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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #371462 > unrolled thread

On length contraction

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

Contents

  On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-05 07:55 -0800
    Re: On length contraction Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-05 18:40 +0100
    Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-05 15:49 -0800
    Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-05 22:39 -0600
      Re: On length contraction Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-06 10:28 +0100
      Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-06 05:40 -0800
        Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 09:03 -0600
          Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-09 02:37 -0800
        Re: On length contraction fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-06 08:14 -0800
          Re: On length contraction fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-06 08:27 -0800
            Re: On length contraction fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-06 10:37 -0800
      Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-06 06:21 -0800
        Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 08:19 -0800
          Stephane Baune tries to correct Ken Shito and, in the process, embarrasses himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-12-07 08:35 -0800
    Re: On length contraction Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-06 08:24 +0100
      Re: On length contraction Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 08:41 +0100
      Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-06 07:06 -0800
      Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 09:20 -0600
        Re: On length contraction Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-06 21:43 +0100
          Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 09:46 -0600
      Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 15:09 -0600
        Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 09:49 -0600
    Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 08:10 -0800
      Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 10:01 -0600
        Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 08:28 -0800
          Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 10:57 -0600
            Re: On length contraction mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-07 22:58 -0800
            Re: On length contraction Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-08 08:44 +0100
            Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-08 14:33 -0800
              Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:56 -0600
              Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-10 20:07 +0000
                Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 13:13 -0800
                  Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:19 -0600
                    Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-11 02:45 +0000
                      Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 21:11 -0800
                        Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 06:57 -0800
                          Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-11 19:20 -0800
                        Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-11 19:55 +0000
                          Re: On length contraction Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-11 23:25 +0000
                          Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-11 19:25 -0800
                            Re: On length contraction pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-12-11 19:48 -0800
                              Re: On length contraction pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-12-13 14:33 -0800
                            Re: On length contraction moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-12 17:27 +0000
                            Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 10:12 -0600
                    Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 21:08 -0800
                      Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 08:04 -0600
      Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-08 14:26 -0800
        Re: On length contraction Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:40 +0000
          Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-09 06:50 -0800
            Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-09 09:06 -0800
        Re: On length contraction rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 09:47 -0800
          Re: On length contraction Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 18:11 +0000
            Re: On length contraction Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:32 -0600
              Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-09 11:18 -0800
              Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 06:57 -0800
          Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-10 06:46 -0800
    Re: On length contraction wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-06 18:18 +0100
      Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-06 12:35 -0600
        Re: On length contraction wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-06 21:58 +0100
          Re: On length contraction wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2015-12-06 22:31 +0100
          Re: On length contraction Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-07 10:16 -0600
        Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 13:08 -0800
          Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 14:26 -0800
            Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 14:38 -0800
            Re: On length contraction John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-06 15:39 -0800
    Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 15:07 -0600
      Re: On length contraction benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 02:21 -0500
        Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 10:44 -0600
          Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-14 08:59 -0800
          Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-14 09:05 -0800
            Re: On length contraction alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-14 09:48 -0800
            Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 12:18 -0600
              Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-15 05:49 -0800
                Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:21 -0600
                  Re: On length contraction mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-15 23:29 -0800
                  Re: On length contraction kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-12-16 07:04 -0800
                    Re: On length contraction Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 09:14 -0600

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#371507

On 12/6/2015 1:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> The meter was once defined by a Platin-Iridum bar in Paris and was meant
> as 1/10000 of the distance from pole to equator.
>
> This was a very pragmatic definition, but difficult to use, since copies
> of this bar were very expensive.

That's not the reason it was dropped.
It was dropped because it wasn't precise or stable enough a standard.

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

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

#371539

On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 3:09 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/6/2015 1:24 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> The meter was once defined by a Platin-Iridum bar in Paris and was meant
>> as 1/10000 of the distance from pole to equator.
>> This was a very pragmatic definition, but difficult to use, since copies
>> of this bar were very expensive.
>
> That's not the reason it was dropped.
> It was dropped because it wasn't precise or stable enough a standard.

Yes. And also because it was not reproducible.

The proposed re-definition of the kilogram (for 2018) will be implementable in 
any reasonably-equipped laboratory.


Tom Roberts

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

#371492

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:


Hello sir... first time poster here...

> So what is length contraction in SR? 

See below...

> SRians claim that length contraction is the geometric projection 

No they dont. Stop lying. *Some* SRians *call* it that way, or describe it that way. 

"length contraction" is simply an expression used to describe the the "odd result" predicted by SR that if you *measure* the length of [a moving object] you will get a "lesser value". SR says nothing about "real" or "material". It simply says something about the *value* obtained by the measurement procedure. 

