Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616449 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-31 16:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-01 21:33 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 16:42 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-01 10:41 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-31 18:15 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 18:38 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-01 12:10 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 21:47 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-31 22:04 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 15:52 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 09:50 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 02:55 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 09:57 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 03:09 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 07:01 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 10:30 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 14:01 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 12:42 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Rob Bibler <rreb@bieillii.ir> - 2023-08-03 20:02 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 14:29 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 22:37 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:28 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 04:11 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 13:34 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:41 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 23:31 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:21 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 00:50 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 10:57 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 14:38 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 10:11 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-06 21:00 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 11:34 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Rondell Verre <eror@vedllele.ee> - 2023-08-05 20:10 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:52 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 12:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-05 14:43 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:36 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 14:22 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:00 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 17:53 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 11:39 -0400
Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-07 15:53 +0000
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 19:24 +0200
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-07 18:32 +0000
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 22:43 +0200
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 12:29 -0500
Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 16:45 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 11:01 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 16:48 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Nat Vaikule <nukv@vektnaaa.nv> - 2023-08-07 21:25 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 15:34 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Jarrell Martirosov <ajrr@riilromm.aa> - 2023-08-08 10:03 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-07 18:01 -0500
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 18:53 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 19:07 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 13:20 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 18:58 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ronaldo Amerhanov <hera@aeladhrd.ma> - 2023-08-12 20:57 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 06:07 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:06 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-14 16:21 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 09:39 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ozzie Jakushov <ezhu@ijjhhouv.az> - 2023-08-04 21:35 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 15:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Beraldo Hapy <lhap@aaloyohe.pl> - 2023-08-05 03:00 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 05:30 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Dalton Dubman <nlat@tualtadd.db> - 2023-08-08 14:02 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-08 10:45 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 06:48 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 06:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-09 12:31 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 08:38 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 11:56 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Kaosayn Shakhbazyan <nazs@aoonaaoo.ah> - 2023-08-10 16:30 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 22:12 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 16:04 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 00:19 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 19:06 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 02:53 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-04 08:03 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:23 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-04 13:22 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 01:21 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-03 19:10 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 09:56 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 08:57 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 16:13 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 09:24 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 20:22 +0200
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-03 17:28 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-03 10:57 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 04:25 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 09:08 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:14 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 07:40 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 10:30 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Shkelqim Jadrennikov <meem@qnoeeooq.ds> - 2023-08-01 20:49 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 22:57 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 06:43 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 14:11 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:38 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Darling Vavravsky <rlrg@kakkdvyv.lv> - 2023-08-01 20:33 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Chaney Charnolusky <ycck@sarhhnkn.ca> - 2023-08-01 20:59 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-02 08:33 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-01 23:09 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-02 09:15 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-02 10:17 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 03:23 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-02 11:47 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 05:12 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 16:40 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 16:51 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-08-02 10:57 +1000
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 18:26 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 23:04 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:58 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:59 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-01 23:00 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:53 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 15:01 -0400
Re: There is no material length contraction Moody Vallah <mahv@ohoymldo.lv> - 2023-08-03 19:41 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:00 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction James Dzhunkovsky <uskv@mdjjsnue.ze> - 2023-08-03 19:23 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 11:07 +0200
Re: There is no material length contraction JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 18:40 -0700
Re: There is no material length contraction Lamont Bakhmutov <mktk@tomhmtmm.ml> - 2023-08-01 21:10 +0000
Re: There is no material length contraction Thad Mokrinsky <aonk@yoitaito.rm> - 2023-08-01 21:33 +0000
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 15:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) |
| Message-ID | <1h5nGc4upwAL2w-9WaOWJhQofM0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #616994 |
Le 07/08/2023 à 17:39, Volney a écrit : > No, Stupid Ken, he proved mutual time dilation mathematically. Ce n'est pas entièrement exact. Ce qui existe n'est pas, à proprement parler, une "dilatation mutuelle des temps". Mais une dilatation réciproque des chronotropies internes. C'est un peu différent. Il est dommage de vous voir vous battre pour des queues de cerises, et avec des termes impropres. Je vais traduire en anglais pour ceux qui ne comprennent pas le français. Moi, mon travail d'enseignant, je le fais, et j'écris : "reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies". R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 19:24 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) |
| Message-ID | <kjcnlpF6p8iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616996 |
On 2023-08-07 15:53:13 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > Le 07/08/2023 à 17:39, Volney a écrit : > >> No, Stupid Ken, he proved mutual time dilation mathematically. > > Ce n'est pas entièrement exact. > > Ce qui existe n'est pas, à proprement parler, une "dilatation mutuelle > des temps". > > Mais une dilatation réciproque des chronotropies internes. > > C'est un peu différent. > > Il est dommage de vous voir vous battre pour des queues de cerises, et > avec des termes impropres. > > Je vais traduire en anglais pour ceux qui ne comprennent pas le français. > > Moi, mon travail d'enseignant, Vous avez déjà prétendu être enseignant, mais vous n'avez jamais révélé où et quand vous avez enseigné, ni à quel titre. C'était peut-être en tant que bénévole à l'hôpital psychiatrique local, où personne ne pouvait dire si vous aviez du sens ou non ? Please could you let us know? > je le fais, et j'écris : "reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies". > > R.H. -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 18:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) |
| Message-ID | <JOTFOdmpCqBzT6af3nGXY6VQUzw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #617011 |
Le 07/08/2023 à 19:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> tant que bénévole à l'hôpital psychiatrique local,
C'est là toute la profondeur de votre pensée?
