Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #360250 > unrolled thread

Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:07 -0700
    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-10 22:10 +0200
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:36 -0700
        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-10 22:54 +0200
    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-10 16:53 -0500
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 18:24 -0700
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 23:06 -0700
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-11 05:43 -0700
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-01 09:32 -0700
        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-02 10:32 -0500
          Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 22:01 -0700
            Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-07 09:52 -0500
    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 21:34 -0700
      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:39 -0700
        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-11 08:06 -0700
          Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:34 -0700
            Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-11 08:47 -0700
              Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 11:02 -0500
                Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-11 14:49 -0700
                  Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-11 15:11 -0700
                  Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 17:16 -0500
                    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-12 07:11 -0700
                      Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 09:53 -0500
                        Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-12 09:09 -0700
                          Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 11:29 -0500
                            Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-12 13:09 -0700
                              Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:39 -0500
                                Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-12 14:47 -0700
                                  Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 16:52 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#360395

On 8/11/2015 4:49 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/11/2015 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:34:55 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> What do the LT's predict: t' = (t-vx/c2)g. Since v = 0, t'=t,
>>>>>> which contradicts our above conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> But v is not equal to zero. It is calculated as follows:
>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the source)(measured frequency of
>>>>> the source - measure frequency at the detector)
>>>>
>>>> But unfortunately for you, thats not how v (speed) is defined in SR.
>>>
>>> SR is wrong and incomplete. That's why it is not capable of handling gravity.
>>> My formula is valid in all environments including gravity.
>>>
>>
>> Ken, you'd have to describe how your definition of v would help you
>> measure the speed of a fastball at a baseball game.
>
> You use the same formula I provided:
> v=(universal wavelength of the radar souce)((initial frequency of the radar source - returning frequency)/2)
>

I don't have a radar gun. How do I measure the speed of a fastball at a 
baseball game?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360454

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/11/2015 4:49 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2015 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:34:55 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> What do the LT's predict: t' = (t-vx/c2)g. Since v = 0, t'=t,
> >>>>>> which contradicts our above conclusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But v is not equal to zero. It is calculated as follows:
> >>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the source)(measured frequency of
> >>>>> the source - measure frequency at the detector)
> >>>>
> >>>> But unfortunately for you, thats not how v (speed) is defined in SR.
> >>>
> >>> SR is wrong and incomplete. That's why it is not capable of handling gravity.
> >>> My formula is valid in all environments including gravity.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ken, you'd have to describe how your definition of v would help you
> >> measure the speed of a fastball at a baseball game.
> >
> > You use the same formula I provided:
> > v=(universal wavelength of the radar souce)((initial frequency of the radar source - returning frequency)/2)
> >
> 
> I don't have a radar gun. How do I measure the speed of a fastball at a 
> baseball game?

As you said: Don't be so lazy.....look it up!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360465

On 8/12/2015 9:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/11/2015 4:49 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:34:55 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do the LT's predict: t' = (t-vx/c2)g. Since v = 0, t'=t,
>>>>>>>> which contradicts our above conclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But v is not equal to zero. It is calculated as follows:
>>>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the source)(measured frequency of
>>>>>>> the source - measure frequency at the detector)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But unfortunately for you, thats not how v (speed) is defined in SR.
>>>>>
>>>>> SR is wrong and incomplete. That's why it is not capable of handling gravity.
>>>>> My formula is valid in all environments including gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ken, you'd have to describe how your definition of v would help you
>>>> measure the speed of a fastball at a baseball game.
>>>
>>> You use the same formula I provided:
>>> v=(universal wavelength of the radar souce)((initial frequency of the radar source - returning frequency)/2)
>>>
>>
>> I don't have a radar gun. How do I measure the speed of a fastball at a
>> baseball game?
>
> As you said: Don't be so lazy.....look it up!!!!
>

The key to physics is measurement. You have a definition of velocity and 
have specified that the only way that you can measure that velocity is 
if the object is emitting light or if you can use a radar gun on it.

Really? How did anyone measure the speed of a runner in the 1700s? Did 
they have to go look it up?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360470

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/12/2015 9:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2015 4:49 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/11/2015 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:34:55 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What do the LT's predict: t' = (t-vx/c2)g. Since v = 0, t'=t,
> >>>>>>>> which contradicts our above conclusion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But v is not equal to zero. It is calculated as follows:
> >>>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the source)(measured frequency of
> >>>>>>> the source - measure frequency at the detector)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But unfortunately for you, thats not how v (speed) is defined in SR.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SR is wrong and incomplete. That's why it is not capable of handling gravity.
> >>>>> My formula is valid in all environments including gravity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ken, you'd have to describe how your definition of v would help you
> >>>> measure the speed of a fastball at a baseball game.
> >>>
> >>> You use the same formula I provided:
> >>> v=(universal wavelength of the radar souce)((initial frequency of the radar source - returning frequency)/2)
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't have a radar gun. How do I measure the speed of a fastball at a
> >> baseball game?
> >
> > As you said: Don't be so lazy.....look it up!!!!
> >
> 
> The key to physics is measurement. You have a definition of velocity and 
> have specified that the only way that you can measure that velocity is 
> if the object is emitting light or if you can use a radar gun on it.
> 
> Really? How did anyone measure the speed of a runner in the 1700s? Did 
> they have to go look it up?

