Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #612974 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-06-15 08:14 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-06-15 23:26 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 174 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-15 08:23 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 09:35 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 16:17 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 17:57 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 19:08 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 22:45 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 23:01 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 01:21 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-06-16 15:18 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 06:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 07:54 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-16 17:15 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 10:29 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-16 20:22 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 17:39 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 09:27 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 09:40 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-17 17:38 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 13:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 16:32 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 16:41 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 16:50 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 17:06 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 18:47 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 21:57 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-20 03:30 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 06:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-20 08:02 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-20 10:29 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 20:47 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-20 12:09 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 18:04 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-20 19:35 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 20:41 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-21 09:41 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 18:46 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-22 10:25 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 16:51 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-22 17:51 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 19:40 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 21:29 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-23 07:57 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:37 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-23 17:45 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 18:36 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 12:17 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 14:23 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 14:46 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 18:06 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-25 03:10 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 20:40 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 20:53 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 21:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 21:40 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 22:13 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 22:30 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-24 22:53 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 23:55 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 23:40 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-25 00:18 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 00:28 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 00:30 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-25 00:47 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-25 00:54 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 10:55 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-25 16:05 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 02:29 -0700
Re: Einsteine Miquel Niftrik <lile@iulmqnqu.ni> - 2023-06-26 13:47 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 06:56 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 07:20 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-26 14:02 -0400
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 11:12 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-26 15:33 -0400
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 11:36 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 11:46 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 12:17 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 16:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 18:12 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 18:37 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 18:41 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 19:22 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 19:30 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 19:48 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 19:51 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 21:11 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 21:31 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-26 21:33 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 22:54 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 07:53 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 17:34 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-27 16:19 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 09:41 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 18:42 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 09:54 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 19:05 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 11:07 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 11:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 12:44 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 13:00 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 13:03 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 22:07 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 13:34 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 22:44 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-27 21:38 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 23:39 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-06-27 21:51 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-27 23:54 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 17:49 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 20:43 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 20:55 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 21:00 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 01:10 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 01:26 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 06:38 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 07:55 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 08:10 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 08:58 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 09:21 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 09:50 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 10:46 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:10 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 11:16 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 11:52 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 20:57 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 16:05 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 17:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-28 19:06 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 22:57 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 12:01 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-28 14:34 -0400
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Braxton Ramakers <ssor@ekrattrt.mr> - 2023-06-28 21:31 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Woodrow Aalst <soas@ooaowlat.ow> - 2023-06-28 21:41 +0000
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-28 22:29 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-27 13:06 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-25 09:44 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-22 20:48 -0500
