analysis had been performed). The important facts are that MANY, MANY experiments have been performed which confirm his theories. Limiting one's focus to E to declaim his theories is sophistry of the worst kind. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 16:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n6e4td$gsu$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #373269 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:6df4c92f-8b4e-4e29-a61b-57447933a0dd@googlegroups.com... |The important facts are that MANY, MANY experiments have been performed |which confirm his theories. And even more denying his Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 08:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e409fe4f-7d43-4e80-bd17-ae0b1a22f552@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #373273 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 8:59:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:6df4c92f-8b4e-4e29-a61b-57447933a0dd@googlegroups.com... > > > > The important facts are that MANY, MANY experiments have been performed > > which confirm his theories. > > And even more denying his Shit. They are just delusional shit-shovelers like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 08:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <568AA18F.2312@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #373174 |
Omar Shabsigh wrote: > > As I mentioned and proved in another post, Einstein's relativities were thought experiments, no more and no less: SCIENCE FICTION, not better than Isaac Asimov or G.H. Wells. > > Omar einstein did thought experiments because at that time that was what he did...thought experiments. the atomic bomb was a test he performed by creating the manhattan project to test his e-mc2 theory. in other words...einstein got others to test his thoughts. einstein didn't get out much... he stood home a lot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 23:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <568A1BDE.91A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #373171 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When, I repeat...'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > > > > > For those that don't know the definition of "When".. > > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > > > > > > > > > So the question is, 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > > > You..."When"? > > > > > > > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > > > The answer is very simple.. > > > > > > > > > > except 'experts' in GR SR don't > > > > > seem to know the answer. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it's because you > > > > > get your information > > > > > from the internet.. > > > > > or behind the times > > > > > books and magazine articles. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you don't > > > > > understand the Question! > > > > > > > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > > > > > How can I make the question...simplier? > > > > > > > > > > Maybe mutilple choice will help yous? > > > > > > > > > > The clock > > > > > on the ground > > > > > ticks slower > > > > > than the clock > > > > > on the top. > > > > > > > > > > The question is not > > > > > how slow on the ground > > > > > ticks.. > > > > > the question is... > > > > > > > > 'When' does the clock tick slower? > > > > > > Okay, I think i see the problem here... > > > > > > the word "When" is stumping you. > > > > > > So, I'll rephrase the question...that might help > > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+when > > > > > > 1. > > > At what time, does the clock tick slower? > > > > No, I don't think that's going to work... > > > > When does the clock tick slower? > > > > or > > > > When does the clock run slower? > > You got a mechanical clock at the north pole, with a guy looking at it > > And you got a mechanical clock at the equator, with a girl looking at it > > Of course, the clock runs a little slower at the equator.. > > but the question is... > > When does it run slower? In the summertime? Winter time? Spring, or Fall??? Or > in the mornings, or in the afternoon, or evenings. When does it run slower???? > > Or does it run slower when she keeps looking at the clock all the time, > no matter what time of day it is or what month it is.. > comparison to the clock at the north pole where the guy is looking at it? > > When does the clock run slower? Lets say it runs slower a few seconds a day... lets say 3 seconds a day.. When does the clock run slower? Or when do those 3 seconds of slower running time occur? The first 3 seconds? or 1 second in the mornning and one second in the afternoon and the third second at night? or maybe... When does the clock run slower?? If you don't know the answer... what are you doing in this newsgroup? If you don't know the answer... Why are you lurking?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 15:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50f4e7e6-5fd5-4734-9aad-0ddc0313c41a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372921 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 2:48:30 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Koobee Wublee would like to write the Lorentz > > transform as the following where the unprimed > > frame is using coordinate system (t, x, y, z) to > > describe (thus observe) an event, and at the same > > time, the primed frame is using coordinate system > > (t', x', dy', dz') to describe the same event. > > <shrug> > > > ** c dt' = (c dt - v dx) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > ** dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > ** dy' = dy > > ** dz' = dz > > > [...] Say the twins are A and B. When A is ob- > > serving B, > > > ** dt_AB sqrt(1 - B'^2) = dt_BB > > > Or > > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B'^2) > > > Where > > > ** A = primed observing the event > > ** B = unprimed also observing the event which is itself > > ** dt_AB = time at B as observed by A > > ** dt_BB = time at B > > > When B is observing A, > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B'^2) > > > Or > > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B'^2) > > > Where > > > ** A = primed also observing the event which is itself > > ** B = unprimed observing the event > > ** dt_AA = time at A > > ** dt_BA = time at A as observed by B > > ** B^2 = B'^2 > > > To sum up, we have > > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B^2) > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2) > > > Thus, the contradiction to the Twin paradox is ab- > > solutely fatal to the religion of relativity. Af- > > ter brainstorming wishing for a divine interven- > > tion, the Einstein dingleberries had to create a > > new law of physics that divinely apply only to > > non-inertial frames of reference, but that is to- > > tal bullshit. <shrug> > > You have introduced two inertial frames of refer- > ence, in which case yes, the clocks in each frame > will seem to tick slower to an observer in the other > frame. Koobee Wublee has introduced two frames of reference regardless if inertial or non-inertial. <shrug> > There is no contradiction in that as long as the two clocks are > spatially separated. This is nonsense. SR never said so. <shrug> > [rest of lack of understanding in SR snipped] SR never said non-inertial frames of reference bare different laws of physics. SR never said the Lorentz symmetry only applies to the inertial frames of reference but not non-inertial ones. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 16:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <40f02efa-7678-4769-95a3-6f39cbe6dc81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372959 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 4:36:46 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > SR never said non-inertial frames of reference bare different laws of > physics. Specious argument. SR does not discuss noninertial frames. > SR never said the Lorentz symmetry only applies to the inertial frames of > reference but not non-inertial ones. <shrug> Pure baloney. The "v" refers to CONSTANT velocity between two frames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 00:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n61t7s$do6$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372963 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> SR never said the Lorentz symmetry only applies to the inertial frames >> of reference but not non-inertial ones. <shrug> > > Pure baloney. The "v" refers to CONSTANT velocity between two frames. Actually refers to object motion inside same frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-30 22:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e237ddbf-7ab1-4602-a873-20e1946096fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372963 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 4:30:32 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Koobee Wublee would like to write the Lorentz > > transform as the following where the unprimed > > frame is using coordinate system (t, x, y, z) to > > describe (thus observe) an event, and at the same > > time, the primed frame is using coordinate system > > (t', x', dy', dz') to describe the same event. > > <shrug> > > > ** c dt' = (c dt - v dx / c) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > ** dx' = (dx - v dt) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > ** dy' = dy > > ** dz' = dz > > > [...] Say the twins are A and B. When A is ob- > > serving B, > > > ** dt_AB sqrt(1 - B'^2) = dt_BB > > > Or > > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B'^2) > > > Where > > > ** A = primed observing the event > > ** B = unprimed also observing the event which is itself > > ** dt_AB = time at B as observed by A > > ** dt_BB = time at B > > > When B is observing A, > > > ** dt_AA = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_BA sqrt(1 - B'^2) > > > Or > > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2) = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B'^2) > > > Where > > > ** A = primed also observing the event which is itself > > ** B = unprimed observing the event > > ** dt_AA = time at A > > ** dt_BA = time at A as observed by B > > ** B^2 = B'^2 > > > To sum up, we have > > > ** dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B^2) > > ** dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2) > > > Thus, the contradiction to the Twin paradox is ab- > > solutely fatal to the religion of relativity. Af- > > ter brainstorming wishing for a divine interven- > > tion, the Einstein dingleberries had to create a > > new law of physics that divinely apply only to > > non-inertial frames of reference, but that is to- > > tal bullshit. <shrug> > Specious argument. SR does not discuss noninertial frames. This is false. The mathematic of SR written down as the Lorentz transform above satisfies any frames of reference including non-inertial ones. <shrug> > The "v" refers to CONSTANT velocity between two frames. "v" does not have to be constant despite your stupid god of relativity aka Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar whispers into your ears as so. That is solely between you and your stupid god aka Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 19:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <52e06be1-f6e7-4128-a2fb-036a0e3b9bee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372978 |
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 11:05:21 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 4:30:32 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > Thus, the contradiction to the Twin paradox is ab- > > > solutely fatal to the religion of relativity. Af- > > > ter brainstorming wishing for a divine interven- > > > tion, the Einstein dingleberries had to create a > > > new law of physics that divinely apply only to > > > non-inertial frames of reference, but that is to- > > > tal bullshit. <shrug> > > > Specious argument. SR does not discuss noninertial frames. > > This is false. Nope. You obviously don't know truth when it smacks you in the face. > The mathematic of SR written down as the Lorentz transform above > satisfies any frames of reference including non-inertial ones. <shrug> Complete bovine excrement. > > The "v" refers to CONSTANT velocity between two frames. > > "v" does not have to be constant So let's see you derive the LT without assuming v is constant. [Arrogant stupidity deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web