Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386066 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-17 09:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-30 21:18 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-17 09:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:43 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-18 06:23 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:49 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-18 07:06 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-18 07:07 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-19 05:36 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 14:57 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-19 06:40 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-19 09:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 05:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-20 07:42 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 18:11 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-20 20:02 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 07:24 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-21 09:09 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 19:58 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 21:02 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-21 21:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-22 18:55 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-23 06:27 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-23 17:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 06:17 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-25 08:32 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 14:20 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-25 16:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-26 06:07 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 07:56 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-26 15:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 16:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 17:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 21:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 21:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-26 21:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-27 06:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-27 08:25 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:21 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:39 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 12:27 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:34 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-27 17:10 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:59 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 17:02 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 14:37 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-19 05:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-20 00:39 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 05:47 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-20 19:17 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 17:55 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 05:43 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:26 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:48 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 07:48 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:08 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:22 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 08:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 11:37 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 08:56 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:58 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 16:50 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 08:59 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:59 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 18:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-06-17 12:25 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:28 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 13:58 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-20 17:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:23 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 07:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 10:00 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 08:43 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 11:35 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-21 20:02 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 07:22 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 14:42 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:52 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 17:56 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:33 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 11:03 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-24 08:34 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:19 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-23 17:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:36 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 14:21 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 15:51 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-22 14:24 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 09:35 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 14:44 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:53 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:57 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 18:42 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 11:05 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-24 08:59 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 19:41 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-25 07:20 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:20 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-23 17:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-24 08:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-21 16:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-22 08:57 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:59 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 13:48 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 22:39 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 07:27 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 13:58 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-27 23:25 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 09:01 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-27 23:18 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 22:19 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-28 20:27 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 19:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 17:48 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-27 22:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 21:26 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-28 09:06 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-28 06:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-28 16:09 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-28 14:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? dancouriann@gmail.com - 2016-06-28 14:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 17:10 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 08:18 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:32 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:33 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:40 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 15:55 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 18:03 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:35 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 08:23 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-30 11:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 15:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 01:16 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-01 04:00 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-01 09:05 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 10:35 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-01 13:34 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:46 -0700
are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-03 14:45 -0700
Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-04 00:38 -0700
Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 17:08 +0000
Re: are the eRe: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-07-04 05:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 18:05 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 18:08 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-29 18:09 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:49 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 16:18 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 04:05 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 05:54 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 17:13 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-30 15:45 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-01 04:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-30 23:43 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-03 20:03 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 16:33 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-04 19:23 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-04 16:26 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-04 19:25 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-03 23:25 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-04 04:53 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 17:55 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 17:23 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 19:39 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-28 20:33 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 08:14 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-29 10:29 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:24 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 08:30 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:39 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-29 09:04 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 11:31 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-29 16:52 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-06-29 13:31 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:38 -0500
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-30 03:41 +0000
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-30 17:50 +0200
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 19:22 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 19:37 -0700
Re: Is a clock second a universal interval of time? wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-06-30 21:18 +0200
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef132b71-3cb5-4a87-a786-0b1d29ff6879@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386746 |
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:31:12 AM UTC+10, David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote: > (2 / ((1 / ((4 * pi * 2.99792458) / 137.0024906785)) - 3)) = pi hmmm.. 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - ... = pi/4 :) -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8031b172-06e5-4277-badc-f39a1686def5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386749 |
On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 12:39:26 PM UTC-4, Y wrote: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 2:31:12 AM UTC+10, David (Time Lord) Fuller wrote: > > (2 / ((1 / ((4 * pi * 2.99792458) / 137.0024906785)) - 3)) = pi > > hmmm.. > > > 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - ... = pi/4 Dont humor him. Better just to report him (as spam). The more of us who report him, the quicker he will get the boot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa24fe97-bac2-44fe-b9d6-1cdc271dff84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386744 |
(2 / ((1 / ((4 * pi * 2.99787008) / 137)) - 3)) = pi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 17:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nkrmlr$bco$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386737 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >Also every object by itself has unmeasurable direction of absolute motion. >Idiot.....an object by itself has no direction of absolute motion. >Wrt another object then it has a direction of absolute motion..... Make up your mind, Ken. Pick one: a) Absolute motion has a magnitude and direction, therefore it is a vector. b) Absolute motion doesn't have a direction, only a magnitude, and therefore is a scalar. c) "Absolute" motion has a relative direction, and therefore isn't absolute. No wonder IRT is such a failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 18:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9c3e5df-22bb-4b60-87d3-b5406e82f095@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386456 |
On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 12:37:24 AM UTC-4, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 7:58:44 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >> You said previously that "Observed relative motion between A > >> and B is the vector difference of their absolute motions". But > >> now you say "an object does not have a definite direction of > >> absolute motion". > > > > I said: " observed relative motion between A and B is the vector > > difference of their absolute motions along the line joining them". > > You didn’t say “along the line joining them”. Your complete sentence was “Observed relative motion between A and B is the vector difference of their absolute motions.” (Your message is still available to read, so you can easily verify this.) > > Even adding the words “along the line joining them” doesn’t help, because not all relative motion between two objects is directed along the line joining them. In general, the relative motions between two objects have a radial component and a tangential component. If all relative motion was purely radial (as you say), then the direction of the line joining two objects could never change... but we know the directions between objects can change. So your concept of motion is