"Autrui est fou, et moi, je suis intelligent".
Athel Cornish-Bowden
This reasoning does not break the bars of chairs.
R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 22:43 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) |
| Message-ID | <kjd3bpF8inoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617028 |
On 2023-08-07 18:32:39 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said: > Le 07/08/2023 à 19:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : > >> tant que bénévole à l'hôpital psychiatrique local, > > C'est là toute la profondeur de votre pensée? > > "Autrui est fou, et moi, je suis intelligent". > Athel Cornish-Bowden Have I ever said that? I don't think so, but maybe you can give a reference. > > This reasoning does not break the bars of chairs. OK, so it's still a secret where you got your (non-medical) doctorate and where you did your teaching. However, as these seem to exist only in your imagination we shall probably never know. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 12:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) |
| Message-ID | <kjcnvlF6lukU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #616996 |
On 8/7/2023 10:53 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 07/08/2023 à 17:39, Volney a écrit : > >> No, Stupid Ken, he proved mutual time dilation mathematically. > > Ce n'est pas entièrement exact. > > Ce qui existe n'est pas, à proprement parler, une "dilatation mutuelle > des temps". > > Mais une dilatation réciproque des chronotropies internes. > > C'est un peu différent. > > Il est dommage de vous voir vous battre pour des queues de cerises, et > avec des termes impropres. > > Je vais traduire en anglais pour ceux qui ne comprennent pas le français. > > Moi, mon travail d'enseignant, je le fais, et j'écris : "reciprocal > dilation of internal chronotropies". > > R.H. Although I can get by in several languages other than AmerEnglish whenever I encounter them in Usenet I just skip them entirely as I am sure most readers do. Richard, you do know this is an English speaking newsgroup and you are conversant in English. So you can count me out, along with some others who are silent on this topic, when you pull this shit. Trust when I tell you it isn't cute.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 16:45 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Reciprocal dilation of internal chronotropies (SR) |
| Message-ID | <uarl4q$30nt7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #616996 |
On 8/7/2023 11:53 AM, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 07/08/2023 à 17:39, Volney a écrit : > >> No, Stupid Ken, he proved mutual time dilation mathematically. > > Ce n'est pas entièrement exact. > > Ce qui existe n'est pas, à proprement parler, une "dilatation mutuelle > des temps". > > Mais une dilatation réciproque des chronotropies internes. > > C'est un peu différent. > > Il est dommage de vous voir vous battre pour des queues de cerises, et > avec des termes impropres. > > Je vais traduire en anglais pour ceux qui ne comprennent pas le français. > > Moi, mon travail d'enseignant, je le fais, et j'écris : "reciprocal > dilation of internal chronotropies". Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In porta bibendum nunc non posuere. Curabitur auctor lorem tortor, egestas placerat eros laoreet in. Pellentesque fermentum nunc quis ipsum malesuada, a eleifend tellus vehicula. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Donec facilisis, justo eu scelerisque tincidunt, odio lorem ultricies diam, sit amet consectetur neque massa sed libero. Pellentesque magna nisl, auctor fermentum tellus non, eleifend tincidunt lorem. Nam blandit eros quis odio aliquam interdum. Suspendisse pulvinar mi est, sit amet auctor sapien egestas in. Ut mauris libero, convallis eget sollicitudin ut, efficitur sed lorem. Nulla dui nibh, sodales id finibus id, consequat a quam. Aenean finibus ligula in dolor maximus maximus. Mauris tristique tempus mi vitae hendrerit. Aliquam iaculis neque sit amet gravida imperdiet. Nunc justo mauris, varius et magna nec, sagittis egestas velit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de08a33b-9800-4812-b3d5-e80a3eec7bb0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616994 |
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:39:49 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 8/6/2023 5:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:43:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/4/2023 3:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:34:18 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/4/2023 7:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/3/2023 3:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have > >>>>>>>>>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative > >>>>>>>>>> to B also to have magnitude |v|. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, That's a wrong assumption. > >>>>>>>> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two > >>>>>>>> postulates. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate (P2) is wrong. > >>>>>> A postulate cannot be wrong. A postulate is a postulate. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> A and B each measures a different [V[ > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the > >>>>>>>> same magnitude |v|. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds have different value of time. > >>>>>> They have the same value of time because the second has an exact > >>>>>> definition, Stupid Ken. In addition to symmetry arguments for the > >>>>>> velocity having the same magnitude. > >>>>>>>>> cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined as the time > >>>>>>>> of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same interval of TIME.....they do not > >>>>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions are not valid arguments. The second is > >>>>>> DEFINED as that many Cs transition cycles. A definition cannot be wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>> stupid Mike, what does the following equation mean to you? > >>>>> 1 second in frame A= 1/gamma second in frame B > >> > >>>> It means Ken Seto doesn't understand relativity. > >>> > >>> No it means that you don't know what mutual time dilation mean. > >> I know what mutual time dilation is, Stupid Ken. You don't. For one > >> thing, mutual time dilation is mutual. That's why A will see B's clock > >> as running slow while B will see A's clock as running slow. > > > > No stupid Mike .....Einstein didn't know which clock is accumulating clock seconds > > at a slower rate, so he just say that each observer sees the other clock running at a slower rate. > No, Stupid Ken, he proved mutual time dilation mathematically. But since > you cannot handle math beyond the third grade level, it will be forever > a mystery to you, and you'll continue to makeaims about > relativity and Einstein. Stupid Mike, You cannot predict mutual time dilation. because there is no such thing. Clock in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > >>>> The correct relationship us that A will measure B's clock as running > >>>> slow by a factor of gamma. And B will measure A's clock as running slow > >>>> by a factor of gamma, but its own clock ticks at 1 second per second. > Read this again and again until you understand it, Stupid Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 16:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uarlbm$30nt7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617026 |
On 8/7/2023 2:01 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:39:49 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 8/6/2023 5:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:43:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/4/2023 3:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:34:18 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 8/4/2023 7:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/3/2023 3:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have >>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative >>>>>>>>>>>> to B also to have magnitude |v|. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, That's a wrong assumption. >>>>>>>>>> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two >>>>>>>>>> postulates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate (P2) is wrong. >>>>>>>> A postulate cannot be wrong. A postulate is a postulate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A and B each measures a different [V[ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the >>>>>>>>>> same magnitude |v|. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds have different value of time. >>>>>>>> They have the same value of time because the second has an exact >>>>>>>> definition, Stupid Ken. In addition to symmetry arguments for the >>>>>>>> velocity having the same magnitude. >>>>>>>>>>> cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined as the time >>>>>>>>>> of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same interval of TIME.....they do not >>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions are not valid arguments. The second is >>>>>>>> DEFINED as that many Cs transition cycles. A definition cannot be wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> stupid Mike, what does the following equation mean to you? >>>>>>> 1 second in frame A= 1/gamma second in frame B >>>> >>>>>> It means Ken Seto doesn't understand relativity. >>>>> >>>>> No it means that you don't know what mutual time dilation mean. >>>> I know what mutual time dilation is, Stupid Ken. You don't. For one >>>> thing, mutual time dilation is mutual. That's why A will see B's clock >>>> as running slow while B will see A's clock as running slow. >>> >>> No stupid Mike .....Einstein didn't know which clock is accumulating clock seconds >>> at a slower rate, so he just say that each observer sees the other clock running at a slower rate. >> No, Stupid Ken, he proved mutual time dilation mathematically. But since >> you cannot handle math beyond the third grade level, it will be forever >> a mystery to you, and you'll continue to makeaims about >> relativity and Einstein. > > Stupid Mike, You cannot predict mutual time dilation. Yet Einstein did. If you say something can't be done yet it was already done, it can only mean that you're delusional. > because there is no such thing. Clock in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. And again you show that you don't understand mutual time dilation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nat Vaikule <nukv@vektnaaa.nv> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$1d07$c26570ea$9a631793$5f5fe2d0@kruovhma.ko> |
| In reply to | #617038 |
Volney wrote: > On 8/7/2023 2:01 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >> Stupid Mike, You cannot predict mutual time dilation. > > Yet Einstein did. If you say something can't be done yet it was already > done, it can only mean that you're delusional. you guys so full of 🐂💩💩💩. You mean calculate, not predict. Let me see some calculate, not predict. The stupid kenseto think it's enough with predict, without calculate. What a 🐂💩💩💩.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 15:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f40f8023-a2df-4706-8043-ea04dee6d1edn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617045 |
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:25:07 PM UTC-4, Nat Vaikule wrote: > Volney wrote: > > > On 8/7/2023 2:01 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >> Stupid Mike, You cannot predict mutual time dilation. > > > > Yet Einstein did. If you say something can't be done yet it was already > > done, it can only mean that you're delusional. > you guys so full of 🐂💩💩💩. You mean calculate, not predict. Let me see > some calculate, not predict. The stupid kenseto think it's enough with > predict, without calculate. What a 🐂💩💩💩. You ae a piece of shit . I never think that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jarrell Martirosov <ajrr@riilromm.aa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-08 10:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uat3u3$3bim2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617052 |