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-22 19:06 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-23 05:19 -0500
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 11:13 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 02:22 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-06-25 07:25 +0200
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 12:13 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 13:01 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 17:22 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 18:17 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 19:02 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 22:15 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 09:24 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 10:44 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 11:11 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 12:12 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 19:07 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 14:34 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 11:13 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 12:04 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 12:20 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-19 14:40 -0500
Re: Einstein and Big Ben patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-19 16:04 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-19 19:34 -0500
Re: Einstein and Big Ben Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 23:29 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-20 23:31 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 19:58 -0700
Re: Einstein and Big Ben The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-15 23:26 -0700
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Braxton Ramakers <ssor@ekrattrt.mr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 21:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7i8rf$3kqjl$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #613964 |
Volney wrote: > On 6/28/2023 4:10 AM, patdolan wrote: >> Principle, positive branch root: ii = iiii -1 = 1 > > Your mistake here is assuming the "principle" square root is the only > one valid here. not true. The khazar goy, gypsy beggar zelenske, is how Sabbatean Frankists operate (see also Blinken and Nuland), which is why they are perfectly happy to ally with Banderites and other Neo-Nazis. true fact, these putrid khazar goys are Sabbatean Frankists, satanists. https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/578860-zelensky-cancels-traditional- christmas/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Woodrow Aalst <soas@ooaowlat.ow> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u7i9f3$3kuj7$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #613964 |
Volney wrote: > On 6/28/2023 4:10 AM, patdolan wrote: >> Principle, positive branch root: ii = iiii -1 = 1 > > Your mistake here is assuming the "principle" square root is the only > one valid here. I was to say, not true. Because the khazar goy, gypsy beggar zelenske, is how *_Sabbatean_Frankists_* operate (see also Blinken and Nuland), which is why they are perfectly happy to ally with Banderites and other Neo-Nazis. true fact, these putrid khazar goys are *_Sabbatean_Frankists_*, satanists. https://%72t.com/r%75%73%73ia/578860-zelensky-cancels-traditional-christmas/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-28 22:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccc9601c-b912-4835-a460-cd48eddc2b4bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613964 |
On Wednesday, 28 June 2023 at 20:34:28 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 6/28/2023 4:10 AM, patdolan wrote: > > > Principle, positive branch root: > > ii = iiii > > -1 = 1 > Your mistake here is assuming the "principle" square root is the only > one valid here. > > > > Negative branch root: > > - ( ii ) = - ( iiii ) > > 1 = -1 > Your mistake here is assuming the root that's NOT the "principle" square > root is the only one valid here. > > The square root "function" is not a simple function But sqrt function is not "square root of", stupid Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-27 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65a085b8-c09b-4174-a91a-5b0fe947944bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613872 |
On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 1:00:11 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 12:44:58 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > So you now retract the validity of the equation you yourself presented > > in this forum, namely, sqrt[(-1)(-1)] = sqrt(-1)sqrt(-1). > As always, you are mistaken. Here the statement I posted and re-posted no less than five times: > "The expression sqrt(1) represents either of two values, +1 and -1, and the expressions sqrt[(-1)(-1)] and sqrt(-1)sqrt(-1) also each represent either of two values, +1 and -1." > Now do you understand? If not, go ahead and ask for clarification oif whatever is still unclear to you. We are typing past each other on very different levels of operation. I am in the lecture hall at the board, railroad chalk in hand, chalk dust filling the air. You are in the nursery in diapers playing with blocks on the floor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d3de35ff-a5ee-4c0f-bc18-7445fb844f5fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613691 |
On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 12:18:52 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > This from the dolt who claims the relation (-1)^2 = (1)^2 rigorously implies -1 = 1.
> > >
> > > That is not my claim at all. My claim is that i^4 = i^8 and the law of exponent rigorously implies -1 = 1.
> >
> > LOL. That's what I said. Since i^2 = -1, your claim is that the relation (-1)^2 = (1)^2 implies -1 = 1. Wow. There's even a section in the Wikipedia page on Math Fallacies on this kind of idiocy.
> > >
> > > i^4 = i^8
> > > sqrt[ i^4 ] = sqrt[ i^8 ]
> >
> > LOL. Nope. There you are, as I said, assuming that the relation (-1)^2 = (1)^2 implies -1 = 1.
>
> Nowhere do I assume or type this.
You assumed and typed it in the quote above. Again, since i^2 = -1 and (-1)^2 = 1 unequivocally, your first equality is simply (-1)^2 = (1)^2, and sure enough, the values of the left and right sides are both 1, so you are asserting that 1=1. An auspicious start!
But then you assume and type that this implies sqrt(1) = sqrt(1), which is not unequivocally true, because the expression "sqrt(1)" signifies a number whose square is 1, and there are two such numbers, namely +1 and -1. If you specify that you are referring to +1 on both sides, or that you are referring to -1 on both sides, then equality holds and your second assertion amounts to, again, 1=1. So you're typing the same trivial thing repeatedly. ("All work and no play makes jack a dull boy.") But of course you're not trying to just assert 1=1, you are trying to assert -1=1, which obviously does not validly follow.
Look, consider the equality sin(0)=sin(pi). Now we take the inverse sine of both sides, and assert that 0 = pi. Well, that's precisely isomorphic to what you are doing, trying to infer from a relation of the form f(x)=f(y) that x=y. If the inverse of f is a multi-valued function, such as inverse sine or square root, that is an obviously false inference. (Now, for multi-valued functions, people sometimes adopt a convention of defining the "principal value", but in the grown-up world the principal value of a function is distinct from the function.)
> My valid derivation of a contradiction cleverly exploits the cyclic nature of the powers
> of i and the law of exponents.
There's nothing clever about what you're doing, it is blatently invalid reasoning, as explained above. What you are describing is standard fallacy, common among slow-witted school children.
> Long ago an ad hoc rule was added to arithmetic ... That law expressly
> forbad moving a negative sign under a radical sign...
Moving a negative sign from outside to inside a radical sign is not an "ad hoc rule", it is an obviously fallacious mistake. Again, this is a very common befuddlement for slow-witted 4th grade school children. The values of -sqrt(1) are +1 and -1, whereas the values of sqrt(-1) are +i and -i. So, "bringing a negative sign inside a radical" is simply a trivial mistake.