inconsistent with what we observe. > > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 7:58:44 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > The vectors of A's absolute motion are equal in magnitude in > > all directions and B's absolute motion are equal in magnitude > > in all directions. Therefore their difference in magnitudes along > > the line joining them is the relative motion between them. > > You have said that an object's absolute motion has no definite direction. So in essence you are saying that each object’s absolute motion can be quantified by a single number, because absolute motion has a magnitude but no definite direction. Is that correct? Absolute motion is that motion of an object in the isotropic E-Matrix. Therefore there is no specific direction of absolute motion for an object moving in the E-Matrix. > > > According to A if the difference in their magnitudes is > > negative then B is moving toward him along the line > > joining them and if the difference in their magnitude > > is positive then B is moving away from him along the > > line joining them. > > But this leads you directly into a contradiction. Consider two objects, called B1 and B2, moving directly away from A in opposite directions. According to what you have said, the magnitude of B1 is greater than the magnitude of A, and the magnitude of B2 is greater than the magnitude of A. In fact, if B1 and B2 are moving away from A at equal relative speeds, the magnitude of B1 must equal the magnitude of B2, which means that B1 has no motion relative to B2, and vice versa. But this is absurd, because B1 and B2 are obviously receding from each other. So your ideas are self-contradictory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 10:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkh105$113q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386535 |
On 6/22/2016 8:26 PM, kenseto wrote: > Absolute motion is that motion of an object in the isotropic E-Matrix. Therefore there is no specific > direction of absolute motion for an object moving in the E-Matrix. Ken, if there is no specific direction for absolute motion, then it cannot be a vector. And then relative motion between A and B cannot be the *vector* difference between the absolute motions of A and B. Have to have vector absolute motions before you can take the vector difference. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 17:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nkbrut$9nh$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386386 |
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 7:24:37 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > The vector of absolute motion for each object is the same > in all directions. > > An object does not have a definite direction of absolute motion. Then "absolute motion" cannot be a vector. A vector has a magnitude and a direction. You state your "absolute motion" has no direction, so it must be a scalar, a simple number, a magnitude. In addition, the statement "Relative motion between A and B is the vector difference of their absolute motions" now makes no sense. You cannot take the vector difference between two scalars, pretty much by definition, and without a direction, absolute motion cannot be a vector.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nk3mbr$qat$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386127 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 12:43:47 PM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote: >> On 06/17/2016 06:22 PM, kenseto wrote: >> > Can SR makes these contradictory claims? The answer is NO.....a >> > theory that includes contradictory claims is not a valid theory of >> > physics. >> Unless a persons makes inconsistent analysis, >> able to invent contradictory claims anywhere. >Assertion is not a valid argument. Why is my analysis inconsistent? Because it is not an analysis, it is a bunch of assertions. And as you yourself state, assertion is not a valid argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 05:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7ce57f1-30da-4a81-8154-7c83b5adaf12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386139 |
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 12:43:47 PM UTC-4, Poutnik wrote: > >> On 06/17/2016 06:22 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >> > Can SR makes these contradictory claims? The answer is NO.....a > >> > theory that includes contradictory claims is not a valid theory of > >> > physics. > > >> Unless a persons makes inconsistent analysis, > >> able to invent contradictory claims anywhere. > > >Assertion is not a valid argument. Why is my analysis inconsistent? > > Because it is not an analysis, it is a bunch of assertions. And as you > yourself state, assertion is not a valid argument. Hey Micky Moron.....so are you saying that the universal constant of the speed of light in all frames and the SR math is a bunch of assertions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 00:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nk7e07$eq9$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386218 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >Assertion is not a valid argument. Why is my analysis inconsistent? >> >> Because it is not an analysis, it is a bunch of assertions. And as you >> yourself state, assertion is not a valid argument. >Hey Micky Moron.....so are you saying that the universal constant of the >speed of light in all frames and the SR math is a bunch of assertions? No, I am telling you that you keep making false assertions about SR here and as you keep saying, assertion is not a valid argument. So if you really believe assertion is not a valid argument, why do you keep asserting falsehoods about SR and GR?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fda1e5d-129f-4866-86b1-33f1a18f31ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386254 |
On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 8:40:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 10:38:31 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> > >> >Assertion is not a valid argument. Why is my analysis inconsistent? > >> > >> Because it is not an analysis, it is a bunch of assertions. And as you > >> yourself state, assertion is not a valid argument. > > >Hey Micky Moron.....so are you saying that the universal constant of the > >speed of light in all frames and the SR math is a bunch of assertions? > > No, I am telling you that you keep making false assertions about SR here > and as you keep saying, assertion is not a valid argument. So if you > really believe assertion is not a valid argument, why do you keep > asserting falsehoods about SR and GR? So why don't you point out why what I said about SR is false?.....instead of just making false assertions that what I said is false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nk9ffu$7ah$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386284 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 8:40:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >Hey Micky Moron.....so are you saying that the universal constant of the >> >speed of light in all frames and