Ken Seto wrote: >> you guys so full of 🐂💩💩💩. You mean calculate, not predict. Let me >> see some calculate, not predict. The stupid kenseto think it's enough >> with predict, without calculate. What a 🐂💩💩💩. > > You ae a piece of shit . I never think that. here we go with the 𝗟𝗚𝗕𝗧𝗤+_𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮, bombing your country with 2 atomic bombs over 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝘀𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱_𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱_𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, you forgot everything about. 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻_‘𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘄𝗶𝗳𝗲’_𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝘀_𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿_𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗪𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗿 the risk of inviting the defense contractor, 𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮_𝗡𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 https://r%74.com/africa/580985-nuland-niger-wagner-warning/ 𝗨𝗦_𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝘀_3,000_𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗠𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗹𝗲_𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 Iran boosted its own naval capabilities with a series of new weapons https://r%74.com/news/580980-3000-troops-middle-east/ 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗳𝘂𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗮𝗶𝗱𝗲’𝘀_‘𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽_𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁_𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁’_𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀 https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/580948-poland-anger-podoliak-friedship-end/ 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗼𝗳_𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_‘𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲’_𝗶𝗻_𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 Berlin is trying to sabotage the Polish economy https://r%74.com/news/580974-poland-germany-regime-change/ 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀_𝗶𝘁_𝗳𝗼𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘁_𝘁𝗼_𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/580978-ukraine-zelensky-plot-sbu/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-07 18:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kjdbesF9paiU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #617038 |
On 8/7/2023 3:48 PM, Volney wrote: > On 8/7/2023 2:01 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:39:49 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>> On 8/6/2023 5:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:43:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>> On 8/4/2023 3:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:34:18 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/4/2023 7:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2023 3:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A >>>>>>>>>>>>> to have >>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's >>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity relative >>>>>>>>>>>>> to B also to have magnitude |v|. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, That's a wrong assumption. >>>>>>>>>>> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives >>>>>>>>>>> from its two >>>>>>>>>>> postulates. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate >>>>>>>>>> (P2) is wrong. >>>>>>>>> A postulate cannot be wrong. A postulate is a postulate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A and B each measures a different [V[ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They >>>>>>>>>>> have the >>>>>>>>>>> same magnitude |v|. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds >>>>>>>>>> have different value of time. >>>>>>>>> They have the same value of time because the second has an exact >>>>>>>>> definition, Stupid Ken. In addition to symmetry arguments for the >>>>>>>>> velocity having the same magnitude. >>>>>>>>>>>> cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of >>>>>>>>>> time......it is not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined >>>>>>>>>>> as the time >>>>>>>>>>> of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have >>>>>>>>>> the same interval of TIME.....they do not >>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions are not valid arguments. The second is >>>>>>>>> DEFINED as that many Cs transition cycles. A definition cannot >>>>>>>>> be wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stupid Mike, what does the following equation mean to you? >>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A= 1/gamma second in frame B >>>>> >>>>>>> It means Ken Seto doesn't understand relativity. >>>>>> >>>>>> No it means that you don't know what mutual time dilation mean. >>>>> I know what mutual time dilation is, Stupid Ken. You don't. For one >>>>> thing, mutual time dilation is mutual. That's why A will see B's clock >>>>> as running slow while B will see A's clock as running slow. >>>> >>>> No stupid Mike .....Einstein didn't know which clock is accumulating >>>> clock seconds >>>> at a slower rate, so he just say that each observer sees the other >>>> clock running at a slower rate. >>> No, Stupid Ken, he proved mutual time dilation mathematically. But since >>> you cannot handle math beyond the third grade level, it will be forever >>> a mystery to you, and you'll continue to makeaims about >>> relativity and Einstein. >> >> Stupid Mike, You cannot predict mutual time dilation. > > Yet Einstein did. If you say something can't be done yet it was already > done, it can only mean that you're delusional. > >> because there is no such thing. Clock in relative motion accumulate >> clock seconds at different rates. > > And again you show that you don't understand mutual time dilation. The shortest possible list would be of the things he does understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-10 18:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ub3pq0$hii1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617054 |
