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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400020 > unrolled thread

Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:33 -0600
    Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-28 07:44 -0800
      Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:56 -0600
        Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-29 05:19 -0800
          Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-29 14:50 +0000
            Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:37 -0800
              Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 09:59 -0600
          Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 08:57 -0600
            Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:45 -0800
          Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 09:00 -0600
            Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-30 06:53 -0800
              Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 10:21 -0600
                Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 05:45 -0800
            Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 19:56 -0600
              Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-01 08:05 -0800
                Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:00 -0600
                  Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-01 12:00 -0800
                    Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:20 -0600
                      Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-02 04:37 -0800
                        Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 15:24 +0000
                          Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-02 14:38 -0800
                            Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:45 -0800
                            Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 23:51 +0000
                              Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-03 04:49 -0800
                                Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 06:01 +0000
                                  Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-04 05:53 -0800
                                    Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 16:45 +0000
                                      Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-12-04 10:52 -0800
                              Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 06:27 -0800
                        Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:38 -0600
              Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-12-03 05:41 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#400632

On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:24:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 4:20:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 12/1/2016 2:00 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> >> On 12/1/2016 10:05 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >> >>>  Both A and B use the same LT equation to predict the rate of each other
> >> >>
> >> >> No, this is where you are wrong.
> >> >> The Lorentz equation is NOT telling you the rate of the moving clock.
> >> >> That's not what it means. You THINK it means that, but you're wrong, and
> >> >> you can't even point to whatever you read that made you think that.
> >> >
> >> > Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t)
> >> >
> >> > This equation says that the passage of Delta(t') on the primed moving clock
> >> > is equal to gamma*Delta(t) on the umprimed observer's clock.
> >> 
> >> No, that's not what that equation means.
> 
> >Idiot, if you have another meaning for this equation let us know ....don't 
> >just making bogus assertion.  
> 
> The proper definition is that an observer will measure a moving clock as
> ticking at the rate r' = r/gamma. Only a relatively moving observer will
> measure the clock as running slow in SR.

There is no such measurement SR predicts using the LT.... you falsely asserted that the result of the LT prediction as measurement. Your equation r'=r/gamma is just the inverse of
Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t)

> 
> 
> >> Sorry.
> >> Where did you read that this is what that means?
> 
> >Sorry.Where did you read that this is not what that means?
> 
> The writings of Einstein.

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

#400633

Kenseto is gonna miss the train 

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

#400636

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:24:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> > Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t)
>> >> >
>> >> > This equation says that the passage of Delta(t') on the primed moving clock
>> >> > is equal to gamma*Delta(t) on the umprimed observer's clock.
>> >> 
>> >> No, that's not what that equation means.
>> 
>> >Idiot, if you have another meaning for this equation let us know ....don't 
>> >just making bogus assertion.  
>> 
>> The proper definition is that an observer will measure a moving clock as
>> ticking at the rate r' = r/gamma. Only a relatively moving observer will
>> measure the clock as running slow in SR.

>There is no such measurement SR predicts using the LT.... you falsely asserted that
>the result of the LT prediction as measurement.

No, Stupid Ken.  I said "observer", not "fortune teller".  The observer observes,
and the actual observing involves measurement.  A fortune teller predicts.  Much
of science is observation, including making measurements. A scientist making
observations trying to understand SR will measure a moving clock in order to
verify that it does run slow as SR states.  As I stated, in SR, only an observer
moving relative to the clock will measure it as ticking slower.

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

#400679

On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 6:51:42 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:24:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >> > Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This equation says that the passage of Delta(t') on the primed moving clock
> >> >> > is equal to gamma*Delta(t) on the umprimed observer's clock.
> >> >> 
> >> >> No, that's not what that equation means.
> >> 
> >> >Idiot, if you have another meaning for this equation let us know ....don't 
> >> >just making bogus assertion.  
> >> 
> >> The proper definition is that an observer will measure a moving clock as
> >> ticking at the rate r' = r/gamma. Only a relatively moving observer will
> >> measure the clock as running slow in SR.
> 
> >There is no such measurement SR predicts using the LT.... you falsely asserted that
> >the result of the LT prediction as measurement.
> 
> No, Stupid Ken.  I said "observer", not "fortune teller".  The observer observes,
> and the actual observing involves measurement.  