the SR math is a bunch of assertions? >> >> No, I am telling you that you keep making false assertions about SR here >> and as you keep saying, assertion is not a valid argument. So if you >> really believe assertion is not a valid argument, why do you keep >> asserting falsehoods about SR and GR? >So why don't you point out why what I said about SR is false?.....instead >of just making false assertions that what I said is false. Just about your whole posting history on SR consists of your multiple false assertions. About the most obvious/glaring false assertions by you is the repeated false assertion: "A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation..." Umm, no, the second is DEFINED as exactly 9,192,631,770 Cs-133 atomic transitions on a local clock, NEVER "4.4647 more" cycles as you repeatedly falsely assert, then shoot down as being not consistent. You also repeatedly accuse SR of ideas that come from your IRT crap, such assertions as "the SR observer assumes he is at absolute rest" or assertions about aether, when RELATIVITY (notice that word) states there is no absolute rest (the whole point of *RELATIVITY*!), and Einstein disavowed any need/use for any aether at the beginning of his 1905 SR paper. I keep telling you: Why don't you learn what SR actually states for once? So why don't you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 17:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77e12cf5-8c57-4658-85e9-38d866113ccf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386315 |
On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 3:18:02 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 8:40:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >Hey Micky Moron.....so are you saying that the universal constant of the > >> >speed of light in all frames and the SR math is a bunch of assertions? > >> > >> No, I am telling you that you keep making false assertions about SR here > >> and as you keep saying, assertion is not a valid argument. So if you > >> really believe assertion is not a valid argument, why do you keep > >> asserting falsehoods about SR and GR? > > >So why don't you point out why what I said about SR is false?.....instead > >of just making false assertions that what I said is false. > > Just about your whole posting history on SR consists of your multiple false > assertions. Idiot we are not talking about my posting history. We are talking about the SR claim of universal constant is inconsistent with the SR math that says that a clock second is not a universal interval of time. Gee you are stupid and a moron. >About the most obvious/glaring false assertions by you is the > repeated false assertion: "A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more > periods of Cs 133 radiation..." Umm, no, the second is DEFINED as exactly > 9,192,631,770 Cs-133 atomic transitions on a local clock, NEVER "4.4647 > more" cycles as you repeatedly falsely assert, then shoot down as being not > consistent. Idiot if the GPS second is not redefined then the GPS is not in synch with the ground clock. Not wonder your name is morony >You also repeatedly accuse SR of ideas that come from your IRT > crap, such assertions as "the SR observer assumes he is at absolute rest" or > assertions about aether, Idiot I never claim that. I claimed that SR math is a subset of IRT math. Gee you are stupid. >when RELATIVITY (notice that word) states there is > no absolute rest (the whole point of *RELATIVITY*!), and Einstein disavowed > any need/use for any aether at the beginning of his 1905 SR paper. I never claim any object in the universe is in a state OF ABSOLUTE REST. IN FACT I CLAIM THAT NO OBJECT IN OUR UNIVERSE IS IN A STATE OF ABSOLUTE REST. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > > I keep telling you: Why don't you learn what SR actually states for once? > So why don't you? Yeah why don't you learn what SR actually says.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 05:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nkak6o$vu3$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #386346 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 3:18:02 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 8:40:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >> >Hey Micky Moron.....so are you saying that the universal constant of the >> >> >speed of light in all frames and the SR math is a bunch of assertions? >> >> >> >> No, I am telling you that you keep making false assertions about SR here >> >> and as you keep saying, assertion is not a valid argument. So if you >> >> really believe assertion is not a valid argument, why do you keep >> >> asserting falsehoods about SR and GR? >> >> >So why don't you point out why what I said about SR is false?.....instead >> >of just making false assertions that what I said is false. >> >> Just about your whole posting history on SR consists of your multiple false >> assertions. >Idiot we are not talking about my posting history. We are talking about >the SR claim of universal constant is inconsistent with the SR math that >says that a clock second is not a universal interval of time. Gee you are >stupid and a moron. We are discussing all the false assertions you continue to make about SR, despite the fact you repeatedly post "assertion is not a valid argument". About the only thing you actually get correct here! If only you would listen to your own statement! >>About the most obvious/glaring false assertions by you is the >> repeated false assertion: "A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more >> periods of Cs 133 radiation..." Umm, no, the second is DEFINED as exactly >> 9,192,631,770 Cs-133 atomic transitions on a local clock, NEVER "4.4647 >> more" cycles as you repeatedly falsely assert, then shoot down as being not >> consistent. >Idiot if the GPS second is not redefined then the GPS is not in synch >with the ground clock. Not wonder your name is morony Well, yes. The GPS clock does *not* tick once per second. It ticks slightly slow, so that when the GR effects affect the signal, it causes it to be received at the correct frequency, and it is *received* (on earth's surface) ticking exactly once per second. Imagine, for example, that a railroad co. wanted people standing along the train tracks or at a station to hear the train horn of an approaching train at exactly Middle C. But the train will be approaching at 60 mph when sounding its horn. To compensate for the audio Doppler effect, they'd have to lower the pitch of the train horn. Do they state "the train Middle C has been redefined as ..."