On 8/7/2023 7:01 PM, whodat wrote: > On 8/7/2023 3:48 PM, Volney wrote: >> On 8/7/2023 2:01 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:39:49 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2023 5:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:43:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 8/4/2023 3:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:34:18 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/4/2023 7:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2023 3:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to B also to have magnitude |v|. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, That's a wrong assumption. >>>>>>>>>>>> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives >>>>>>>>>>>> from its two >>>>>>>>>>>> postulates. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR >>>>>>>>>>> postulate (P2) is wrong. >>>>>>>>>> A postulate cannot be wrong. A postulate is a postulate. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A and B each measures a different [V[ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They >>>>>>>>>>>> have the >>>>>>>>>>>> same magnitude |v|. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds >>>>>>>>>>> have different value of time. >>>>>>>>>> They have the same value of time because the second has an exact >>>>>>>>>> definition, Stupid Ken. In addition to symmetry arguments for the >>>>>>>>>> velocity having the same magnitude. >>>>>>>>>>>>> cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit >>>>>>>>>>> of time......it is not. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined >>>>>>>>>>>> as the time >>>>>>>>>>>> of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs >>>>>>>>>>> have the same interval of TIME.....they do not >>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions are not valid arguments. The >>>>>>>>>> second is >>>>>>>>>> DEFINED as that many Cs transition cycles. A definition cannot >>>>>>>>>> be wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> stupid Mike, what does the following equation mean to you? >>>>>>>>> 1 second in frame A= 1/gamma second in frame B >>>>>> >>>>>>>> It means Ken Seto doesn't understand relativity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No it means that you don't know what mutual time dilation mean. >>>>>> I know what mutual time dilation is, Stupid Ken. You don't. For one >>>>>> thing, mutual time dilation is mutual. That's why A will see B's >>>>>> clock >>>>>> as running slow while B will see A's clock as running slow. >>>>> >>>>> No stupid Mike .....Einstein didn't know which clock is >>>>> accumulating clock seconds >>>>> at a slower rate, so he just say that each observer sees the other >>>>> clock running at a slower rate. >>>> No, Stupid Ken, he proved mutual time dilation mathematically. But >>>> since >>>> you cannot handle math beyond the third grade level, it will be forever >>>> a mystery to you, and you'll continue to makeaims about >>>> relativity and Einstein. >>> >>> Stupid Mike, You cannot predict mutual time dilation. >> >> Yet Einstein did. If you say something can't be done yet it was >> already done, it can only mean that you're delusional. >> >>> because there is no such thing. Clock in relative motion accumulate >>> clock seconds at different rates. >> >> And again you show that you don't understand mutual time dilation. > > The shortest possible list would be of the things he does understand. > MAD Magazine once had a list of "The World's Shortest Books". Now we have a new one for the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-10 19:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cbb91d7e-4c90-4fd3-8297-586aca22fb52n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617322 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:53:56 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > MAD Magazine once had a list of "The World's Shortest Books". Now we > have a new one for the list. Including, among others... 'Italian War Heros" "German Humor" “Amelia Earhart’s Guide to the Pacific Ocean” “America’s Most Popular Lawyers” “Career Opportunities for History Majors” “Detroit: A Travel Guide” “Different Ways to Spell ‘Bob’” “Dr. Kevorkian’s Collection of Motivational Speeches” “Easy UNIX” “Ethiopian Tips on World Dominance” “Everything Men Know About Women” “Everything Women Know About Men” “French Hospitality” “Guide To Dating Etiquette” by Mike Tyson "How To Build Your Own Airplane” by John Denver “How to Sustain a Musical Career” by Art Garfunkel “Human Rights Advances in China” “Intelligent Quotes” by Strom Thurmond “My Book Of Morals” by Rev. Jessie Jackson “My Life’s Memories” by Ronald Reagan “My Plan to Find the Real Killers” by O. J. Simpson “My Super Bowl Highlights” by Dan Marino “One Hundred and One Spotted Owl Recipes” by the EPA “Staple Your Way to Success” “The Amish Phone Book” “The Book of Virtue” by Bill Clinton “The Differences Between Reality and Dilbert” “The Engineer’s Guide to Fashion” “The Microsoft Guide To Data Security” “The Wild Years” by Al Gore “Things I Can’t Afford” by Bill Gates “Things I Love About Bill” by Hillary Clinton “Things I Wouldn’t do for Money” by Dennis Rodman “To All the Men I’ve Loved Before” by Ellen DeGeneres George Foreman’s “Big Book of Baby Names” Janet Reno’s “Beauty Secrets”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-10 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fec4c9d2-a11c-41f8-887a-a938a39da86bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #616870 |