> Did you just accept it ... when in college the professor drew the yellow
> chalk coordinate system on top of the white chalk coordinate system and
> all of a sudden you believed in relativity?
Again, the point is that, regardless of whether the trajectory of the ball is described in terms of the white coordinate system or the yellow coordinate system, it still goes into the cup. Yes, the coordinates of the ball at the end of its journey are different, but the coordinates of the cup are also different, and they match, so the ball goes into the cup. Your belief that, when described in terms of one system it goes into the cup, but when described in terms of the other system it must physically karoom into the sand trap is just bizzare.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-22 20:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kfkbuoFrp0mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613499 |
On 6/22/2023 6:51 PM, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: >>> If you define ∆w and ∆B as the changes in w and B respectively during a >>> given interval of time ∆t', then we have the relation ∆w = 𝛾∆B, but if we >>> define them as the changes during a given interval of time ∆t, then we >>> have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. >> >> 𝛾∆w = ∆B has not physical consequences for either the distant observer or the solar system. > > Again, any such equations is meaningless unless you define the symbols. For example, if we define ∆w and ∆B as the changes in w and B respectively during a given interval of time ∆t', then we have the relation ∆w = 𝛾∆B, but if we define them as the changes during a given interval of time ∆t, then we have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. Both of these are objectively verifiable physical facts. They can both be verified by anyone in any state of motion. The race for the title of most incompetent poster in sci.physics.relativity has finally been settled. Dolan has the honor he's worked so hard to achieve.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-22 19:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6adecb61-5b22-41fc-b4fc-c3570b8e1e58n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613508 |
On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 6:48:12 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 6/22/2023 6:51 PM, Trevor Lange wrote: > > On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > >>> If you define ∆w and ∆B as the changes in w and B respectively during a > >>> given interval of time ∆t', then we have the relation ∆w = 𝛾∆B, but if we > >>> define them as the changes during a given interval of time ∆t, then we > >>> have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. > >> > >> 𝛾∆w = ∆B has not physical consequences for either the distant observer or the solar system. > > > > Again, any such equations is meaningless unless you define the symbols. For example, if we define ∆w and ∆B as the changes in w and B respectively during a given interval of time ∆t', then we have the relation ∆w = 𝛾∆B, but if we define them as the changes during a given interval of time ∆t, then we have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. Both of these are objectively verifiable physical facts. They can both be verified by anyone in any state of motion. > The race for the title of most incompetent poster in > sci.physics.relativity has finally been settled. Dolan > has the honor he's worked so hard to achieve. You'll never fool me again, Starmaker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-23 05:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kfl9svF1opeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613509 |
On 6/22/2023 9:06 PM, patdolan wrote: > On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 6:48:12 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 6/22/2023 6:51 PM, Trevor Lange wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: >>>>> If you define ∆w and ∆B as the changes in w and B respectively during a >>>>> given interval of time ∆t', then we have the relation ∆w = 𝛾∆B, but if we >>>>> define them as the changes during a given interval of time ∆t, then we >>>>> have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. >>>> >>>> 𝛾∆w = ∆B has not physical consequences for either the distant observer or the solar system. >>> >>> Again, any such equations is meaningless unless you define the symbols. For example, if we define ∆w and ∆B as the changes in w and B respectively during a given interval of time ∆t', then we have the relation ∆w = 𝛾∆B, but if we define them as the changes during a given interval of time ∆t, then we have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. Both of these are objectively verifiable physical facts. They can both be verified by anyone in any state of motion. >> The race for the title of most incompetent poster in >> sci.physics.relativity has finally been settled. Dolan >> has the honor he's worked so hard to achieve. > > You'll never fool me again, Starmaker. ibid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-23 11:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kfl617F16r5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613508 |
On 2023-06-23 01:48:07 +0000, whodat said: > On 6/22/2023 6:51 PM, Trevor Lange wrote: >> On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: >>>> If you define ∆w and ∆B as the changes in w and B respectively during a >>>> given interval of time ∆t', then we have the relation ∆w = 𝛾∆B, but if we >>>> define them as the changes during a given interval of time ∆t, then we >>>> have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. >>> >>> 𝛾∆w = ∆B has not physical consequences for either the distant observer >>> or the solar system. >> >> Again, any such equations is meaningless unless you define the symbols. >> For example, if we define ∆w and ∆B as the changes in w and B >> respectively during a given interval of time ∆t', then we have the >> relation ∆w = 𝛾∆B, but if we define them as the changes during a given >> interval of time ∆t, then we have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. Both of >> these are objectively verifiable physical facts. They can both be >> verified by anyone in any state of motion. > The race for the title of most incompetent poster in > sci.physics.relativity has finally been settled. Dolan > has the honor he's worked so hard to achieve. You're probably right, though the competition for that title is pretty severe, with Ken Seto, Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Maciej Wozniak, Laurence Clark Crossen and Thomas Heger also in the running. -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-23 02:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b1ebab4-9f64-464a-8bf0-3a587d870751n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613518 |