? Of course not! >>You also repeatedly accuse SR of ideas that come from your IRT >> crap, such assertions as "the SR observer assumes he is at absolute rest" or >> assertions about aether, >Idiot I never claim that. Actually you state stuff like (quoting you) "In SRT all inertial frames (including the preferred frame) are equivalent and thus every SRT observer can claim the exclusive properties of the preferred frame to derive the math." Elsewhere you equate the preferred frame with some aether frame. My point stands, the whole point of RELATIVITY is that everything is relative, and there is no such thing as a preferred frame, and Einstein disavows the aether at the start of the 1905 SR paper. You are projecting IRT junk onto SR. > I claimed that SR math is a subset of IRT >math. Which, of course, is false. Otherwise IRT would agree with everything SR says, which it certainly doesn't. >>when RELATIVITY (notice that word) states there is >> no absolute rest (the whole point of *RELATIVITY*!), and Einstein disavowed >> any need/use for any aether at the beginning of his 1905 SR paper. >I never claim any object in the universe is in a state OF ABSOLUTE REST. >IN FACT I CLAIM THAT NO OBJECT IN OUR UNIVERSE IS IN A STATE OF ABSOLUTE >REST. Gee you are so fucking stupid. So "absolute rest" is a meaningless term, meaning absolute motion must be meaningless as well. I need to clarify. My point is that relativity states there is no absolute anything regarding position and motion. No preferred frame of any sort (and no aether), not simply no "absolute rest". >> I keep telling you: Why don't you learn what SR actually states for once? >> So why don't you? >Yeah why don't you learn what SR actually says. But it is you who keeps attributing IRT junk to SR. Crap like preferred frames, aether/aether frames and they "redefined the GPS second".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 08:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkbfau$og4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386346 |
On 6/20/2016 7:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot we are not talking about my posting history. We are talking about the SR claim of universal > constant is inconsistent with the SR math that says that a clock second is not a universal interval > of time. Gee you are stupid and a moron. The claim of constancy of speed of light is inconsistent with the COMBINATION of two statements: 1. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement SR makes.) 2. A stick meter is a universal interval of distance. (This statement SR does NOT make. You make it, but it's wrong.) However, the claim of the constancy of the speed of light is fully consistent with the combination of these two statements: 3. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement SR makes.) 2. A stick meter is not a universal interval of distance. (This statement SR makes.) Therefore SR is fully internally consistent. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 08:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkbgjr$pdv$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386378 |
On 6/21/2016 8:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/20/2016 7:55 PM, kenseto wrote: >> Idiot we are not talking about my posting history. We are talking >> about the SR claim of universal >> constant is inconsistent with the SR math that says that a clock >> second is not a universal interval >> of time. Gee you are stupid and a moron. > > The claim of constancy of speed of light is inconsistent with the > COMBINATION of two statements: > 1. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement > SR makes.) > 2. A stick meter is a universal interval of distance. (This statement SR > does NOT make. You make it, but it's wrong.) > > However, the claim of the constancy of the speed of light is fully > consistent with the combination of these two statements: > 3. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement > SR makes.) > 2. A stick meter is not a universal interval of distance. (This > statement SR makes.) > > Therefore SR is fully internally consistent. > > This, by the way, is an example of the FALSE STATEMENTS you make about SR, Ken. You say SR is internally inconsistent, which it is not. It's just that some of the statements of relativity you don't believe, and so you substitute your own. Then other statements are inconsistent with the statements you substituted. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 07:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2206213-1c3c-42cd-8ee4-b8c6b93374f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386378 |
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:26:57 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/20/2016 7:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot we are not talking about my posting history. We are talking about the SR claim of universal > > constant is inconsistent with the SR math that says that a clock second is not a universal interval > > of time. Gee you are stupid and a moron. > > The claim of constancy of speed of light is inconsistent with the > COMBINATION of two statements: > 1. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement > SR makes.) > 2. A stick meter is a universal interval of distance. (This statement SR > does NOT make. You make it, but it's wrong.) A meter stick will return the same length after a journey....so that means that material length is a universal constant. It is irrelevant what SR says or not says. > > However, the claim of the constancy of the speed of light is fully > consistent with the combination of these two statements: > 3. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement > SR makes.) > 2. A stick meter is not a universal interval of distance. (This > statement SR makes.) #2 contradicts observation.....a meter stick will return the same length after a journey. > > Therefore SR is fully internally consistent. ROTFLOL...SR is fully internally consistent by assertion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 10:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkbl9d$12en$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386389 |
On 6/21/2016 9:48 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:26:57 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/20/2016 7:55 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> Idiot we are not talking about my posting history. We are talking about the SR claim of universal >>> constant is inconsistent with the SR math that says that a clock second is not a universal interval >>> of time. Gee you are stupid and a moron. >> >> The claim of constancy of speed of light is inconsistent with the >> COMBINATION of two statements: >> 1. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement >> SR makes.) >> 2. A stick meter is a universal interval of distance. (This statement SR >> does NOT make. You make it, but it's wrong.) > > A meter stick will return the same length after a journey....so that means that > material length is a universal constant. It is irrelevant what SR says or not says. No sir. SR claims that the meter stick will return to its original length when it comes back to rest in the original frame, but that it is contracted when it is MOVING. If you only look at it when it is at rest, this doesn't tell you that the length contraction doesn't happen when it is moving. The SR assertion of length contraction does not come with a claim of PERMANENCE or PERSISTENCE of that contraction. You don't get to say that length contraction doesn't happen because it doesn't persist. >> > > However, the claim of the constancy of the speed of light is fully >> consistent with the combination of these two statements: >> 3. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement >> SR makes.) >> 2. A stick meter is not a universal interval of distance. (This >> statement SR makes.) > > #2 contradicts observation.....a meter stick will return the same length after a journey. Your observation is not when it is contracted, that is, when it is moving. >> >> Therefore SR is fully internally consistent. > > ROTFLOL...SR is fully internally consistent by assertion. It is fully internally consistent by LOGICAL CONSISTENCY among its assertions. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 10:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nkbm4c$13tu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #386394 |