Moron, after you collect the appropriate data you use the LT to get the actual end result....that means that the end result is a prediction NOT a measurement as you asserted. Gee you are stupid,,,,,no wonder your name is Moron-y.

>A fortune teller predicts.  Much
> of science is observation, including making measurements. A scientist making
> observations trying to understand SR will measure a moving clock in order to
> verify that it does run slow as SR states.  As I stated, in SR, only an observer
> moving relative to the clock will measure it as ticking slower.

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

#400740

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 6:51:42 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:24:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> The proper definition is that an observer will measure a moving clock as
>> >> ticking at the rate r' = r/gamma. Only a relatively moving observer will
>> >> measure the clock as running slow in SR.
>> 
>> >There is no such measurement SR predicts using the LT.... you falsely asserted that
>> >the result of the LT prediction as measurement.
>> 
>> No, Stupid Ken.  I said "observer", not "fortune teller".  The observer observes,
>> and the actual observing involves measurement.  

>Moron, after you collect the appropriate data

Stupid Ken, "collecting the appropriate data" is called "measurement",
Stupid Ken.  No wonder everyone calls you Stupid Ken.

> you use the LT to get the 
>actual end result....that means that the end result is a prediction NOT a 
>measurement as you asserted.

No, Stupid Ken, as I stated, the measurement is when you collected the
data, as you wrote. And you got things backwards, anyway, trying to
predict things after measuring them.

> Gee you are stupid,,,,,no wonder your name 
>is Moron-y.

>>A fortune teller predicts.  Much
>> of science is observation, including making measurements. A scientist making
>> observations trying to understand SR will measure a moving clock in order to
>> verify that it does run slow as SR states.  As I stated, in SR, only an observer
>> moving relative to the clock will measure it as ticking slower.

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

#400748

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 1:01:42 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 6:51:42 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> >On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:24:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> The proper definition is that an observer will measure a moving clock as
> >> >> ticking at the rate r' = r/gamma. Only a relatively moving observer will
> >> >> measure the clock as running slow in SR.
> >> 
> >> >There is no such measurement SR predicts using the LT.... you falsely asserted that
> >> >the result of the LT prediction as measurement.
> >> 
> >> No, Stupid Ken.  I said "observer", not "fortune teller".  The observer observes,
> >> and the actual observing involves measurement.  
> 
> >Moron, after you collect the appropriate data
> 
> Stupid Ken, "collecting the appropriate data" is called "measurement",
> Stupid Ken.  No wonder everyone calls you Stupid Ken.
> 
> > you use the LT to get the 
> >actual end result....that means that the end result is a prediction NOT a 
> >measurement as you asserted.
> 
> No, Stupid Ken, as I stated, the measurement is when you collected the
> data, as you wrote. And you got things backwards, anyway, trying to
> predict things after measuring them.

Idiot.....that's not a direct measurement of the rate of a moving clock. It is a prediction based on SRT and the SRT prediction is based on the assumption that the SRT equations (the LT equations) are correct. 

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

#400756

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 1:01:42 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> >Moron, after you collect the appropriate data
>> 
>> Stupid Ken, "collecting the appropriate data" is called "measurement",
>> Stupid Ken.  No wonder everyone calls you Stupid Ken.
>> 
>> > you use the LT to get the 
>> >actual end result....that means that the end result is a prediction NOT a 
>> >measurement as you asserted.
>> 
>> No, Stupid Ken, as I stated, the measurement is when you collected the
>> data, as you wrote. And you got things backwards, anyway, trying to
>> predict things after measuring them.

>Idiot.....that's not a direct measurement of the rate of a moving clock. 
>It is a prediction based on SRT and the SRT prediction is based on the 
>assumption that the SRT equations (the LT equations) are correct. 

No, Stupid Ken.  Collecting the data *is* the measurement.  No need to
refer to either SR or LT at all, unless you want to verify them.  It is
entirely possible to measure the rate of the moving clock without even
knowing about SR or LT (or GR...) at all! It's just a measurement of the
tick rate of the moving clock.