Just like if you measure the "angle height" of someone; the further they are, the lesser the angle height. Some may just *say* that the far away person is shorter. You need to understand the meaning of the words used, something you fail to comprehend.

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

#371540

On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 10:10 AM, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>> SRians claim that length contraction is the geometric projection
>
> No they dont. Stop lying. *Some* SRians *call* it that way, or describe it
> that way.

No, it is not just "some SRians". The phenomenon known as "length contraction"
in SR actually _IS_ a geometric projection. Not everybody uses those particular
words, but that _IS_ what it is; this _IS_ what these words mean.

	The procedure for measuring the length of a moving object
	is to mark its endpoints simultaneously in one's frame,
	and to measure the distance between marks using a ruler
	at rest in the frame. That procedure is PRECISELY how to
	geometrically project the two marking events onto the
	3-d space of the frame.


> "length contraction" is simply an expression used to describe the the "odd
> result" predicted by SR that if you *measure* the length of [a moving object]
> you will get a "lesser value". SR says nothing about "real" or "material". It
> simply says something about the *value* obtained by the measurement
> procedure.

Yes.


Tom Roberts

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

#371542

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:01:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 10:10 AM, rotchm wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> >> SRians claim that length contraction is the geometric projection
> >
> > No they dont. Stop lying. *Some* SRians *call* it that way, or describe it
> > that way.
> 
> No, it is not just "some SRians". The phenomenon known as "length contraction"
> in SR actually _IS_ a geometric projection.

You totally miss the point. *YOU*, (yes, YOU) should not use the expression "geometric projection" to seto because he has no idea what that means and misunderstands it to mean something else; you are just maintaining his confusions by saying "geometric projection"... 

> Not everybody uses those particular words, but that _IS_ what it is; 

I never said otherwise..its just with seto, we need to change our words to some expressions he can minimally grasp. 

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

#371545

On 12/7/2015 10:28 AM, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:01:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 10:10 AM, rotchm wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>>>> SRians claim that length contraction is the geometric projection
>>>
>>> No they dont. Stop lying. *Some* SRians *call* it that way, or describe it
>>> that way.
>>
>> No, it is not just "some SRians". The phenomenon known as "length contraction"
>> in SR actually _IS_ a geometric projection.
>
> You totally miss the point. *YOU*, (yes, YOU) should not use the expression "geometric
> projection" to seto because he has no idea what that means and misunderstands it to mean
> something else; you are just maintaining his confusions by saying "geometric projection"...

I agree with this. I understand Tom's insistence on precision and 
completeness in his answers. In parallel with that he often makes the 
comment that the reader is going to have to STUDY the subject to 
understand what he just said. He won't "dumb down" his statements.

As an amateur, I think there's a bridge strategy. For people like Seto 
who don't understand even basic things, you have to dumb things down, 
even to the point where the answer is no longer complete or precise. 
This becomes a "leading answer", where you are providing the first step 
to a better understanding, but where the onus is on the reader to take 
the next step elsewhere.

Seto has the preconception that only material things are real, and this 
gets in the way of just about everything he says. But even Seto has to 
admit that an electric field is real but it is in no way material, or 
that light is real but is in no way material. This *should* be enough to 
get him to stop saying that if it's not material then it's not real. But 
then again, Seto's on a pretty steep decline.

>
>> Not everybody uses those particular words, but that _IS_ what it is;
>
> I never said otherwise..its just with seto, we need to change our words to some expressions
> he can minimally grasp.
>


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

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

#371572

W dniu poniedziałek, 7 grudnia 2015 17:57:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> As an amateur, I think there's a bridge strategy. For people like Seto 
> who don't understand even basic things, you have to dumb things down, 
> even to the point where the answer is no longer complete or precise.

You didn't invent it. It's a standard brainwashing
technique. Most hardcore bullshit is restricted only
for those partially made.

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

#371573

Am 07.12.2015 17:57, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>> No, it is not just "some SRians". The phenomenon known as "length
>>> contraction"
>>> in SR actually _IS_ a geometric projection.
>>
>> You totally miss the point. *YOU*, (yes, YOU) should not use the
>> expression "geometric
>> projection" to seto because he has no idea what that means and
>> misunderstands it to mean
>> something else; you are just maintaining his confusions by saying
>> "geometric projection"...
>
> I agree with this. I understand Tom's insistence on precision and
> completeness in his answers. In parallel with that he often makes the
> comment that the reader is going to have to STUDY the subject to
> understand what he just said. He won't "dumb down" his statements.