On Friday, 23 June 2023 at 11:13:15 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-06-23 01:48:07 +0000, whodat said: > > > On 6/22/2023 6:51 PM, Trevor Lange wrote: > >> On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > >>>> If you define ∆w and ∆B as the changes in w and B respectively during a > >>>> given interval of time ∆t', then we have the relation ∆w = 𝛾∆B, but if we > >>>> define them as the changes during a given interval of time ∆t, then we > >>>> have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. > >>> > >>> 𝛾∆w = ∆B has not physical consequences for either the distant observer > >>> or the solar system. > >> > >> Again, any such equations is meaningless unless you define the symbols. > >> For example, if we define ∆w and ∆B as the changes in w and B > >> respectively during a given interval of time ∆t', then we have the > >> relation ∆w = 𝛾∆B, but if we define them as the changes during a given > >> interval of time ∆t, then we have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. Both of > >> these are objectively verifiable physical facts. They can both be > >> verified by anyone in any state of motion. > > The race for the title of most incompetent poster in > > sci.physics.relativity has finally been settled. Dolan > > has the honor he's worked so hard to achieve. > You're probably right, though the competition for that title is pretty > severe, with Ken Seto, Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Maciej Wozniak, > Laurence Clark Crossen and Thomas Heger also in the running. And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. Your insane screams of being FORCED to THE BEST WAY somehow didn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-25 07:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kfq1edFo3r2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613518 |
Am 23.06.2023 um 11:13 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden: >> given interval of time ∆t, then we have the relation 𝛾∆w = ∆B. Both >>> of these are objectively verifiable physical facts. They can both be >>> verified by anyone in any state of motion. >> The race for the title of most incompetent poster in >> sci.physics.relativity has finally been settled. Dolan >> has the honor he's worked so hard to achieve. > > You're probably right, though the competition for that title is pretty > severe, with Ken Seto, Richard Hachel, Richard Hertz, Maciej Wozniak, > Laurence Clark Crossen and Thomas Heger also in the running. > I somehow like to be mentioned, even if you regard me as incompetent. But I'm actually not a physicist, but an enegineer and don't really know, what kind of drugs proffessional physicsts actually take (to stand the mess they get exposed to). As a hobbist I'm able to choose my topics myself and are also able to ignore rants and insults. In the meantime the pro's stare at their computer screens, scratch their heads and silently ask themselves, what the hack they are doing there. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 12:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb5c240a-1076-460a-8f72-5bf813228547n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613020 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 1:21:28 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > [I'll ignored the clear and concise answer you generously provided to my > first question, because I have the attention span of a knat.] You're welcome. > > ... two rows of identically constructed clocks, sliding past each other. Within > > each row the clocks are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. The > > elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the > > other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other > > clocks at the passings. > > Let's say a row of your identically constructed clocks is sliding past me > and my wristwatch. How will I detect time dilation? As stated above, the elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other clocks at the passings. Remedial assistance: For example, if you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3. The same applies to each clock in both rows, i.e., the relations are completely reciprocal. Each clock runs slow in terms of the other row of clocks. PD+50IQ wrote: > Wait.. that's logically impossible! There is no possible way that each > clock could run slow compared with the clocks in the other row.... no > possible way... unless... unless... the synchronizations in the two rows > are skewed relative to each other. But why should that be the case? > Why wouldn't we just say the clocks are synchronized incorrectly? What > possible justifiction could there be for synchronizing them this way... > Oh, wait... you said they are *inertially* synchronized, right? Hmmm... > So, are you saying the inertia of objects depends on their states of motion? > That would explain why inertial synchronization results in skewed > simultaneities... but that would be true if and only if energy itself has > inertia. In fact, it requires that every localized quantity of energy E has > inertia E/c^2. So, what you are saying is true if and only if E=mc^2. Well done, PD+50IQ. It only took you slightly longer than it takes the average student to figure that out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec0c3225-a5c7-4aca-8d1b-268ec9ff474bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613047 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 12:13:20 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 1:21:28 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > [I'll ignored the clear and concise answer you generously provided to my > > first question, because I have the attention span of a knat.] > > You're welcome. > > > > ... two rows of identically constructed clocks, sliding past