Idiot PD..... look it up!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360475

On 8/12/2015 11:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/12/2015 9:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2015 4:49 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:34:55 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do the LT's predict: t' = (t-vx/c2)g. Since v = 0, t'=t,
>>>>>>>>>> which contradicts our above conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But v is not equal to zero. It is calculated as follows:
>>>>>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the source)(measured frequency of
>>>>>>>>> the source - measure frequency at the detector)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But unfortunately for you, thats not how v (speed) is defined in SR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SR is wrong and incomplete. That's why it is not capable of handling gravity.
>>>>>>> My formula is valid in all environments including gravity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken, you'd have to describe how your definition of v would help you
>>>>>> measure the speed of a fastball at a baseball game.
>>>>>
>>>>> You use the same formula I provided:
>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the radar souce)((initial frequency of the radar source - returning frequency)/2)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a radar gun. How do I measure the speed of a fastball at a
>>>> baseball game?
>>>
>>> As you said: Don't be so lazy.....look it up!!!!
>>>
>>
>> The key to physics is measurement. You have a definition of velocity and
>> have specified that the only way that you can measure that velocity is
>> if the object is emitting light or if you can use a radar gun on it.
>>
>> Really? How did anyone measure the speed of a runner in the 1700s? Did
>> they have to go look it up?
>
> Idiot PD..... look it up!!!!
>

Yup, ok, did that. Back in the day, velocity was completely measurable 
without measuring the frequency of any light bounced off the moving object.

You now say this is the only way to measure velocity.

So, Ken, if you want to see why your statement is so laughably stupid, I 
suppose YOU can look it up.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360507

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:29:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/12/2015 11:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/12/2015 9:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/11/2015 4:49 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:34:55 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What do the LT's predict: t' = (t-vx/c2)g. Since v = 0, t'=t,
> >>>>>>>>>> which contradicts our above conclusion.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But v is not equal to zero. It is calculated as follows:
> >>>>>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the source)(measured frequency of
> >>>>>>>>> the source - measure frequency at the detector)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But unfortunately for you, thats not how v (speed) is defined in SR.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> SR is wrong and incomplete. That's why it is not capable of handling gravity.
> >>>>>>> My formula is valid in all environments including gravity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ken, you'd have to describe how your definition of v would help you
> >>>>>> measure the speed of a fastball at a baseball game.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You use the same formula I provided:
> >>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the radar souce)((initial frequency of the radar source - returning frequency)/2)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't have a radar gun. How do I measure the speed of a fastball at a
> >>>> baseball game?
> >>>
> >>> As you said: Don't be so lazy.....look it up!!!!
> >>>
> >>
> >> The key to physics is measurement. You have a definition of velocity and
> >> have specified that the only way that you can measure that velocity is
> >> if the object is emitting light or if you can use a radar gun on it.
> >>
> >> Really? How did anyone measure the speed of a runner in the 1700s? Did
> >> they have to go look it up?
> >
> > Idiot PD..... look it up!!!!
> >
> 
> Yup, ok, did that. Back in the day, velocity was completely measurable 
> without measuring the frequency of any light bounced off the moving object.

Somoron PD..... look it up how they do it.
> 
> You now say this is the only way to measure velocity.


You are a lying sack of shit. I never said that. I gave you the IRT way of measuring v.
> 
> So, Ken, if you want to see why your statement is so laughably stupid, I 
> suppose YOU can look it up.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360513

On 8/12/2015 3:09 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:29:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/12/2015 11:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2015 9:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 4:49 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:34:55 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do the LT's predict: t' = (t-vx/c2)g. Since v = 0, t'=t,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which contradicts our above conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But v is not equal to zero. It is calculated as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the source)(measured frequency of
>>>>>>>>>>> the source - measure frequency at the detector)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But unfortunately for you, thats not how v (speed) is defined in SR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SR is wrong and incomplete. That's why it is not capable of handling gravity.
>>>>>>>>> My formula is valid in all environments including gravity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken, you'd have to describe how your definition of v would help you
>>>>>>>> measure the speed of a fastball at a baseball game.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You use the same formula I provided:
>>>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the radar souce)((initial frequency of the radar source - returning frequency)/2)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have a radar gun. How do I measure the speed of a fastball at a
>>>>>> baseball game?
>>>>>
>>>>> As you said: Don't be so lazy.....look it up!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The key to physics is measurement. You have a definition of velocity and
>>>> have specified that the only way that you can measure that velocity is
>>>> if the object is emitting light or if you can use a radar gun on it.
>>>>
>>>> Really? How did anyone measure the speed of a runner in the 1700s? Did
>>>> they have to go look it up?
>>>
>>> Idiot PD..... look it up!!!!
>>>
>>
>> Yup, ok, did that. Back in the day, velocity was completely measurable
>> without measuring the frequency of any light bounced off the moving object.
>
> Somoron PD..... look it up how they do it.