This is in fact true. But I don't have an explanation, why he didn't 
understand a (ridiculously) stupid joke I made and instead gave me a 
booklist.


TH

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

#371605

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/7/2015 10:28 AM, rotchm wrote:
> > On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:01:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 12/6/15 12/6/15 - 10:10 AM, rotchm wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 10:55:53 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> >>>> SRians claim that length contraction is the geometric projection
> >>>
> >>> No they dont. Stop lying. *Some* SRians *call* it that way, or describe it
> >>> that way.
> >>
> >> No, it is not just "some SRians". The phenomenon known as "length contraction"
> >> in SR actually _IS_ a geometric projection.
> >
> > You totally miss the point. *YOU*, (yes, YOU) should not use the expression "geometric
> > projection" to seto because he has no idea what that means and misunderstands it to mean
> > something else; you are just maintaining his confusions by saying "geometric projection"...
> 
> I agree with this. I understand Tom's insistence on precision and 
> completeness in his answers. In parallel with that he often makes the 
> comment that the reader is going to have to STUDY the subject to 
> understand what he just said. He won't "dumb down" his statements.
> 
> As an amateur, I think there's a bridge strategy. For people like Seto 
> who don't understand even basic things, you have to dumb things down, 
> even to the point where the answer is no longer complete or precise. 
> This becomes a "leading answer", where you are providing the first step 
> to a better understanding, but where the onus is on the reader to take 
> the next step elsewhere.
> 
> Seto has the preconception that only material things are real, and this 
> gets in the way of just about everything he says. But even Seto has to 
> admit that an electric field is real but it is in no way material, or 
> that light is real but is in no way material. This *should* be enough to 
> get him to stop saying that if it's not material then it's not real. But 
> then again, Seto's on a pretty steep decline.

ROTFLOL....idiot Bodkin (aka PD) need to study 20 years more of real physics before reaching my understanding of real physics.

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

#371615

On 12/8/2015 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote:
>> This*should*  be enough to
>> >get him to stop saying that if it's not material then it's not real. But
>> >then again, Seto's on a pretty steep decline.
> ROTFLOL....idiot Bodkin (aka PD) need to study 20 years more of real physics
> before reaching my understanding of real physics.

I rest my case

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

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

#371771

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> Seto has the preconception that only material things are real, and this 
>> gets in the way of just about everything he says. But even Seto has to 
>> admit that an electric field is real but it is in no way material, or 
>> that light is real but is in no way material. This *should* be enough to 
>> get him to stop saying that if it's not material then it's not real. But 
>> then again, Seto's on a pretty steep decline.

>ROTFLOL....idiot Bodkin (aka PD) need to study 20 years more of real 
>physics before reaching my understanding of real physics.

I suppose that if either Bodkin or PD are fairly old, they may start
to suffer from a bad case of Alzheimer's, and over the next 20 years
they'll degenerate to reaching your understanding of physics.

But I hope not.

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

#371776

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 3:08:00 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >> Seto has the preconception that only material things are real, and this 
> >> gets in the way of just about everything he says. But even Seto has to 
> >> admit that an electric field is real but it is in no way material, or 
> >> that light is real but is in no way material. This *should* be enough to 
> >> get him to stop saying that if it's not material then it's not real. But 
> >> then again, Seto's on a pretty steep decline.
> 
> >ROTFLOL....idiot Bodkin (aka PD) need to study 20 years more of real 
> >physics before reaching my understanding of real physics.
> 
> I suppose that if either Bodkin or PD are fairly old, they may start
> to suffer from a bad case of Alzheimer's, and over the next 20 years
> they'll degenerate to reaching your understanding of physics.

ROTFLOL.....moron moroney

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

#371778

On 12/10/2015 3:13 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 3:08:00 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:57:28 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>>> Seto has the preconception that only material things are real, and this
>>>> gets in the way of just about everything he says. But even Seto has to
>>>> admit that an electric field is real but it is in no way material, or
>>>> that light is real but is in no way material. This *should* be enough to
>>>> get him to stop saying that if it's not material then it's not real. But
>>>> then again, Seto's on a pretty steep decline.
>>
>>> ROTFLOL....idiot Bodkin (aka PD) need to study 20 years more of real
>>> physics before reaching my understanding of real physics.
>>
>> I suppose that if either Bodkin or PD are fairly old, they may start
>> to suffer from a bad case of Alzheimer's, and over the next 20 years
>> they'll degenerate to reaching your understanding of physics.
>
> ROTFLOL.....moron moroney
>

Ken, I realize you're bent in the head. But really. Open up a freshman 
book and go to, say, chapter 4 and head to the end of the chapter and 
select ANY of the end-of-chapter problems. You will not be able to work 
it or explain how to solve it.