each other. Within > > > each row the clocks are mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. The > > > elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the > > > other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other > > > clocks at the passings. > > > > Let's say a row of your identically constructed clocks is sliding past me > > and my wristwatch. How will I detect time dilation? > As stated above, the elapsed time on each clock between passings of consecutive clocks on the other row is less than the difference between the readings of those other clocks at the passings. > > Remedial assistance: For example, if you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3. So there is no relativistic doppler of T3 and T4 because I look at them just as they pass me? That is to say, the readings on T3 and T4 would be identical, respectively, if there were sliding to my right or my left? > > The same applies to each clock in both rows, i.e., the relations are completely reciprocal. Each clock runs slow in terms of the other row of clocks. > > PD+50IQ wrote: > > Wait.. that's logically impossible! There is no possible way that each > > clock could run slow compared with the clocks in the other row.... no > > possible way... unless... unless... the synchronizations in the two rows > > are skewed relative to each other. But why should that be the case? > > Why wouldn't we just say the clocks are synchronized incorrectly? What > > possible justifiction could there be for synchronizing them this way... > > Oh, wait... you said they are *inertially* synchronized, right? Hmmm... > > So, are you saying the inertia of objects depends on their states of motion? > > That would explain why inertial synchronization results in skewed > > simultaneities... but that would be true if and only if energy itself has > > inertia. In fact, it requires that every localized quantity of energy E has > > inertia E/c^2. So, what you are saying is true if and only if E=mc^2. > > Well done, PD+50IQ. It only took you slightly longer than it takes the average student to figure that out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 16:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cac60111-f2cd-4379-ba1f-6732be3b54ffn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613049 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > If you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3. > > So there is no relativistic doppler of T3 and T4 because I look at them > just as they pass me? That is to say, the readings on T3 and T4 would > be identical, respectively, if there were sliding to my right or my left? It doesn't matter which direction the rows are sliding, nor how the rows are oriented in space, etc. Each clock has a specific reading at each specified event (whether someone looks at them or not), including the events at which various clocks pass by each other. You could read this on the digital numeric readout when the clock is adjacent to you. It isn't a perceptual effect, it is a statement of objective fact: Each clock runs slow in terms of the relatively-moving row of clocks, as described above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <051795e9-729b-4774-8b13-5eb938c22e99n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613062 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 4:34:00 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 1:01:28 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > If you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3. > > > > So there is no relativistic doppler of T3 and T4 because I look at them > > just as they pass me? That is to say, the readings on T3 and T4 would > > be identical, respectively, if there were sliding to my right or my left? > It doesn't matter which direction the rows are sliding, nor how the rows are oriented in space, etc. Each clock has a specific reading at each specified event (whether someone looks at them or not), including the events at which various clocks pass by each other. You could read this on the digital numeric readout when the clock is adjacent to you. It isn't a perceptual effect, it is a statement of objective fact: Each clock runs slow in terms of the relatively-moving row of clocks, as described above. Now Legion, we need to discuss Lorentz contraction between T3 and T4. We also need to discuss the desynchronization of T3 and T4 when viewed from my FoR. Have you given these two issues any thought?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 18:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <405dc23e-d70a-4fe4-ab18-b1ba8b97d5ffn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613065 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 5:22:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > If you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3. > > Now [that you have answered my questions about time dilation (and, by the > way, I extend my sincere thanks), could you please explain length contraction > and the relativity of simultaneity to me?] You're welcome, and both of those were already covered in the explanation in the previous messages. What in particular remains unclear to you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 19:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f803b41e-5ce3-4290-9508-d29d9e9b3042n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613071 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 6:17:19 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 5:22:27 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > If you are riding along with one of the clocks in one row, and we let t3 and t4 denote the readings on your clock as you pass clocks 3 and 4 in the other row sliding past you, and letting T3 and T4 denote the readings on those clocks as they pass you, you will find that t4 - t3 is less than T4 - T3. > > > > Now [that you have answered my questions about time dilation (and, by the > > way, I extend my sincere thanks), could you please explain length contraction > > and the relativity of simultaneity to me?] > > You're welcome, and both of those were already covered in the explanation in the previous messages. What in particular remains unclear to you? No Legion, no! You stated to this forum that my wristwatches t4-t3 would be less than the T4-T3 that