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:43:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 8/4/2023 3:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:34:18 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/4/2023 7:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/3/2023 3:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:01:07 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/3/2023 10:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:52:55 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If observer A measures observer B's velocity relative to A to have > >>>>>>>> magnitude |v|, then observer B measures observer A's velocity relative > >>>>>>>> to B also to have magnitude |v|. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, That's a wrong assumption. > >>>>>> It is not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It is what SR derives from its two > >>>>>> postulates. > >>>> > >>>>> Stupid Mike, it is a wrong assumption because the SR postulate (P2) is wrong. > >>>> A postulate cannot be wrong. A postulate is a postulate. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> A and B each measures a different [V[ > >>>> > >>>>>> A and B measure the same v but in opposite directions. They have the > >>>>>> same magnitude |v|. > >>>>> > >>>>> No they don't get the same result because three clock seconds have different value of time. > >>>> They have the same value of time because the second has an exact > >>>> definition, Stupid Ken. In addition to symmetry arguments for the > >>>> velocity having the same magnitude. > >>>>>>> cbecause their clock seconds have a different TIME content. > >>>> > >>>>> You assumed wrongly that a clock second is an absolute unit of time......it is not. > >>>> > >>>>>> No, Stupid Ken, time is measured in seconds which is defined as the time > >>>>>> of 9192631770 Cs transition cycles. > >>>>> > >>>>> No stupid Mike, you assumed wrongly that each cycle of Cs have the same interval of TIME.....they do not > >>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions are not valid arguments. The second is > >>>> DEFINED as that many Cs transition cycles. A definition cannot be wrong. > >>> > >>> stupid Mike, what does the following equation mean to you? > >>> 1 second in frame A= 1/gamma second in frame B > > >> It means Ken Seto doesn't understand relativity. > > > > No it means that you don't know what mutual time dilation mean. > I know what mutual time dilation is, Stupid Ken. You don't. For one > thing, mutual time dilation is mutual. That's why A will see B's clock > as running slow while B will see A's clock as running slow. No stuipid Mike clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. That means no mutual time dilation. > >> > >> The correct relationship us that A will measure B's clock as running > >> slow by a factor of gamma. And B will measure A's clock as running slow > >> by a factor of gamma, but its own clock ticks at 1 second per second. > > >>> Does it say that a second in frame A=a second in frame B? > > >> It says A will measure the moving clock B as running slow. And B will > >> measure the same thing, B will measure A's clock is running slow. > > > > You don' know what measurement mean. > Stupid Ken, that's blithering nonsense. You tell us what "measurement" > means if you disagree with what SR states, which is what my statement > stated. > > Two clocks in relative motion they will accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > That's wrong, but it still sounds like the traveling twins paradox still > confuses you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-10 18:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ub3q2i$hii1$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617302 |
On 8/10/2023 4:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:43:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >> On 8/4/2023 3:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote: >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:34:18 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: >>>> It means Ken Seto doesn't understand relativity. >>> >>> No it means that you don't know what mutual time dilation mean. >> I know what mutual time dilation is, Stupid Ken. You don't. For one >> thing, mutual time dilation is mutual. That's why A will see B's clock >> as running slow while B will see A's clock as running slow. > > No stuipid Mike clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > That means no mutual time dilation. Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken. Einstein *derived* mutual time dilation in his paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ronaldo Amerhanov <hera@aeladhrd.ma> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-12 20:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ub8roh$1g36k$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617324 |