Now tell me how it is that someone who can't work a single problem from 
a freshman level physics book is 20 years ahead in understanding 
physics. Do you think there was ever ANYONE who made an advance in 
physics that could not work a freshman physics problem?

Why do you lie to yourself?

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

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

#371790

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On 12/10/2015 3:13 PM, kenseto wrote:

>> ROTFLOL.....moron moroney

Oh how mature.  I think the last time I heard that was 4th Grade.

>Ken, I realize you're bent in the head. But really. Open up a freshman 
>book and go to, say, chapter 4 and head to the end of the chapter and 
>select ANY of the end-of-chapter problems. You will not be able to work 
>it or explain how to solve it.

Freshman physics problems?  Remember we're talking about someone who can't
even solve (-6)/(-2).  (speaking of 4th Grade!)

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

#371795

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:45:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On 12/10/2015 3:13 PM, kenseto wrote:
> 
> >> ROTFLOL.....moron moroney
> 
> Oh how mature.  I think the last time I heard that was 4th Grade.
> 
> >Ken, I realize you're bent in the head. But really. Open up a freshman 
> >book and go to, say, chapter 4 and head to the end of the chapter and 
> >select ANY of the end-of-chapter problems. You will not be able to work 
> >it or explain how to solve it.
> 
> Freshman physics problems?  Remember we're talking about someone who can't
> even solve (-6)/(-2).  (speaking of 4th Grade!)

Making up stuff.....that's why you are moron moroney.

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

#371827

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 12:11:33 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
 
> > Freshman physics problems?  Remember we're talking about someone who can't
> > even solve (-6)/(-2).  (speaking of 4th Grade!)
> 
> Making up stuff.....that's why you are moron moroney.

No idiot ken. Google kept a record of your failure to correctly answer that question.  You dont even comprehend the notion of coordinates. Remember when you said 
   "e3 and e4 cannot be simultaneous even though they 
   have the same coordinates bu at a different locations"

Now, thats ROTFL !!

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

#371867

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 9:57:56 AM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 12:11:33 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
>  
> > > Freshman physics problems?  Remember we're talking about someone who can't
> > > even solve (-6)/(-2).  (speaking of 4th Grade!)
> > 
> > Making up stuff.....that's why you are moron moroney.
> 
> No idiot ken. Google kept a record of your failure to correctly answer that question.  You dont even comprehend the notion of coordinates. Remember when you said 
>    "e3 and e4 cannot be simultaneous even though they 
>    have the same coordinates bu at a different locations"

So idiot....dig it out and show us.

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

#371835

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:45:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Freshman physics problems?  Remember we're talking about someone who can't
>> even solve (-6)/(-2).  (speaking of 4th Grade!)

>Making up stuff.....that's why you are moron moroney.

So tell us, what is the answer to (-6)/(-2) and why is that the correct
answer?

(Prediction: Like before, lots of evasion in response but no actual 
answer)

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

#371842

Il giorno mercoledì Fri, 11 Dec 2015 19:55:35 +0000,
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) ha scritto:

>>> Freshman physics problems?  Remember we're talking about someone who
>>> can't even solve (-6)/(-2).  (speaking of 4th Grade!)
> 
>>Making up stuff.....that's why you are moron moroney.
> 
> So tell us, what is the answer to (-6)/(-2) and why is that the correct
> answer?

You may think you are smart ass with this question, not seeing you Kenseto 
is magnitudes smarter and educated than you are. Thinking that your 
fraction should equate to 3 is wrong in Physics. Why, since both your 
Input Parameters appurtenance is the Negative Domain. So the Output has to 
stay appartenent in the same Domain of Applicability. (unless you specify 
those domain explicitly, of course)

Kensoto 1
Moroney 0

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

#371869

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:45:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> >> Freshman physics problems?  Remember we're talking about someone who can't
> >> even solve (-6)/(-2).  (speaking of 4th Grade!)
> 
> >Making up stuff.....that's why you are moron moroney.
> 
> So tell us, what is the answer to (-6)/(-2) and why is that the correct
> answer?

Why would I waste my time doing a math problem for a moron???

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web