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

#400768

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:45:26 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 1:01:42 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >> >Moron, after you collect the appropriate data
> >> 
> >> Stupid Ken, "collecting the appropriate data" is called "measurement",
> >> Stupid Ken.  No wonder everyone calls you Stupid Ken.
> >> 
> >> > you use the LT to get the 
> >> >actual end result....that means that the end result is a prediction NOT a 
> >> >measurement as you asserted.
> >> 
> >> No, Stupid Ken, as I stated, the measurement is when you collected the
> >> data, as you wrote. And you got things backwards, anyway, trying to
> >> predict things after measuring them.
> 
> >Idiot.....that's not a direct measurement of the rate of a moving clock. 
> >It is a prediction based on SRT and the SRT prediction is based on the 
> >assumption that the SRT equations (the LT equations) are correct. 
> 
> No, Stupid Ken.  Collecting the data *is* the measurement.  No need to
> refer to either SR or LT at all, unless you want to verify them.  It is
> entirely possible to measure the rate of the moving clock without even
> knowing about SR or LT (or GR...) at all! It's just a measurement of the
> tick rate of the moving clock.

Moron-y

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

#400687

W dniu sobota, 3 grudnia 2016 00:51:42 UTC+1 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:24:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> >> > Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This equation says that the passage of Delta(t') on the primed moving clock
> >> >> > is equal to gamma*Delta(t) on the umprimed observer's clock.
> >> >> 
> >> >> No, that's not what that equation means.
> >> 
> >> >Idiot, if you have another meaning for this equation let us know ....don't 
> >> >just making bogus assertion.  
> >> 
> >> The proper definition is that an observer will measure a moving clock as
> >> ticking at the rate r' = r/gamma. Only a relatively moving observer will
> >> measure the clock as running slow in SR.
> 
> >There is no such measurement SR predicts using the LT.... you falsely asserted that
> >the result of the LT prediction as measurement.
> 
> No, Stupid Ken.  I said "observer", not "fortune teller".  The observer observes,


And, obviously, when walking a street he sees
buildings, trees and lanterns running around him.
Relativistic moron imagined!!! Must be the truth.

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

#400582

On 12/2/2016 6:37 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 4:20:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/1/2016 2:00 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 12/1/2016 10:05 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>  Both A and B use the same LT equation to predict the rate of each other
>>>>
>>>> No, this is where you are wrong.
>>>> The Lorentz equation is NOT telling you the rate of the moving clock.
>>>> That's not what it means. You THINK it means that, but you're wrong, and
>>>> you can't even point to whatever you read that made you think that.
>>>
>>> Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t)
>>>
>>> This equation says that the passage of Delta(t') on the primed moving clock
>>> is equal to gamma*Delta(t) on the umprimed observer's clock.
>>
>> No, that's not what that equation means.
>
> Idiot, if you have another meaning for this equation let us know ....don't
> just making bogus assertion.
>
>> Sorry.
>> Where did you read that this is what that means?
>
> Sorry.Where did you read that this is not what that means?

In many books. These are the books that you refuse to read. And hence 
you MAKE UP a meaning for that equation, which is not the real meaning 
of that equation.

You have not learned how to study a subject.
You don't want to learn how to study a subject.
You want someone to explain it all for you here on a newsgroup, and it 
pisses you off that nobody has much interest in that.

>>
>>> IOW the rate of accumulating clock seconds on the primed moving clock is at
>>> a slower rate of 1/gamma compared to the unprimed clock.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


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

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

#400683

W dniu czwartek, 1 grudnia 2016 02:56:25 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> This is WRONG. SR makes no such "prediction". SR actually predicts that both 
> clocks accumulate time ("clock seconds") AT THEIR USUAL RATE.


And, unfortunately, this prediction of The Shit is 
falsified. But idiots like you are free to scream
"The clocks of GPS are not clocks!!! if they really
were clocks, they would match our Shit!!!"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web