On 6/21/2016 10:08 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/21/2016 9:48 AM, kenseto wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:26:57 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 6/20/2016 7:55 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>> Idiot we are not talking about my posting history. We are talking >>>> about the SR claim of universal >>>> constant is inconsistent with the SR math that says that a clock >>>> second is not a universal interval >>>> of time. Gee you are stupid and a moron. >>> >>> The claim of constancy of speed of light is inconsistent with the >>> COMBINATION of two statements: >>> 1. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement >>> SR makes.) >>> 2. A stick meter is a universal interval of distance. (This statement SR >>> does NOT make. You make it, but it's wrong.) >> >> A meter stick will return the same length after a journey....so that >> means that >> material length is a universal constant. It is irrelevant what SR says >> or not says. This is the point, Ken. If you are going to say that SR is internally inconsistent, then you can ONLY look at the statements that SR says, and NOT MIX them with other statements you make. Any idiot can make a system of statements inconsistent by adding other statements to the mix. You make a whole bunch of statements that are both wrong and not in the set of statements that SR makes. For example, you say: - If length contraction isn't persistent when the stick stops moving, then length contraction didn't happen. - Length contraction has never been observed in experiment. - There is no inertially moving object on earth. - There is no inertial reference frame on earth. All of those statements are WRONG, and they have been added by you. > > No sir. SR claims that the meter stick will return to its original > length when it comes back to rest in the original frame, but that it is > contracted when it is MOVING. If you only look at it when it is at rest, > this doesn't tell you that the length contraction doesn't happen when it > is moving. > > The SR assertion of length contraction does not come with a claim of > PERMANENCE or PERSISTENCE of that contraction. You don't get to say that > length contraction doesn't happen because it doesn't persist. > >>> >> > However, the claim of the constancy of the speed of light is fully >>> consistent with the combination of these two statements: >>> 3. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement >>> SR makes.) >>> 2. A stick meter is not a universal interval of distance. (This >>> statement SR makes.) >> >> #2 contradicts observation.....a meter stick will return the same >> length after a journey. > > Your observation is not when it is contracted, that is, when it is moving. > >>> >>> Therefore SR is fully internally consistent. >> >> ROTFLOL...SR is fully internally consistent by assertion. > > It is fully internally consistent by LOGICAL CONSISTENCY among its > assertions. > >> > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22a13471-310d-48f4-899e-4bf1fdc57890@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #386396 |
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/21/2016 10:08 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 6/21/2016 9:48 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:26:57 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 6/20/2016 7:55 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>> Idiot we are not talking about my posting history. We are talking > >>>> about the SR claim of universal > >>>> constant is inconsistent with the SR math that says that a clock > >>>> second is not a universal interval > >>>> of time. Gee you are stupid and a moron. > >>> > >>> The claim of constancy of speed of light is inconsistent with the > >>> COMBINATION of two statements: > >>> 1. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement > >>> SR makes.) > >>> 2. A stick meter is a universal interval of distance. (This statement SR > >>> does NOT make. You make it, but it's wrong.) > >> > >> A meter stick will return the same length after a journey....so that > >> means that > >> material length is a universal constant. Itwhile moving and lengthened is irrelevant what SR says > >> or not says.X > This is the point, Ken. If you are going to say that SR is internally > inconsistent, then you can ONLY look at the statements that SR says, and > NOT MIX them with other statements you make. SR says that a meter stick will contract and lengthen to its original length when it return....such assumptions clearly not scientific and that means that SR is not internally consistent > > Any idiot can make a system of statements inconsistent by adding other > statements to the mix. > > You make a whole bunch of statements that are both wrong and not in the > set of statements that SR makes. For example, you say: > - If length contraction isn't persistent when the stick stops moving, > then length contraction didn't happen. > - Length contraction has never been observed in experiment. > - There is no inertially moving object on earth. > - There is no inertial reference frame on earth. > > All of those statements are WRONG, and they have been added by you. > > > > > No sir. SR claims that the meter stick will return to its original > > length when it comes back to rest in the original frame, but that it is > > contracted when it is MOVING. If you only look at it when it is at rest, > > this doesn't tell you that the length contraction doesn't happen when it > > is moving. > > > > The SR assertion of length contraction does not come with a claim of > > PERMANENCE or PERSISTENCE of that contraction. You don't get to say that > > length contraction doesn't happen because it doesn't persist. > > > >>> > >> > However, the claim of the constancy of the speed of light is fully > >>> consistent with the combination of these two statements: > >>> 3. A clock second is not a universal interval of time. (This statement > >>> SR makes.) > >>> 2. A stick meter is not a universal interval of distance. (This > >>> statement SR makes.) > >> > >> #2 contradicts observation.....a meter stick will return the same > >> length after a journey. > > > > Your observation is not when it is contracted, that is, when it is moving. > > > >>> > >>> Therefore SR is fully internally consistent. > >> > >> ROTFLOL...SR is fully internally consistent by assertion. > > > > It is fully internally consistent by LOGICAL CONSISTENCY among its > > assertions. > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web