Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357565 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-17 01:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-08-07 15:45 -0700 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 68 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-07-17 01:35 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 10:41 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 05:48 -0400
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 11:54 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 06:32 -0400
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 12:48 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:10 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 09:04 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 09:31 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:20 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:29 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:58 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 12:45 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 22:02 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:26 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:42 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:10 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-17 05:16 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 14:35 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 06:31 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-17 09:24 -0500
When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 04:29 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 13:52 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 04:53 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 14:13 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-17 05:04 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-17 09:06 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-07-17 21:59 +0000
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-17 18:39 -0400
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:24 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-18 15:10 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 19:59 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 07:03 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:16 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:38 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-19 16:47 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 15:13 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 16:35 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-20 15:04 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:28 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-18 23:36 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:30 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-18 16:35 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:22 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:43 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-19 20:59 +0200
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 07:06 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:18 -0700
Stephane Baune repeats the same imbecilities as before "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-18 21:34 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-19 11:01 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 06:53 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:20 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-07-19 15:26 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-20 06:49 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 00:15 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-22 07:32 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 09:42 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-23 05:58 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 08:36 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-07-23 16:58 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:51 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-07 08:20 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:17 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:20 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:23 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:24 -0500
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 07:43 -0700
Re: When the rate 'clocks are slowing ...why? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 15:45 -0700
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-23 20:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mos5mt$t7b$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #358480 |
On 7/23/2015 6:58 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/23/2015 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/22/2015 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:43:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/22/2015 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:11:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:30:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 6:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:21:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 11:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 11:15:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 10:41:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In LET absolute time is t=invariant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you read Lorentz's work? Are you nuts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Lorentz said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you know that if you don't know what he said? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know if you don't understand what he said? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot understand something you have not read. >>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot say someone else doesn't understand something you have not read. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's what you do all the time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, Ken. I've read the books. You haven't. That's the difference. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then give us your SR calculations for your experiments. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. If you want to find out what SR says, then you need to do what >>>>>>>> everyone else does -- go out and get resources that are readily >>>>>>>> available to ANYONE and read them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ROTFLOL....you are trying to bullshit your way out. You don't have any >>>>>>> calculations for your experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, Ken, I don't respond to baiting, and I don't spoonfeed. >>>>> >>>>> There is no baiting....You aked me to do IRT calculations for your experiments and >>>>> you refused to give me your SR calculations for your experiements. >>>> >>>> I've explained the difference. SR calculations are readily available to >>>> ANYONE, >>> >>> Moron.....its your experiment so you give us the SR calculations. >> >> It is not MY experiment. It is an experiment discussed in the readily >> available resources. > > So why are you so reluctant to give the already avialable data (answer)?? Because I don't cater to the lazy. Don't ask people to carry you to the toilet if you can walk. Don't ask people to fetching things from the store for you if you can go there yourself. Don't ask people to feed you readily available information, if you are competent to get it yourself. Are you an invalid, Ken? Are you housebound? Are you totally helpless and reliant on the care of others? > > I didn't make it up. I pulled it from those >> resources you should look up. >> >>> >>> and if you want to know how to do those calculations then you >>>> should go find any of those readily available resources. For IRT >>>> calculations, there is no resource other than you. So what is expected >>>> of you, as a new theory proposer, is that you go find the readily >>>> available resources to learn about SR ... AND .... you are the source of >>>> the calculations of IRT. >>>> >>>> This is the burden of anybody who wants to propose a new theory. >> >> You don't want to accept this burden? >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to deny the existence of materials that are readily >>>>>> available to ANYONE, and beg people to show them to you here, that's up >>>>>> to you. But you end up looking like a whining child and it's obvious >>>>>> that you've read nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For IRT, you are the sole source. Nobody can go to the public library >>>>>>>> and find out how to do IRT calculations. Only you can provide that. So >>>>>>>> if anyone has any questions about IRT calculations, then you are >>>>>>>> obligated to provide. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But what you CANNOT do without looking like an idiot is to make claims >>>>>>>> about things that you've never even read. >>>>>> >>>>>> See? You've made yourself look like an idiot by doing this. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 08:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94f84a18-bb15-47e3-a952-d8d79731c19b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #358491 |
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:51:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/23/2015 6:58 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/23/2015 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/22/2015 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:43:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/22/2015 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:11:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:30:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 6:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:21:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 11:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 11:15:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 10:41:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In LET absolute time is t=invariant. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you read Lorentz's work? Are you nuts? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Lorentz said. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you know that if you don't know what he said? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know if you don't understand what he said? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot understand something you have not read. > >>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot say someone else doesn't understand something you have not read. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> That's what you do all the time. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No, Ken. I've read the books. You haven't. That's the difference. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Then give us your SR calculations for your experiments. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No. If you want to find out what SR says, then you need to do what > >>>>>>>> everyone else does -- go out and get resources that are readily > >>>>>>>> available to ANYONE and read them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ROTFLOL....you are trying to bullshit your way out. You don't have any > >>>>>>> calculations for your experiment. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, Ken, I don't respond to baiting, and I don't spoonfeed. > >>>>> > >>>>> There is no baiting....You aked me to do IRT calculations for your experiments and > >>>>> you refused to give me your SR calculations for your experiements. > >>>> > >>>> I've explained the difference. SR calculations are readily available to > >>>> ANYONE, > >>> > >>> Moron.....its your experiment so you give us the SR calculations. > >> > >> It is not MY experiment. It is an experiment discussed in the readily > >> available resources. > > > > So why are you so reluctant to give the already avialable data (answer)?? > > Because I don't cater to the lazy. No because you don't have any data to back up your bull-shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 11:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mq2lls$ejh$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359926 |
On 8/7/2015 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:51:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/23/2015 6:58 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/23/2015 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:34:58 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/22/2015 3:43 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:43:01 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/22/2015 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:11:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 9:30 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:30:40 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2015 6:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:21:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 11:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 11:15:20 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 9:51 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 10:41:09 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2015 8:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In LET absolute time is t=invariant. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you read Lorentz's work? Are you nuts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Lorentz said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you know that if you don't know what he said? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know if you don't understand what he said? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot understand something you have not read. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot say someone else doesn't understand something you have not read. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's what you do all the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken. I've read the books. You haven't. That's the difference. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then give us your SR calculations for your experiments. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. If you want to find out what SR says, then you need to do what >>>>>>>>>> everyone else does -- go out and get resources that are readily >>>>>>>>>> available to ANYONE and read them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL....you are trying to bullshit your way out. You don't have any >>>>>>>>> calculations for your experiment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, Ken, I don't respond to baiting, and I don't spoonfeed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no baiting....You aked me to do IRT calculations for your experiments and >>>>>>> you refused to give me your SR calculations for your experiements. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've explained the difference. SR calculations are readily available to >>>>>> ANYONE, >>>>> >>>>> Moron.....its your experiment so you give us the SR calculations. >>>> >>>> It is not MY experiment. It is an experiment discussed in the readily >>>> available resources. >>> >>> So why are you so reluctant to give the already avialable data (answer)?? >> >> Because I don't cater to the lazy. > > No because you don't have any data to back up your bull-shit. > > Ken, the data is there, freely available to anyone. Just because it's not served up to you on sci.physics.relativity doesn't give you the room to say it doesn't exist. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 11:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mq2ls4$ejh$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359932 |
On 8/7/2015 11:17 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/7/2015 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:51:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 7/23/2015 6:58 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> Moron.....its your experiment so you give us the SR calculations. >>>>> >>>>> It is not MY experiment. It is an experiment discussed in the readily >>>>> available resources. >>>> >>>> So why are you so reluctant to give the already avialable data >>>> (answer)?? >>> >>> Because I don't cater to the lazy. >> >> No because you don't have any data to back up your bull-shit. >> >> > > Ken, the data is there, freely available to anyone. Just because it's > not served up to you on sci.physics.relativity doesn't give you the room > to say it doesn't exist. > Ken says, "It doesn't exist unless you bring it to me here." This is the excuse of the pathologically incapacitated. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 11:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mq2m1s$ejh$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359933 |
On 8/7/2015 11:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/7/2015 11:17 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/7/2015 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:51:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/23/2015 6:58 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> Moron.....its your experiment so you give us the SR calculations. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not MY experiment. It is an experiment discussed in the readily >>>>>> available resources. >>>>> >>>>> So why are you so reluctant to give the already avialable data >>>>> (answer)?? >>>> >>>> Because I don't cater to the lazy. >>> >>> No because you don't have any data to back up your bull-shit. >>> >>> >> >> Ken, the data is there, freely available to anyone. Just because it's >> not served up to you on sci.physics.relativity doesn't give you the room >> to say it doesn't exist. >> > > Ken says, "It doesn't exist unless you bring it to me here." This is the > excuse of the pathologically incapacitated. > Ken's complaint: "Scientists are unfair unless they explain things to ordinary people on sci.physics.relativity, where the ordinary people hang out." -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 11:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mq2m3c$ejh$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359934 |
On 8/7/2015 11:23 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/7/2015 11:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/7/2015 11:17 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/7/2015 10:20 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:51:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 7/23/2015 6:58 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Moron.....its your experiment so you give us the SR calculations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is not MY experiment. It is an experiment discussed in the >>>>>>> readily >>>>>>> available resources. >>>>>> >>>>>> So why are you so reluctant to give the already avialable data >>>>>> (answer)?? >>>>> >>>>> Because I don't cater to the lazy. >>>> >>>> No because you don't have any data to back up your bull-shit. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Ken, the data is there, freely available to anyone. Just because it's >>> not served up to you on sci.physics.relativity doesn't give you the room >>> to say it doesn't exist. >>> >> >> Ken says, "It doesn't exist unless you bring it to me here." This is the >> excuse of the pathologically incapacitated. >> > > Ken's complaint: "Scientists are unfair unless they explain things to > ordinary people on sci.physics.relativity, where the ordinary people > hang out." > Ken's most common sentence: "Nurse!!" -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-22 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00e554ed-77ca-45aa-9aa4-14d6c9f4fc3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #358181 |
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:32:04 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:11:43 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > No. If you want to find out what SR says, then you need to do what > > everyone else does -- go out and get resources that are readily > > available to ANYONE and read them. > > ROTFLOL.... Idiot ken, if you want to leanr something new, like a new language, you must go and study it. It wont appear magically in your head! Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 15:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4bbf51f-236d-473a-92f8-96561980c83c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #357565 |
On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 4:35:21 AM UTC-4, nero wrote: > It seems sure (and accettable) that , if i keep a good clock in higth gravity ( or higth speed or acceleration ..or ..or ) the clock goes slower ..but why ? Hi Nero Acknowledging that time does dilated for quick movement or gravity is the first step towards knowing why. Why has not been answered so far. There are some fine theories. If a Higgs mechanism is correct than inertia comes from the Higgs mechanism in a vacuum. From this it would stand to reason that moving through a vacuum , Higgs field , would give one more inertia as you are moving through more Higgs field therefore time would dilate. In the same reasoning if the Higgs field , vacuum , is denser in mass than denser vacuum , Higgs field , would lead to greater inertia therefore time would dilate. That is a nice answer but it is fluffy in the larger picture as there are deeper questions such as why the speed of light is consistent regardless of ones relative speed to that light source. Also why would time dilation be compromised by the Lorentz transform instead of just linear speed through a vacuum if what I just said about moving through a Higgs field was correct. In short no answers on my end nor anyone else that I am aware of. Its a good question but it seems we will have to wait for nature to spit out another Einstein before knowing.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web