Volney wrote: >> No stuipid Mike clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at >> different rates. That means no mutual time dilation. > > Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken. > Einstein *derived* mutual time dilation in his paper. _𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀_𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁_‘𝗽𝗿𝗼-𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮’_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_ – media A Kiev-based newspaper quoted an unnamed security official as lamenting the country’s attitude to Moscow and lack of “real help” https://r%74.com/news/581190-ukraine-measures-against-israel/ This is a very interesting development! 𝗧𝘄𝗼_𝗨𝗦_𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀 ducking it out 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁_𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵_𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿. One is serving American 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗘 and 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿_𝗶𝗻_𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲. Awkward situation for the Americans. 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗦 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻. More likely, AIPAC will demand the US removes actor Zelensky or whoever came up with this move! 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗴𝗮𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 expecting help 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗴𝗮𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Good luck with that. 𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗸_𝗻𝗲𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀_𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗞𝗶𝗲𝘃 installed by 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 have lost their marbles - they expect the whole world to fund their lunatic endeavor 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗨𝗦 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 06:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0ddeb52-9b4e-48d1-bd5a-df10ce893fdbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617324 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:58:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > On 8/10/2023 4:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:43:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/4/2023 3:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:34:18 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >>>> It means Ken Seto doesn't understand relativity. > >>> > >>> No it means that you don't know what mutual time dilation mean. > > >> I know what mutual time dilation is, Stupid Ken. You don't. For one > >> thing, mutual time dilation is mutual. That's why A will see B's clock > >> as running slow while B will see A's clock as running slow. > > > > No stuipid Mike clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > That means no mutual time dilation. > Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken. > > Einstein *derived* mutual time dilation in his paper. Stupid Mike Einstein's derivations are based on assertions: for example: The POR and constant light speed in all frames.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5271faf5-ef5f-4c91-97b5-8a20f48c8891n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #617655 |
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 6:07:42 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:58:29 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > On 8/10/2023 4:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:43:23 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > >> On 8/4/2023 3:58 PM, Ken Seto wrote: > > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:34:18 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote: > > > > >>>> It means Ken Seto doesn't understand relativity. > > >>> > > >>> No it means that you don't know what mutual time dilation mean. > > > > >> I know what mutual time dilation is, Stupid Ken. You don't. For one > > >> thing, mutual time dilation is mutual. That's why A will see B's clock > > >> as running slow while B will see A's clock as running slow. > > > > > > No stuipid Mike clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. > > > That means no mutual time dilation. > > Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken. > > > > Einstein *derived* mutual time dilation in his paper. > Stupid Mike Einstein's derivations are based on assertions: > for example: The POR and constant light speed in all frames. Where would length go to...? How is there then a smaller space in a larger space? No. It has never been measured to happen and has never belonged in theory... Einstein needed to see it. Negative Gamma myth... or "no length contraction" is real instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-14 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <DNph3gqheRk8JWnZ7nzmovIEt_Q@jntp> |
| In reply to | #617668 |
Le 14/08/2023 à 18:06, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : > Where would length go to...? How is there then a smaller space > in a larger space? No. It has never been measured to happen > and has never belonged in theory... Einstein needed to see it. > Negative Gamma myth... or "no length contraction" is real instead. Approach telescopes are made to magnify observed objects. But if you hold these glasses upside down, everything suddenly seems much smaller. Jean and Paul aren't actually shorter, and I don't wonder, "Where did their length go?" I observe things according to an appearance, that's all. What you have to understand is that our universe is not an absolute 4D block. There are appearances in all this, and contractions, expansions, as in a carnival at the stand of distorting glasses. A train passing in the distance, transversely to me, will seem to me to be going slower than it is going. Vo=Vr/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) It will also look shorter than it is: L'=L.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) That we can also write L'=L/sqrt(1+Vr²/c²) But all this is only observation from my position and my relative speed in relation to the observed facts. I see with immense sadness that no one is able to understand these things (and even the best elements of spr). R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web