I observer. A naive observer would naturally conclude from this that my clock is running slower. I would need a priori knowledge of SR (put in my brain by God?) to conclude otherwise. You are a fool Legion--a fool's idea of a fool. Prove me wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 22:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9e7fbfc-2a42-4f8b-a610-0699e8af6f1en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613073 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 7:02:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > [Despite your clear and complete answers to my questions, I ignored all > > > of them, so I remain completely clueless. Please explain at an even more > > > rudimentary level.] > > > What in particular remains unclear to you? > > You stated that my wristwatch's t4-t3 would be less than the T4-T3 [of the > clocks in the other row as they pass. An imbecile who did not pay attention > to the rest of what you said might think that my clock is running slower. The word "slower" is comparative, so ... slower than what? Remember, each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row, as explained above. So, a sentient and sober being with even a shred of intellectual integrity would recognize that the situation is not correctly described by the phrase "my clock is running slower". There is clearly something going on here that you do not (and perhaps, with your diseased brain, cannot) understand. Agreed? > I would need a priori knowledge of SR (put in my brain by God?) to conclude otherwise. That, of course, is a complete non-sequitur. What has been described to you is simply a set of objective verifiable facts, i.e., each clock runs slow in terms of the other row of clocks, as explained above. Your brain is incapable of thinking of any rational explanation for these facts, but it doesn't involve any knowledge of special relativity to become aware of these objective facts. It does, however, require honesty and rationality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 09:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9838b535-b1f7-4a3d-a849-1aa5642f30c6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613079 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 10:15:15 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote: > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 7:02:44 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > > [Despite your clear and complete answers to my questions, I ignored all > > > > of them, so I remain completely clueless. Please explain at an even more > > > > rudimentary level.] > > > > > What in particular remains unclear to you? > > > > You stated that my wristwatch's t4-t3 would be less than the T4-T3 [of the > > clocks in the other row as they pass. An imbecile who did not pay attention > > to the rest of what you said might think that my clock is running slower. > > The word "slower" is comparative, so ... slower than what? Remember, each clock in each row runs slow in terms of the clocks in the other row, as explained above. So, a sentient and sober being with even a shred of intellectual integrity would recognize that the situation is not correctly described by the phrase "my clock is running slower". There is clearly something going on here that you do not (and perhaps, with your diseased brain, cannot) understand. Agreed? > > I would need a priori knowledge of SR (put in my brain by God?) to conclude otherwise. > That, of course, is a complete non-sequitur. What has been described to you is simply a set of objective verifiable facts, i.e., each clock runs slow in terms of the other row of clocks, as explained above. Your brain is incapable of thinking of any rational explanation for these facts, but it doesn't involve any knowledge of special relativity to become aware of these objective facts. It does, however, require honesty and rationality. Now Legion, you stated earlier to this tribunal that T4-T3 > t4-t3. I would like you to consider myself and my wristwatch and one single clock moving with respect to me. You have also stated elsewhere that such a clock when viewed by me with the unaided eye will tick at exactly the same rate as my wristwatch, no matter the magnitude of the relative velocity. Is this correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f756063a-031a-4c81-8991-727fbb8964fan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613116 |
On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 9:24:10 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > [Thank you again for your patient answers to my dim-witted questions.] No problem. > You stated that T4-T3 > t4-t3. Yes, and those terms were clearly defined. Unfortunately, you ignored the statement of what each of those symbols represent, so you have no idea with that inequality actually means, right? > Consider myself and my wristwatch and one single clock moving with > respect to me. Okay, so having failed to grasp the essential description of relativistic time dilation, which crucially depends on the concept of inertial synchronization of multiple clocks mutually at rest in spatially separate locations, you now in infantile fashion revert back to your baby-like context to avoid understanding. Sheesh. > You also said that such a clock when viewed by me with > the unaided eye will tick at exactly the same rate as my wristwatch... LOL. Isn't it a bit early in the day to be drunk already? Again, what was patiently explained to you is that you were grossly mistaken when you claimed that, after compensating the received frequency for the relativistic Doppler effect you would find a frequency of half the rest frequency. It was explained to you that compensating a received signal for the full relativistic Doppler effect tautologically yields the rest frequency. Duh. Then PD+50IQ joined the discussion, and it was explained to him that if the received signal is compensated just for the first-order Doppler effect, which purely accounts for the rate of change of distance, the result is a frequency that is half the rest frequency. He quickly understood this (what a breath of fresh air!), because he is not a completely brain-dead nitwit, nor is he a demented hardcore-crackpot troll. If only we could hear more from him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web