I did!

>>
>> You now say this is the only way to measure velocity.
>
>
> You are a lying sack of shit. I never said that. I gave you the IRT way of measuring v.

Ah, OK, so IRT can't measure v of an object unless you use a radar gun 
or unless you measure the wavelength of light emitted by it.

>>
>> So, Ken, if you want to see why your statement is so laughably stupid, I
>> suppose YOU can look it up.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360522

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 4:39:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/12/2015 3:09 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:29:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/12/2015 11:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 8/12/2015 9:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/11/2015 4:49 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:34:55 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What do the LT's predict: t' = (t-vx/c2)g. Since v = 0, t'=t,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which contradicts our above conclusion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But v is not equal to zero. It is calculated as follows:
> >>>>>>>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the source)(measured frequency of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the source - measure frequency at the detector)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But unfortunately for you, thats not how v (speed) is defined in SR.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> SR is wrong and incomplete. That's why it is not capable of handling gravity.
> >>>>>>>>> My formula is valid in all environments including gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ken, you'd have to describe how your definition of v would help you
> >>>>>>>> measure the speed of a fastball at a baseball game.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You use the same formula I provided:
> >>>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the radar souce)((initial frequency of the radar source - returning frequency)/2)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't have a radar gun. How do I measure the speed of a fastball at a
> >>>>>> baseball game?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you said: Don't be so lazy.....look it up!!!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The key to physics is measurement. You have a definition of velocity and
> >>>> have specified that the only way that you can measure that velocity is
> >>>> if the object is emitting light or if you can use a radar gun on it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really? How did anyone measure the speed of a runner in the 1700s? Did
> >>>> they have to go look it up?
> >>>
> >>> Idiot PD..... look it up!!!!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yup, ok, did that. Back in the day, velocity was completely measurable
> >> without measuring the frequency of any light bounced off the moving object.
> >
> > Somoron PD..... look it up how they do it.
> 
> I did!

Then show us that you did.
> 
> >>
> >> You now say this is the only way to measure velocity.
> >
> >
> > You are a lying sack of shit. I never said that. I gave you the IRT way of measuring v.
> 
> Ah, OK, so IRT can't measure v of an object unless you use a radar gun 
> or unless you measure the wavelength of light emitted by it.

Moron PD.....I didn't say that either. I did say that you are a piece of shit.

> 
> >>
> >> So, Ken, if you want to see why your statement is so laughably stupid, I
> >> suppose YOU can look it up.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360523

On 8/12/2015 4:47 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 4:39:13 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/12/2015 3:09 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:29:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2015 11:09 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/12/2015 9:11 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:16:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 4:49 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:34:55 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:06:42 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do the LT's predict: t' = (t-vx/c2)g. Since v = 0, t'=t,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which contradicts our above conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But v is not equal to zero. It is calculated as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the source)(measured frequency of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the source - measure frequency at the detector)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But unfortunately for you, thats not how v (speed) is defined in SR.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SR is wrong and incomplete. That's why it is not capable of handling gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>> My formula is valid in all environments including gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ken, you'd have to describe how your definition of v would help you
>>>>>>>>>> measure the speed of a fastball at a baseball game.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You use the same formula I provided:
>>>>>>>>> v=(universal wavelength of the radar souce)((initial frequency of the radar source - returning frequency)/2)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't have a radar gun. How do I measure the speed of a fastball at a
>>>>>>>> baseball game?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you said: Don't be so lazy.....look it up!!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key to physics is measurement. You have a definition of velocity and
>>>>>> have specified that the only way that you can measure that velocity is
>>>>>> if the object is emitting light or if you can use a radar gun on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? How did anyone measure the speed of a runner in the 1700s? Did
>>>>>> they have to go look it up?
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot PD..... look it up!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup, ok, did that. Back in the day, velocity was completely measurable
>>>> without measuring the frequency of any light bounced off the moving object.
>>>
>>> Somoron PD..... look it up how they do it.
>>
>> I did!
>
> Then show us that you did.

Nah. You show me that you've looked up how speed was measured without 
radar guns and without measuring wavelength of emitted light.

>>
>>>>
>>>> You now say this is the only way to measure velocity.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are a lying sack of shit. I never said that. I gave you the IRT way of measuring v.
>>
>> Ah, OK, so IRT can't measure v of an object unless you use a radar gun
>> or unless you measure the wavelength of light emitted by it.
>
> Moron PD.....I didn't say that either. I did say that you are a piece of shit.

You said that's THE IRT way of measuring v.

If there are other ways IRT can measure v, perhaps you should say what 
they are.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>> So, Ken, if you want to see why your statement is so laughably stupid, I
>>>> suppose YOU can look it up.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web